Car Tax Going Up

[Utah 01]

Louis_c makes a very valid point about the apparent inconsistency the Islands' recent 'seek the wealthy' campaign and much vaunted slogan 'Freedom to Flourish' - but not in a vehicle with an engine larger than 3500cc, it would appear.

 

This extra tax, albeit on a minority of the Island's driving population, sadly reflects yet another complete botch by the idiots who supposedly govern us. (And in a general reply to an earlier poster who queried how our road tax compares to the mainland - little difference and if I recall ours is possible more in some categories. Given the disgraceful condition of many Manx roads and its limited mileage, our car tax is nothing short of legislative extortion - yet we all meekly fork out once a year).

 

I would suggest that the environmental impact the larger engines make, given that they must make up a small percentage of the Island's motor stock, pall into insignificance compared to the 'clapped out' second and third household cars, the dilapidated white vans, 'Bob the Builder' lorries and public service vehicles (probably the worst of the lot).

 

As usual our MHKs have aimed at a soft target and the real offenders will continue on their happy, no annual MOT way. An annual MOT is the real solution to the problem.

 

I've been somewhat saddened by some of the comments along the lines of 'if they can afford to run a (vehcile with a 3500cc engine) then they can afford the extra tax. That smacks of 'social envy' and should have no place in a place which prides itself on freedom of thought and action (albeit reducing week by week thanks to brainfart measures such as this one). Many of the large angine cars on the Island are 'classics' and get an outing on high days and dry days. Condemning them to the scrap heap for the sake of some misguided 'social' re-engineering would be a pity.

[emesde]

Agree with some of your post Utah .

But surely the Classic cars you refer to are alredy exempt from car tax and I doubt that this would change.

MOT testing should be brought in to make sure cars/vans etc are both more efficient and safer.

Virtually no legislation is enforced as far as vans are concerned. There are already laws governing their speed and the use of "speed limit stickers" which EVERY van should display. We had over 12 builders vans in our road on Friday and not 1 with a sticker.

[emesde]

I attach a note from a recent local paper re Van speed limits

[hboy]

That smacks of 'social envy' and should have no place in a place which prides itself on freedom of thought and action (albeit reducing week by week thanks to brainfart measures such as this one).

 

I thought I had already boxed off the "social envy" comments.

 

Get over it ... people are not "envious" of idiots in big 4 x 4's ... we are laughing at you because as you prove ... if another hundred quid on tax is such a big deal then you're not really the sort big shot you think you are when your driving around peering down everyones sunroof.

[Cholmondley-Warner]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about, a guy who spends £70k on a Merc or £100k on a Ferrari is hardly going to be bothered by road tax of £260 so other than an "envy" tax what else is it supposed to achieve. Years ago only the rich could afford cars, if road tax and fuel carries on increasing then the rich will once again be the only drivers on the road and they won't be driving a 600cc Smart either.

 

The other thing I don't understand is why 4x4 drivers are referred to as "idiots" or "bigshots", what are the arguments against 4x4's? why are they vilified all the time and their owners insulted?

[Nitro]

The other thing I don't understand is why 4x4 drivers are referred to as "idiots" or "bigshots", what are the arguments against 4x4's? why are they vilified all the time and their owners insulted?

 

1. 4x4 off roaders are meant for off road use, not on road, If you are a farmer etc then its fine but to do the school run is stupid.

 

2.If your ever in an accident with a 4x4, Guess who normally comes of worse, It hits higher up so if your a pedestrian your stuffed also.

 

3.They waste more fuel than most cars, Pushing up the price of fuel for everyone.

[Albert Tatlock]

what are the arguments against 4x4's? why are they vilified all the time and their owners insulted?

 

and

 

An argument for owning an SUV

[Cholmondley-Warner]

The other thing I don't understand is why 4x4 drivers are referred to as "idiots" or "bigshots", what are the arguments against 4x4's? why are they vilified all the time and their owners insulted?

 

1. 4x4 off roaders are meant for off road use, not on road, If you are a farmer etc then its fine but to do the school run is stupid.

 

2.If your ever in an accident with a 4x4, Guess who normally comes of worse, It hits higher up so if your a pedestrian your stuffed also.

 

3.They waste more fuel than most cars, Pushing up the price of fuel for everyone.

 

1. 4x4 vehicles are not generally sold or advertised as off road vehicles, in fact I dare to say that something like a BMW X5 is pretty useless off road in comparison to a Land Rover. Why is it stupid to use a 4x4 for the school run, they often have 7 seats and are ideal for carrying lots of kids in the same way a 7 seat people carrier is. Generally a 4x4 occupies no more space than a people carrier, is it also then stupid to use a people carrier to take kids to school?

 

2. Yes but no more dangerous than getting on for half the other cars on the roads including new Mini, Corsa, etc etc and significantly less dangerous than buses, lorries, vans etc

Furthermore recent statistics have proven that more pedestrians are injured or killed by buses and coaches than the entire populus of cars (of which 4x4 "off roaders" make up less than 5%)

 

3. Large saloon cars use as much and in some cases more fuel than a 4x4, high performance sports cars do the same, Chavs drving aimlessly up and down Douglas Prom waste gallons of fuel every night, buses driving round Douglas are not particularly fuel efficient when they have no passengers on board and taxi drivers sitting on the rank with their engines running to keep them warm in winter certainly get rid of a few gallons also. Are you going to ban all these vehicles which waste considerably more fuel than 4x4's?

 

sorry, your points are flawed, you'll have to do better than that.

