hboy Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 perhaps the production of these vehicles shgould be illegal then? although they do actually meet the legal requirements for emmissions though!! Its an interesting point. However if you look at the USA its reliance on the production of such stupid vehicles that is bankrupting Ford and GM. These manufacturers are pumping out the same load of environmentally useless old crap that they have been for years and nobody is buying them. Toyota just became the worlds largest manufacturer and does not rely on these sort of pimped up hillybilly vehicles to get market share and it like the other Japanses manufacturers are pioneering alternative technology. I don't think anyone needs to make then illegal. If you go to Parkers guide you can see that a Porsche Cayenne that cost 70 grand new can be picked up for less than half that before its two years old. You don't need to ban them at this rate as you'd already have to be really stupid to buy one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silentbob Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 What does Mr Hannay drive? Does he lead by example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 My supercharged Jag does around 12mpg around town, so I already pay quite enough in tax on petrol and exhorbitant road tax, thank you. Having two cars and a bike, I can only use one at a time, so I'm paying for two to sit in the garage and NOT on the roads - fact is, I'm a petrolhead and it's my hobby so I have to put up with it. People need to learn that we can't all behave like Stu. If it takes raising taxes to prevent people from destroying our future though a hobby, then it's fully justified. They may be better methods at judging the greeness of transport, but cars are already tax via CC, so it's a lot more effort to intruduce some other official rating. CC is on your log book, that's the best way for it to be done. And doing it this way is better than not at all. Wrong. I only live a couple of miles from work, so even including SDP travel I probably rarely average more than 50 miles a week in it. Compared with someone who commutes from Ramsey AND does the school run etc in their Micra, I'd say I'm pretty green. And to another point, why not have 5 or 6 vehicles if that's your hobby? You can only use one at a time! There's too much inverse snobbery going on about 4 x 4's on the school run - I'm no fan of them, but are we going to suggest next that everyone lives in a flat or terraced house because that's 'all you need'? Live and let live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
localyokel Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 There's too much inverse snobbery going on about 4 x 4's on the school run Stu - I don't think its a case of inverse snobbery. Most of them are bought on lease anyway so its often just a sad case of "Fur coat and no knickers" syndrome with all these yummy mummy's in their X5's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Doesn't matter - fact is they choose to drive a barge, and as far as I'm concerned they have every right to make that choice. They pay through the nose for the privilege as it is. What shall we pick on next - people who have fitted carpets? Too many people these day think 'I don't want it - you shouldn't want it' or 'I can't afford it - you can't have it'. What a bloody boring world it would be if we were all compliant to the 'norm'. I don't take expensive holidays or go out drinking and carousing, instead I prefer to spend any spare cash on cars, bikes and flying. Why the hell should anyone feel they have the right to criticise me (and other petrolheads) for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 I think I might be a petrolhead, either that or I've got a hole in my fuel tank and the fumes keep coming into the car. Stav. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Stav,I heard that yours is as big as Stu Peters', is that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Wrong. I only live a couple of miles from work, so even including SDP travel I probably rarely average more than 50 miles a week in it. Compared with someone who commutes from Ramsey AND does the school run etc in their Micra, I'd say I'm pretty green. And to another point, why not have 5 or 6 vehicles if that's your hobby? You can only use one at a time! There's too much inverse snobbery going on about 4 x 4's on the school run - I'm no fan of them, but are we going to suggest next that everyone lives in a flat or terraced house because that's 'all you need'? Live and let live. I'm not wrong at all, we just disagree. That person who does the school run in their micra has to do those miles. They could do it in a disgusting 12mpg Jag, but they dont. Just because you travel less distance in the hideous thing doesn't make you any greener. You've taken the piss out of global warming on the air, and you've suggested it's all just a bit of sillyness here. Unless, like most people, you accept it as a reality, I guess you're just not going to see the problem with owning as much as you like and can afford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Cret / lectro I quite agree about extra tax on fuel instead. The British Isles / Irish Republic seem to be the only jurisdictions left which still have this antiquated system of taxation. If road tax is on the fuel you can forget all the other variables like engine size, how well a car is serviced, how its driven etc etc. The most polluting drivers will automatically pay more and the reason that they are polluting more doesn't come into it. Its sooo obvious...... innit? France has had no road tax (it was a flat charge for all types of car anyway) for about 7 years now and their 'road tax' is on the fuel. They have to display insurance and MOT on the windscreen which is another simple but effective idea. But hang on, last month diesel there was 1€05 (73p) a litre and 98 unleaded 1€33 (93p) a litre. If that includes the equivalent of our road tax then someone here is taking the piss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 France has had no road tax (it was a flat charge for all types of car anyway) They pay a sales tax on purchase of a new car, and larger vehicles such as 4x4's are taxed extremely heavily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Slim - global warming is a reality but the causes of it are highly debatable and unproven. As a general principle I dislike waste and unnecessary pollution but what is worse, a 'disgusting' and 'hideous' Jag doing a mile or two or someone driving a Smart car but choosing to live in Andreas when they work in Port Erin? Both could be construed (not by me) as unnecessary. Pollution and waste comes in many forms and it is all too easy to take the moral high ground when coming up with knee jerk