Home

7 comments

Avatar
ktache [1700 posts] 1 month ago
1 like

You do have to wonder sometimes, don't you?

Avatar
hirsute [915 posts] 1 month ago
4 likes

"while 44 percent want them to pay Vehicle Excise Duty (VED)."

 

Words fail me.

How do these people get out of bed without a carer?

Actually, I happy to pay the same as my car - the princely sum of £0.

 

Avatar
hawkinspeter [3737 posts] 1 month ago
2 likes
hirsute wrote:

"while 44 percent want them to pay Vehicle Excise Duty (VED)."

 

Words fail me.

How do these people get out of bed without a carer?

Actually, I happy to pay the same as my car - the princely sum of £0.

But just think how much income it would generate if they got all cyclists to pay VED?

I like the bit about motorists thinking that they are being unfairly held to a higher standard of following the Highway Code. Yes - that's because of the increased danger of a fast moving tonne of machinery.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds [3250 posts] 1 month ago
1 like

I think all car drivers should pay VED even if there is no tailpipe emissions, they are subsidised massively already, the whole zero rated VED thing was a stupid decision. Instead of lowering the costs for lower emission vehicles, it should have just increased the costs at the top end and had a base annual figure for none tailpipe emission motors. Basing it on fuel/electricty used or even better a tax per mile with a higher tax for vehicles with higher emissions and/or energy use with seperate tables for EVs to include all the other pollution they cause. 

When you look at the actual amount of pollution a zero rated diesel car makes if driven 10,000 miles pollutes twice what my 2001 diesel would doing 3000 miles*. That's IF the actual rating is accurate, as we know the latest EURO6 diesels are more likely to be out in real world use compared to any other previous standard. We know this due to the independant testing and Sadiq Khan's relaxation on EURO6 diesels for the ULEZ. Some EURO6 vehicles have been shown to be as bad/worse than some EURO III and IV vehicles in real world use.

 

* based on 99g/km

Avatar
srchar [1400 posts] 1 month ago
4 likes

“However, our survey picked up a definite feeling among motorists that they are often held to higher standards than their fellow road users when it comes to adherence to the Highway Code”.

I'd laugh if it wasn't so tragic.

I assume the survey was, like most online surveys, self-selecting, so in actual fact, 7/10 drivers who wanted to have a rant about cyclists in a survey think bikes should wear plates.

Avatar
DoctorFish [205 posts] 1 month ago
1 like
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

I think all car drivers should pay VED even if there is no tailpipe emissions....

I disagree - because the VED on my car is £0! 

I actually think the VED for all cars should be £0 and it should all be added to the cost of fuel.  That way the further you drive the more you pay, the less economically you drive, or the less economical your car, the more you pay.  I could own a very unefficent car, and only drive a few miles a year, or I could have a very economical car, pay very little VED and drive thousands of miles a year.  How does that make sense.  Put it all on fuel tax.;

Avatar
hawkinspeter [3737 posts] 1 month ago
1 like
DoctorFish wrote:
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

I think all car drivers should pay VED even if there is no tailpipe emissions....

I disagree - because the VED on my car is £0! 

I actually think the VED for all cars should be £0 and it should all be added to the cost of fuel.  That way the further you drive the more you pay, the less economically you drive, or the less economical your car, the more you pay.  I could own a very unefficent car, and only drive a few miles a year, or I could have a very economical car, pay very little VED and drive thousands of miles a year.  How does that make sense.  Put it all on fuel tax.;

Well, I half agree with both of you.

Putting the VED tax on fuel should make it simpler (and cheaper) to administer and it also makes heavy fuel users pay more which seems reasonable.

However, we also want to penalise vehicles that are more polluting so if there's no VED then there's no incentive to have cleaner burning vehicles (e.g. imagine everyone driving VW Beetles everywhere).

Personally, I'd prefer having as many vehicles as possible being zero emissions as I don't want to be breathing in more crap than necessary. Having £0 VED seems like a decent way to provide that kind of incentive.

Maybe once we've got rid of the majority of heavily polluting vehicles there could be a big shake up in the taxes to try and remove the subsidies for motorised vehicles, but that's not presently a politcally popular stance.