Historic car class changes , maybe

[Rusty Pelican]

Theres reams about it on RR , Looks like tax except class may be changing resulting in a limit of how many miles you can do in a year ( 1500km / 932 miles ) or you can possibly opt out , pay normal road tax and use it as normal . Loads of stuff on RR about modding as there seems to be a " period modification allowed " only clause

 

Heres the basics

 

 

http://www.the-ace.org.uk/fiva-definiti ... he-eu.html

[steve austin]

Is this really going to happen?

[Rusty Pelican]

Is this really going to happen?

Not totally sure yet but its highly likely in some form or other , Germany already has a similar thing but with three different options as does France I believe ,

[eddyramrod]

And Cyprus, a bureaucratic maze which I'm in the process of learning about! I might comment further on it when my head stops spinning...

[Negative Creep]

*disconnects speedo cable*

[Guest]

There's a lot of assumptions being made and I'll worry if/when something is actually proposed. This just defines what a classic car is, the suggestion being that most of them do less than 1500 miles a year - look at what turns up at shows, I would wager most of it comes under that umbrella. It isn't legislation, just something that legislation would be based on, to give people who draw up policies a general idea of what classic cars are about. It doesn't meant that as from 2011 anyone driving more than 1500 miles will have their car seized and crushed.

 

As someone said a while back (might have been Bollox), the only mileage restrictions imposed across Europe are on people who voluntarily register their cars as a classic via whatever schemes are in place. If you're prepared to pay road tax as normal, you can do what you like, which seems fair enough to me. Historic road tax is made on the assumption that these cars won't be driven much. It'll be an unpopular opinion, but if they're racking up normal car mileage, I don't see why they shouldn't pay like everyone else. Free road tax is only a bit of a bonus. I have to pay tax on all my lot and I get by.

[Pete-M]

Czech has a similar system.

 

In order to get a "Veteran" reg plate the car needs to be as it left the factory, no mods whatsoever. Car needs to be inspected by a member of a motor club, who'll keep photos of the car on file, along with all the details of the car.

 

One bonus is, the Veteran plate can be on a few cars

[dollywobbler]

Yeah, I'm not losing too much sleep over it. Yet. The problem comes if you've got an old car you like to use, so you pay the tax, then you can't drive it anywhere because suddenly all cities have an emmission-standard - though historics may be exempt.

[Pillock]

I've never had a car old enough for Historic tax. I've come close, owning one VW that was built 6th Jan 1973 and another in May that year, but I've never lost sleep over it. There's too many folk that get all moist over a pre-73 car and how it's cheaper to run...... seriously, £200 a year cheaper. £18 a month or something. And then modify it to death so it's not really significant in the whole scope of preserving part of history.

 

I quite like the idea of allowing period mods, because that is historic. A 1972 Beetle caked in filler, with shiny tinfoil bits on the engine and rusty chrome, is not historic. I'm not sure about the mileage limitation because I like seeing them on the road, being commuted in but I guess the opt-out might allow for that. More and more though, "classics" aren't covered by historic tax anyway so I suppose as time marches on, it'll be true "vintage" cars that are tax-free and only go to shows. Already I've got an E36 BMW, which to me is a "new" design car, on classic insurance.

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

I would welcome this.I did about 2000 miles last year in the big BMW yet paid the same arse rape 200 odd quid. Should be a 30 quid flat rate on everything for the year, and a seperate tax on the fuel shown on the reciept.

 

Or alternatively, a sliding rate of road tax for the age of the car starting on 10 year old stuff. This would encourage old cars to be kept going (fuck the SMMT and Kia) - not by much, but it's a start.

 

10 years old = 70% RFL

15 years old = 50%

20 years old = 25%

25 years old = FOC.

 

 

So, owners of old cars that don't do so many miles pay less than Dave Insignia doing 35k a year. Sound remotely sensible?

[Conrad D. Conelrad]

Or just ditch the paper discs and put it on petrol.

[Pete-M]

I'd rather they put tax up rather than putting even more on petrol.

 

In fact, I'd just raise the tax on diesel by 3000%. Be nice to truckers, I'd drop their tax a little bit as they're needed. Special trucker fuel cards, linked to registration chips on the vehicles so they can't get fuel unless they're in the truck. None of this nipping home to get the wife's Polo. Get cabbies to use LPG instead of diesel.

 

Road tax rates would be dependent on the fuel used. LPG = free. Petrol £100 a year with no small engine discount. Hybrids £250000 a year - this would be classed as a 'smug fuckwit tax'. Diesels would start at a grand a year for anything over 25 years old, and go up by a grand for every month under that.

[Richard]

What about trucks delivering diesel engined cars?

[Negative Creep]

Or you could remove RFL entirely and put it on the price of fuel. Therefore it would be impossible to avoid paying, would save millions in red tape and the more you use your car, the more you pay.

 

But hey, that's just too straightforward for our governments

[dollywobbler]

Now I live in Wales, I can just imagine the unemployment if the government went down that avenue! Which is frustrating as it's clearly the right way to do it.

[autofive]

i ll ignore the nonsense being discussed on RR, but.......

 

if tax discs are discontinued, and tax placed on fuel (even though that seems fairer than the current system) it just wouldnt work

 

how would the copper walking around the streets know if a car was insured or not?

 

uninsured motors is a major problem, especially if one of them hits your car, and (generally speaking) if the owner cant afford insurance then the vehicle will be badly maintained, increasing the chances of the car having a crash.

[dollywobbler]

i ll ignore the nonsense being discussed on RR, but.......

