Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) for new diesel cars should be raised by up to £800

[Junkman]

Why don't they just scrap VED and increase fuel duty?

 

Why don't they just scrap the VED and decrease the fuel duty???

How can anyone with a functioning brain wish for the highest tax anywhere in the World to be increased?

How? How is this possible?

[dollywobbler]

Thing is, simple old diesels are almost extinct for the majority, and not available anymore. 

 

Cities full of diesels aren't so fair on those who have to live there and breathe the air.

 

EVs will create loads more fossil fuel burning and nuclear power stations to fill the countryside with. 

 

Not if we actually invested sufficiently in renewables. Yes, they need subsidising to actually stand a chance of working. Just like nuclear and fossil fuels!

 

 

I just get fed up of people making leaps of logic that theories/ideas are immediately coming into force without question or debate. Especially ones that are obvious, well-timed smokescreens to bury other stories (I suspect the rumour about an increase in insurance premium tax - which would put up car insurance).

 

This needs repeating. I cannot believe that IPT is going to go up AGAIN. All because they daren't raise fuel duty. 

[Pete-M]

I'd be quite happy if they banned diesels. I'd take my old Mercedes down to the bridge and send it over. It wouldn't upset me as diesel engines shouldn't be in cars anyway. Get them banned, all of them, new and old. No exceptions for cars or vans.

 

Lorries, yes. They can keep diesel engines as long as they're Euro 5 or above. Buses that carry more than 50 people and are Euro 5 and above, yes. Veg burners, no.

 

I'd ban diesels from historic stuff, too. XUD on veg? Banned. Indenor? Banned. VAG 1.9 TDI? Banned.

 

Diesel engines only ever brought three things to the party. Noise, smoke and slightly better MPG. Get rid of them.

[Pillock]

Given that very few of us buy new cars, any changes that are made (and I really doubt that this will just go through as a £800 increase, no questions asked) won't affect us for fifteen years or more. They won't up the tax on older cars as they were bought in good faith as low VED. 

 

Plus, as that sciency stuff gets better over years, they'll probably find that petrol cars emit something we never knew about, so then they'll be the baddies. And then hydrogen cars will be killing kittens because of something discovered in the future too. 

The point is, the massive knee-jerk that was dropping VED for small engined diesels suddenly doesn't seem so clever given new evidence. So why should we trust anything else presented to us? We should just carry on regardless.

 

Plus I'll be dead in 40 years or so. Maybe less, it's been calculated by the same scientists that each Cannock Burger I eat shortens my life by three months. So pollution won't be my concern soon. Jesus. I've just realised I'm approximately halfway through my life.

[mouseflakes]

Diesel engines only ever brought three things to the party. Noise, smoke and slightly better MPG.

 

They also run a bit better under water than petrol engines.

[Pete-M]

They also run a bit better under water than petrol engines.

If people want to drive their diesels under water, I'm not gonna try to stop them.

 

"It's a long way to Tipperary"

[dollywobbler]

I'd be quite happy if they banned diesels. I'd take my old Mercedes down to the bridge and send it over. It wouldn't upset me as diesel engines shouldn't be in cars anyway. Get them banned, all of them, new and old. No exceptions for cars or vans.

 

Lorries, yes. They can keep diesel engines as long as they're Euro 5 or above. Buses that carry more than 50 people and are Euro 5 and above, yes. Veg burners, no.

 

I'd ban diesels from historic stuff, too. XUD on veg? Banned. Indenor? Banned. VAG 1.9 TDI? Banned.

 

Diesel engines only ever brought three things to the party. Noise, smoke and slightly better MPG. Get rid of them.

 

There are many things wrong with this post, not least that the Euro regs are part of the problem. In a bid to rid the world of carbon dioxide, diesels have been hammered into producing shit loads of nitrous oxides, which it turns out aren't very good for us. So buses and trucks just add to the problem - especially buses in city centres. 