[Gladys]

Furthermore recent statistics have proven that more pedestrians are injured or killed by buses and coaches than the entire populus of cars (of which 4x4 "off roaders" make up less than 5%)

 

Is that true? Not for or against 4x4s, just amazed that coaches and buses have a higher hit rate!

 

(On second thoughts, though, having seen the arrogance of many bus drivers across, I shouldn't really be surprised.)

[Amadeus]

1. 4x4 off roaders are meant for off road use, not on road, If you are a farmer etc then its fine but to do the school run is stupid.

Says who? I thought people still had a free choice what to drive...

2.If your ever in an accident with a 4x4, Guess who normally comes of worse, It hits higher up so if your a pedestrian your stuffed also.

Not necessarily -

 

Older 4x4 tend to have a more simple, stiff construction, making them less safe than comparable 'normal' cars - newer 'SUVs' are already designed to be more crash compatible, i.e. taking into account that what they might hit could be smaller (except the new, Chinese build,

- that thing would crumble when a Morris Minor hits it).

 

As for pedestrians: Technology is already advancing fast - Jaguar has the new Pedestrian Deployable Bonnet System, and things like airbags for pedestrians are in the works - but it's never going to be nice being hit by a car - may this be a Ford Fiasco, where you're quite likely to fly over it, or a 4x4/Lorry/Bus, that pushes you down the street..

 

And one thing should be kept in mind: Most of the safety and other technology available in small cars today was first introduced in the top-of-the-line models - things like Airbag, ABS, traction and stability control, distance radar, and now the new crash avoidance and automatic braking systems (to name only a few) were first introduced by Mercedes into the S-Class, then gradually passed on to the smaller versions - the same goes for pretty much all manufacturers - it's the people that fork out 50, 60 or 100k for a car that pay for the research - without them, there would still be research, but probably slower...

[Albert Tatlock]

2. Yes but no more dangerous than getting on for half the other cars on the roads including new Mini, Corsa, etc etc and significantly less dangerous than buses, lorries, vans etc

Furthermore recent statistics have proven that more pedestrians are injured or killed by buses and coaches than the entire populus of cars (of which 4x4 "off roaders" make up less than 5%)

Absolute rubbish (e.g. see tables 7 and 8)

[Nitro]

why 4x4 drivers are referred to as "idiots" or "bigshots", what are the arguments against 4x4's? why are they vilified all the time and their owners insulted?

 

1. 4x4 vehicles are not generally sold or advertised as off road vehicles, in fact I dare to say that something like a BMW X5 is pretty useless off road in comparison to a Land Rover. Why is it stupid to use a 4x4 for the school run, they often have 7 seats and are ideal for carrying lots of kids in the same way a 7 seat people carrier is. Generally a 4x4 occupies no more space than a people carrier, is it also then stupid to use a people carrier to take kids to school?

 

Yes most newer 4x4 vehicles are now useless off road and most are fitted with road tires, I've only twice seen a 4x4 full of passengers, Many have 3 passsengers.

 

Furthermore recent statistics have proven that more pedestrians are injured or killed by buses and coaches than the entire populus of cars (of which 4x4 "off roaders" make up less than 5%)

 

There was a bbc study recently saying 4x4 drivers don't pay as much attention and are more likely to use their mobile phone, Was that survey conducted in the UK?, Also how many buses and coaches are on the roads compared to 4x4's, Got a link?

 

3. Large saloon cars use as much and in some cases more fuel than a 4x4, high performance sports cars do the same

 

I'm sure "high performance" 4x4's waste even more fuel, I imagine large 4x4's do the same, Granted modern 4x4's are better on fuel than some cars, but equally they are a lot worse than some.

 

Are you going to ban all these vehicles which waste considerably more fuel than 4x4's?

 

I don't have the power to ban 4x4's, Simple answer is no.

[teapot]

I have two cars - one that I use relatively infrequently (ie short trips maybe 3 or 4 times a week) which is 2.0L and a 4x4 that I tend to use less, (only really to transport bulky stuff, to tow my boat a few times a year, and if the car is not working for any reason) so not all that often but it's a 2.5L diesel so costs the same again in tax.

 

Which is pretty w@nk when I can only actually be driving one or the other at any one time (no-one else drives them) so I do no more driving or pollution than the next person in reality but pay twice as much tax.

 

Ace.

2 cars and a boat - oh go on, you can afford it!

[Nitro]

1. 4x4 off roaders are meant for off road use, not on road, If you are a farmer etc then its fine but to do the school run is stupid.

Says who? I thought people still had a free choice what to drive...

2.If your ever in an accident with a 4x4, Guess who normally comes of worse, It hits higher up so if your a pedestrian your stuffed also.

Not necessarily -

 

Yep i've seen that video but thats only one old vehicle, If you did a crash test with a old car like a mk1 golf

and then a range rover then i'm sure the golf would come off worse.

[Albert Tatlock]

I suppose the real question is one of ethics. Should we 1. have an 'individual pollution quotient' where we are only allowed to generate a set amount of 'pollution' per person per life-time? OR 2. should how much money we have give us the right to 'purchase an additional pollution quotient' in order to live the life we want or can afford with all of us suffering the consequences?

 

i.e. should having money buy you the right to pollute more than others?

 

The Earth is a closed system, analagous to a fish tank. Personally, if I was a fish I would vote for any fat fish (using additional resources) or fish with diarrohea (additional emissions) to be thrown out of the tank.

 

However, the reality is that our economic system is not geared to stem pollution (in fact quite the opposite), so the only real option has to be 2. above - with the additional monies collected used to counter pollution i.e. collect CO2, R&D into better transport and education programmes etc. to try and maintain/lower overall levels of pollution.