 

if tax discs are discontinued, and tax placed on fuel (even though that seems fairer than the current system) it just wouldnt work

 

how would the copper walking around the streets know if a car was insured or not?

 

uninsured motors is a major problem, especially if one of them hits your car, and (generally speaking) if the owner cant afford insurance then the vehicle will be badly maintained, increasing the chances of the car having a crash.

 

How does a tax disc indicate that a car has insurance? It doesn't really. ANPR should tell the copper what's what. Or we display insurance discs like some parts of the world actually do.

[Pillock]

I can tax a car for 12 months on an insurance note with only 5 days to run, so a tax disc is only proof that I had insurance when I went to the post office. Same as an MoT. We need either little stickers to indicate the presence of both these factors (aren't these the little badges on a German reg plate?), OR just have more ANPR. To be fair I can't recall the last time I saw a policeman walking down the street checking tax discs, it's all done with cameras.

 

Putting it on fuel seems fair, but what seems fairer is using the billions they already take from us in fuel duty and using that. If we give them the option to hoik fuel prices up more, they will.

[Cavcraft]

Plus putting VED on fuel means whichever government is in charge will just hike the price up whenever they feel like it/go to war with someone/decide they haven't screwed us enough. Which one way or the other will probably be every few weeks or so.

[autofive]

yeah, i need to explain what i meant better

 

you cant tax a car that isnt insured as and,at the moment, a walking wooden top doesnt carry anpr equipment, an untaxed car on the street attracts their attention, without the paper disc system it would be more difficult for an insured car to attract the attention of a copper who doesnt have anpr equipment on-hand.

[Mr Lobster]

I feel entirely 'meh' towards this. Read all the nonsence being spouted on RR and I'm of the opinion that I will worry about it if / when it happens.

[dieselnutjob]

It's very simple.

Scrap road tax and have an insurance disc issued by your insurance company, and stick that in the window.

The whole concept of road tax is stupid anyway. A parked car doesn't cause any emissions, isn't causing any congestion and isn't wearing out the road.

If I have an accident do I care if it's taxed or not? No; I want to know if it's insured.

An insurance disc with some ref number that you send by sms to verify if it's insured for that driver would be perfect

The law should also state that if you have an accident with an uninsured car you should be allowed to take the keys off the f%$#wit by force if necessary.

[Negative Creep]

It's not even Road Tax, it's Road Fund Licence. The former implies the money raised from it is actually spent on the roads

[Conrad D. Conelrad]

It's very simple.

Scrap road tax and have an insurance disc issued by your insurance company, and stick that in the window.

The whole concept of road tax is stupid anyway. A parked car doesn't cause any emissions, isn't causing any congestion and isn't wearing out the road.

If I have an accident do I care if it's taxed or not? No; I want to know if it's insured.

An insurance disc with some ref number that you send by sms to verify if it's insured for that driver would be perfect

The law should also state that if you have an accident with an uninsured car you should be allowed to take the keys off the f%$#wit by force if necessary.

 

Screw paper discs in windows! You could check askMID on your mobile as it is. Paper discs are easily stolen/forged and utterly pointless if the car's on a database.

[Guest]

To rely on bits of paper in an age where any old pleb can pick up a colour printer for about £20 is ridiculous, not to mention making no allowances for daft situations like the disc dropping out of the window. If the police don't have the equipment to do their job, give them it.

[Cavcraft]

They do, it's ANPR. The days of cheekily copying one on your work's printer then driving round and never being caught are long gone.

[Guest Leonard Hatred]

Post apocalyptic world without rules, FTW.

[FredTransit]

The thing is, free historical tax has been in for many years, and the only change to it was the cut off year being introduced.

 

This suggests to me that it would be difficult to introduce anything more complicated (the reg'd year is easily found on the DVLA records) would not be cost effective. Which in turn suggests the Govt can't afford to do anything more with the tax class.

 

After all, it's not like they miss a chance to make money is it? Or rather, avoid giving something away for nothing. Which is what caused the introduction of the cut off year, obviously.

 

I don't think they will do anything about restricting the historical tax class, because it will cost more money to implement than it will save (or prevent loosing) by making more vehicles legible.

 

I would welcome the re introduction of rolling exemption, even if it starts at 30 years. Again though, I don't think it will happen, for the same fiscal reasons. Rolling exemption is the norm in the EU, all be it with varying levels of restriction. Yet we have it capped off at 1972, so if the Govt has managed to get away with being out of step on this up to now, I would say it's more than likely they will stay that way for as long as they can.

 

I think they will only change if Brussels threatened the UK with big fines

 

I think what I am trying to say is I won't be panicking any time soon, now I have thought about it. It's not like the Govt can afford it, is it?

[Lankytim]

I don't think they will do anything about restricting the historical tax class, because it will cost more money to implement than it will save (or prevent loosing) by making more vehicles legible.

 

Don't worry about that, it will be us that pay for it all.

[FredTransit]

Well as far as I can tell, to do the restriction thing they would gave to re instate the rolling age for exemption, so that alone means they would actually loose money from the off. Then to police the restrictions (in some states you have to pre book trips) would take a new dept or beefing up an old one. They don't have the money in the first place to do that. If they had, they would have done it already. And every year that passes, means more and more vehicles become legible for historic status. Implement this next year (restrictions aside) would mean that immediately 9 years worth of vehicles would qualify, and every year that passes more would be added. That's revenue lost, before having to spend anything to police where they are going. No matter how many environmentalists lean on it, the loss of revenue makes it very unattractive.

It's always about money, never the environment/safety/national good.......