answers. The control freak government across have started a crusade using green issues to increase taxes. They have tried to make anyone driving a big car or flying feel like its all their fault. It simply isn't. I worked out the other day that the ATR flying to Liverpool with 50 passengers is burning less than 10 litres of JetA1 per passenger to move them and their bags about 90 miles.That's about 41mpg. We think cars that do 40+ mpg are fairly economical yet prefer to make people flying short distances think they shoulder the blame for this that and the other, oh, and pay this increased and morally justifiable (again not by me) tax as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 France has had no road tax (it was a flat charge for all types of car anyway) They pay a sales tax on purchase of a new car, and larger vehicles such as 4x4's are taxed extremely heavily. and their VAT rate is higher than here but after all that, new vehicles are still cheaper there*. Again, someone is taking the piss. The flat charge I was referring to was the vignette which had to be paid each year and, like our road tax, had to be displayed in the windscreen. this has now been abolished. (*This is a generalisation of course and you can no doubt find examples that are more expensive but they are generally cheaper.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Toyota just became the worlds largest manufacturer and does not rely on these sort of pimped up hillybilly vehicles to get market share and it like the other Japanses manufacturers are pioneering alternative technology. Don't even get me started on Toyota - "look at us, we're oh-so-green". Well, unfortunately, they're not really - they just have a good marketing department and created the right sort of hype at the right time. Pioneering alternative technology? Don't think so... Volkswagen had the Lupo 3L TDI, the worlds first 3-liter consumption production car, on sale in 2003. The thing set a number of records and even managed 2.78 litres per 100 km (101.6 mpg) on one (see here for details). That thing was way greener than any Prius will ever be and actually worked - problem was: Nobody bought it and nobody wanted it. And looking at other technologies, the picture doesn't look much different: Mercedes and BMW were some of the first (if not the first) to experiment with fuell cell technology, hybrids and hydrogen as fuel: "Auto 2000" research car - Towards an economical, low-emission future (that was in 1981 !) Necar 1 - the first fuel cell car from 1994. Has by now evolved a lot and in 2000, the Necar 5 was presented - a fully working fuell cell car on the basis of an A-class merc. Mercedes-Benz Bionic Concept (2005) - modelled on a fish, this thing represents a milestone in thinking when it comes to improved aerodynamics and lower emissions. Truth is, not only does Toyota still sell big fuel guzzlers just like everyone else (Lexus, Land Cruiser, etc...) but they are also known to use technology that has been on the market for a number of years, leaving development to others - that's one of the reasons why they're always doing well in breakdown surveys - if you're only using components that have been on the market for five years, then they're obviously less likely to brake and more developed. The rest is down to marketing.... Truth also is that developing all this technology costs billions - billions, that VW, Merc and everyone else who actually does most development wouldn't mind recuperating at some point. Traditionally, the newest technology and developments are first introduced in to the top-of-the-range cars - simply to get the costs back. Eventually, the features will then trickle down to the smaller models, allowing more people to enjoy the benefits. If we all drove round in shoeboxes, then why bother developing new technologies? And more importantly: How to pay for them? Nobody's going to be willing to pay 30k for a tiny 2-door city car, regardless of how much new technology it has in it. Buyers of high-end cars, however, are willing to pay a premium and hence pay for a lot of the development. But then: It's so much easier to believe the marketing hype, isn't it? Toyota's trickery is the reason why I will never ever buy or drive one of them plastic boxes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motivator Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 You can't (safely) squeeze any more kids in a petrol guzzling 4.0 litre 4x4 outside the school gates than you can in a 1.6 or a 2.0 litre engined seven-seater MPV. In fact most big 4x4's still only have five seats. And you certainly don't need a huge engine to nip to Tesco for the weekly shop. I agree (entirely) with Stu, that people should be allowed to drive whatever the hell they want... but that doesn't make it responsible. I personally think vehicles should be taxed based upon the mileage they do each year. Some Rep in the UK doing 20,000 miles a year in a 2.0 litre Ford Mondeo does a lot more harm than me doing my 2,000 miles a year in my 4x4. Here's my (serious) answer... 500cc - 1000cc engines = 1p per mile driven each year. 1001cc - 2000cc engines = 3p per mile driven each year. 2001cc - 3000cc engines = 5p per mile driven each year. 3001cc - 4000cc engines = 7p per mile driven each year. 4001cc engines and over = 9p per mile driven each year. The average annual mileage on the Isle of Man is about 6,000 miles a year. So on that basis the smallest engined cars would cost £60 a year to tax. A typical 1.6 or 2.0 car would cost about £180, ranging through to the biggest 4x4's which would cost £540. Then those of us who are fortunate enough to own more than one car might be inclined to take the lesser powered one on school runs and shopping trips where a big engine just isn't needed. But at the same time leave petrol heads to "give it the beans" in their Supercharged Jaguars as a bit of a treat. Do a third of your annual mileage in your supercharged superbeast, and it'd only cost you £180 a year in road tax, plus an additional £120 for the 1.6/2.0 family hatchback you do the other 4,000 miles in. But use the supercharged superbeast willy nilly and you'll pay accordingly. At least that way, we could all feel we had a bit of a say in what we spend. How democratic can you get? Richard x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motivator Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 "They pay a sales tax on purchase of a new car, and larger vehicles such as 4x4's are taxed extremely heavily." We pay sales tax on new cars too. So why can I buy a new Ford Focus 1.6 Ghia 5 dr from an authorised Ford dealer in France, for £2,900 less than an authorised Ford dealer in the UK... and £3,600 less than the authorised Ford dealership on the Island? Taking the piss? You're not wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.