[forddeliveryboy]

Not if we actually invested sufficiently in renewables. Yes, they need subsidising to actually stand a chance of working. Just like nuclear and fossil fuels!

 

 

If only - we've recently pretty much placed tidal power on the back burner and thrown our money at French nuclear, who are having second thoughts. EDF is now worth less than the cost of Hinckley, so why don't we buy the company and turn its hand to tidal power technology instead of continue to invest in the most expensive form of power ever. Would the French allow such a sale, though?

[forddeliveryboy]

Are you sure about that?  I've had a couple of diesel cars as daily drivers and the fuel economy is about 50% better than the petrol version (I've owned both).

 

Land Rover petrol 20mpg, diesel 30mpg.

Jetta petrol 40mpg, diesel Octavia 60mpg.

Pug 106 petrol 40mpg, 205 diesel 55mpg.

 

 

Yes, if you look at what's on offer today. Diesels have grown less good on fuel (as well as more problematic, so savings on fuel are probably more than matched by repair costs) and petrols have slowly improved their economy. Of course, if you're choosing chod from the 90s there's no debate unless its a tiny car, where diesels have never made any sense unless you make your own.

[HH-R]

I hate diseasels too but the last thing we need is to scrap tens of thousands of vehicles (again) and belch out tonnes of pollution/greenhouse gases making cars that still make pollution.

 

Just let them die out naturally, they're modern diesels after all... it won't exactly take long.

[rml2345]

Higher taxes stop climate change, it's a well proven* government fact*.

Chances of it happening seem slim though as the grass roots Tory supporters would have a fit, not to mention the SMMT. City emissions could be reduced through the adoption of electric public transport (like we had in the 1930s) and a genuine reduction in car ownership through the offering of a better alternative but none of that is particularly cheap, profitable or taxable so no one is interested in it.

[chaseracer]

Given that very few of us buy new cars, any changes that are made (and I really doubt that this will just go through as a £800 increase, no questions asked) won't affect us for fifteen years or more. They won't up the tax on older cars as they were bought in good faith as low VED. 

 

Plus, as that sciency stuff gets better over years, they'll probably find that petrol cars emit something we never knew about, so then they'll be the baddies. And then hydrogen cars will be killing kittens because of something discovered in the future too. 

The point is, the massive knee-jerk that was dropping VED for small engined diesels suddenly doesn't seem so clever given new evidence. So why should we trust anything else presented to us? We should just carry on regardless.

 

Plus I'll be dead in 40 years or so. Maybe less, it's been calculated by the same scientists that each Cannock Burger I eat shortens my life by three months. So pollution won't be my concern soon. Jesus. I've just realised I'm approximately halfway through my life.

 

 

When I 'liked' this post, the final sentence obviously did not form part of that appraisal.  Probably.

 

[Pillock]

The question is, will I be taxed for polluting waterways given the amount of grease that will ooze out of my coffin in the years after my death? How long before you're taxed on burial, in a system where you pay per cubic metre of coffin space? That sounds really unfair, anyone involved in a messy industrial accident where they don't find most of the limbs is going to get off paying. BLOODY EU.

 

I would opt for cremation, but carbon nanoparticles. Y'know. It'd be dangerous. All those people breathing in bits of Pillock.

 

IM IN UR LUNGZ AFFECTIN UR BREETHIN

 

(Sorry, I've had a few painkillers and quite a lot of coffee for a serious gin-related illness)

[chaseracer]

I'm going to be a tree.

 

https://www.facebook.com/DavidAvocadoWolfe/videos/10153329210086512/

[tooSavvy]

A circular Hadrians wall!!

 

Thats me fu*ked.

 

 

TS

[Pete-M]

Buses should be electric anyway.

 

Trucks are unavoidable at the moment.

 

Hydrogen fuel cells are still my favoured option. Just a shame it'll kill off V8s.

[dollywobbler]

Buses should be electric anyway.

 

Trucks are unavoidable at the moment.

 

Hydrogen fuel cells are still my favoured option. Just a shame it'll kill off V8s.

 

Indeed. With battery tech improving, having diesel buses in cities just seems utterly stupid. Thanks to the tech, you wouldn't even need to electrify entire bus routes, so it's way better than the original trolley buses.

 

Having driven several electric cars, I have wondered how much the engine noise actually matters. I mean, sure, I still love a V8, but if I could have V8 performance but without the horrible fuel economy, that's got to be good? No?

[Pete-M]

That Tesla I tried convinced me that the electric motor is the way to do things.

 

I don't think that batteries are how to power the electric motors, but the fuel cell might well be. It's just how to get the bloody hydrogen an easier way.

 

Then it would make sense to use them in trucks.

 

I'm also wondering if there's a way to use that mad Dyson electric motor on a bigger scale. 110000 rpm could make a car interesting!

[RoadworkUK]

To those of you affected by this unfolding crisis*, my sympathy.

 

I'll be sticking to my remarkably simple plan of not ever buying a new car.

 

I'm also wondering if there's a way to use that mad Dyson electric motor on a bigger scale. 110000 rpm could make a car interesting!

 

Especially as it's somehow a V6. I'll wait until they bring out a flat eight.

[Jerzy Woking]

The motorbikes I use for commuting 120 miles a day into and out of the City of London (alternating my 1997 CBR600 and 1999 SV650) both create little in the way of congestion. Both are serviced regularly and never exceeding 80mph with gentle acceleration sees 50 mpg on the CBR and 58mpg on the SV. VED is £65 on the CBR and £81 on the SV. As a further kick in the teeth, both will soon be banned from going into the area circled by the M25 (the same LEZ).

 

Why are VED's so high for bikes that don't congest or pollute the City (too much)? Why ban both of my bikes (both with over 60,000 miles on each, and force me to buy and ride something I don't really see a need to have).

 

Fuck them, and their "non reasoning" ways.

[bigstraight6]

I'd be quite happy if they banned diesels. I'd take my old Mercedes down to the bridge and send it over. It wouldn't upset me as diesel engines shouldn't be in cars anyway. Get them banned, all of them, new and old. No exceptions for cars or vans.

Lorries, yes. They can keep diesel engines as long as they're Euro 5 or above. Buses that carry more than 50 people and are Euro 5 and above, yes. Veg burners, no.

I'd ban diesels from historic stuff, too. XUD on veg? Banned. Indenor? Banned. VAG 1.9 TDI? Banned.

Diesel engines only ever brought three things to the party. Noise, smoke and slightly better MPG. Get rid of them.

I have to disagree Pete, if I'd been running a petrol engined Volvo S60 instead of my D5 for the last 2 years Finiancial ruin and living in a cardboard box would be apparent. Diesel engines are extremely energy efficient and are much cleaner than they were, compare a 1960's Gardner engined lorry with a Euro 6 one....

If we are all forced to ditch our diesel engined cars it will only be a few years until petrol engines are killing us and the planet, back to square one....

[filthyjohn]

The motorbikes I use for commuting 120 miles a day into and out of the City of London (alternating my 1997 CBR600 and 1999 SV650) both create little in the way of congestion. Both are serviced regularly and never exceeding 80mph with gentle acceleration sees 50 mpg on the CBR and 58mpg on the SV. VED is £65 on the CBR and £81 on the SV. As a further kick in the teeth, both will soon be banned from going into the area circled by the M25 (the same LEZ).

 

Why are VED's so high for bikes that don't congest or pollute the City (too much)? Why ban both of my bikes (both with over 60,000 miles on each, and force me to buy and ride something I don't really see a need to have).

 

Fuck them, and their "non reasoning" ways.

 

Bikes are much worse actually:

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/dec/21/travelandtransport.transportintheuk

[filthyjohn]

No need for electric buses, we have a much better solution already:

 

http://www.bus.man.eu/global/en/city-buses/man-lions-city-cng/overview/Overview.html

 

 

They run on methane, which is 20 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2, so burning it is actually a hell of a lot better than just leaving it alone.

This is given off by landfills (and livestock, but most of all by termites!), which can be capped over when full, allowing the gas to be collected and 'disposed of' by using it to fuel infrastructure.

[forddeliveryboy]

Today's emissions legislation means diesels don't make sense, for their complexity alone. I certainly wouldn't contemplate anything post 2008 when it's a dozen years old, there's not much post 2000 for that matter. If you need a good diesel then buy now while stuff from the 90s is still cheap and in reasonable order. I use one since a petrol engine which would do the job I need it to would use twice the fuel. 

 

There's no easy way to get hydrogen, although it's easier to get it than store and distribute it - this could be its downfall. Especially when you consider that a vehicle powered by a hydrogen fuel cell is only about a quarter less polluting than a petrol engined machine, the stuff needs vast amounts of energy to make. 

 

Synthesised (from RE) or bio (from decay) methane makes most sense, we have all the existing distribution network and it can be stored in vast amounts down the old North Sea gas wells. It will make electricity, is used for most space heating and run vehicles.

[Pete-M]

If we are all forced to ditch our diesel engined cars it will only be a few years until petrol engines are killing us and the planet, back to square one....

This is true. We would, however, all get to drive lovely petrol engined vehicles again in the meantime.

[Jerzy Woking]

Bikes are much worse actually:

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/dec/21/travelandtransport.transportintheuk

 

Tests done in Switzerland (a country very much opposed to motorbikes). And:

 

The tests were carried out on a variety of Yamaha, Piaggio and Honda 50cc scooters and Suzuki, Honda and BMW motorbikes with engine sizes ranging from 800cc to 1150c

 

​Hardly representative of motorbikes, and good use of the words "up to"

[DSdriver]

The government complains that we are in too much debt on a personal level.

 

So you cannot force people to get new cars on tick.

 

I complain that the government is too much in debt on a government level. What sort of an example is that to set?

 

Let them put their own affairs in order first.

[filthyjohn]

Tests done in Switzerland (a country very much opposed to motorbikes). And:

 

The tests were carried out on a variety of Yamaha, Piaggio and Honda 50cc scooters and Suzuki, Honda and BMW motorbikes with engine sizes ranging from 800cc to 1150c

 

​Hardly representative of motorbikes, and good use of the words "up to"

 

Perhaps San Francisco-based science shows are in on the conspiracy too

 

 

[forddeliveryboy]

The real elephant in the room is unnecessary travel, in that so many jobs could be done at home. 

 

There are so many elephants in the room that being trod on is an increasing danger. In 30 years, the Chinese are expected to have 1 billion cars - which will perhaps still be rising. That's 200 million more than the world has in total, at the moment. 

 

What we do in the UK is almost meaningless, except that we were the first country to industrialise and we still hold a fair bit of respect around the world, even if only for what we've achieved in the C19th. If only we could show a little insight and forward thinking, like our Victorian predecessors did, it would count for a lot. Shed loads of tidal power, for example. Germany is making fools of us as we begin to resemble a rather backwards US state in more ways than one.

 

It's looking increasingly likely that China will show a lot of the developed world up, regarding pollution and sustainability.  They're so massive that they cannot support a population the size it is in American-style* without wrecking their own air, land and water unless they develop renewable energy to provide the bulk of their power. 

[Jerzy Woking]

Perhaps San Francisco-based science shows are in on the conspiracy toohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Tl_gFoPqnw

I'd like to see all the Mythbusters figures and sample numbers/models BUT far more convincing than the Swiss report (and rather worrying).

 

On my bike I am moving for the whole hour each journey takes me. In the car it takes me at least two hours, so every minute over the hour is an extra minute I am pushing pollutants into the atmosphere............