road tax
- Thread starter djcla
- Start date
Fred Hindle
New member
Probably something to do with the fact that cars are 'licensed' to use the road and don't have the right to do so, unlike pedestrians, cyclists and horses. [
]
Paying the Road Fund Licence via fuel would wipe out fraud, and make it a much fairer system, but I'm sure the Government have reasons for not doing so. [8|]
Cheers,
]Paying the Road Fund Licence via fuel would wipe out fraud, and make it a much fairer system, but I'm sure the Government have reasons for not doing so. [8|]
Cheers,
Fred Hindle
New member
Yes, I was surprised when I found that out, always thought it was the other way round, cars tolerated other users.
Cheers,
Cheers,
Big Les
New member
Look at it from the Governments point of view - they get the money up front each year. They wouldn't if it was 'pay as you go' through an extra duty on fuel. And if they did add it to fuel it would make our fuel costs ridiculously expensive compared to the rest of Europe! (I think it's the most expensive anyway?). There would be an outcry!
Peter Empson
PCGB Member
Probably pointless, but worth signing if you argee http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/RoadTaxAbolition/
sawood12
New member
ORIGINAL: Fred Hindle
Probably something to do with the fact that cars are 'licensed' to use the road and don't have the right to do so, unlike pedestrians, cyclists and horses. [
Paying the Road Fund Licence via fuel would wipe out fraud, and make it a much fairer system, but I'm sure the Government have reasons for not doing so. [8|]
Cheers,
That's a bit of a convenient excuse for the governmernment I think. They could easily overturn that throwback law from the horse-drawn cart days if they really wanted to.
I'm an advocate of the tax the fuel rather than tax the car however it is too late. Fuel is already taxed to highly and to abolish road tax and add even more duty to fuel would just cripple the economy and drive the country to a halt.
I think they should abolish road tax for normal cars and charge 4x4's about £1500 tax a year to make up for the loss in revenue on the basis 4x4's are just daft, dangerous and useless.
Having said that i'd be quite happy to pay the current duty on fuel and road tax if the government actually built more roads to ease conjestion. We've had no major road building project in this country for over 20yrs now - only the odd bypass or so, therefore it's no wonder we're so conjested. I'm the last person who wants to cover our green and pleasant land with concrete and tarmac, but you just have to fly over our lovely counrty to see that there is more than enough open space out there to have another M1/M6 style motorway running down the spine of the country. It's got to be more preferable than widening the current M1 and M6. And thanks to the CAP it's not exactly being put to good agricultural use.
That's a bit harsh, 4X4 are not daft if you live in the country, certainly in the depths of Cumbria in winter they are better than 944's. All cars are dangerous if driven badly, and as for useless, I think our cars are less useful in the grand scheme of things.
Do you include the Carrera 4, Subarus, Audis and Alfas ?
Scott,
Agree with you on many points, but have to take you up on the taxing 4x4's point. If people want to drive 4x4's, they should be allowed to - you cannot dictate personal choice on this basis, simply because the choice seems illogical to you.
The other point is that 4x4's are merely the thin end of the wedge - success for the government in driving those off the roads will mean they are more likely to widen their sights to others ... and one could easily argue that cars capable of more than 70 mph are impractical, and perhaps cars with more than 1200cc engines are impractically inefficient as well, so let's ban them too.
In short, it is important that we stand up for 4x4 drivers because older, high-powered cars (hello 944 owners) would quite probably be next on the (cretinous) government's hit list.
Oli.
Agree with you on many points, but have to take you up on the taxing 4x4's point. If people want to drive 4x4's, they should be allowed to - you cannot dictate personal choice on this basis, simply because the choice seems illogical to you.
The other point is that 4x4's are merely the thin end of the wedge - success for the government in driving those off the roads will mean they are more likely to widen their sights to others ... and one could easily argue that cars capable of more than 70 mph are impractical, and perhaps cars with more than 1200cc engines are impractically inefficient as well, so let's ban them too.
In short, it is important that we stand up for 4x4 drivers because older, high-powered cars (hello 944 owners) would quite probably be next on the (cretinous) government's hit list.
Oli.
Paul Fraser
New member
If they start going after 4x4s you'll be next. One would hope for a linear, fair system.
AGree with that.
4 x 4's are great if you have large Dogs but then so is my mondeo Estate , i don't have kids but am sure they are very usful for carting them about to and the luggage etc. I would love a range rover SPort and i like 4 x 4's think they are great I also like them big pick up trucks too
I would love to no how much ommisions are given out by public transport in comparrison with cars that would be a interesting comparrison.
Peter Empson
PCGB Member
That's very much mirrors my feelings Oli, If we let them hound one group of road users off the road then it cant be long before we're next. I don't really understand the fascination with 4x4's from the eco nutters, in many cases they are only a little heavier than most large family cars or luxurious cars. I think it's a class thing, 4x4's are seen as such an obvious status symbol due to their height. I can't see myself ever buying one, but with all the traffic 'calming' in place it actually makes them a more desirable choice to me than a luxury saloon.
In that case, sir, you are a dangerous revolutionary, worthy only of being taxed to the point of pain, with added social exclusion! Shame, I had you down as a fairly civilised, affable type, I must have been wrong!
And that is another good point - speed bumps are MUCH more comfortable when experienced from the driving seat of a friends' Shogun than from the driving seat of my 944 ... and that's before you start trying to pilot anything down the pot-holed cart tracks which seem to pass as roads these days. While driving conditions are both allowed to deterioraite and actively denegrated by the current administration, a choice of a 4x4 looks more and more sensible.
Oli.
sawood12
New member
When I say 4x4's are dangerous I don't mean driven dangerously - I mean they are literally dangerous for the following reasons:-
1. If they crash into the central reservation on a motorway or dual carridgeway their CofG is so high the car topples over the barriers and into the oncoming traffic therefore not only killing the occupants of the 4x4 but people on the other side of the carridgeway. This has happened several times resulting in multiple deaths. This doesn't happen with lorries because they are travelling slowly and shouldn't be in the outside lane.
2. Normal cars are designed to have crumple zones. 4x4's don't, or if they do they are too high to be effective. The result is that in all but the most violent of collisions between 2 normal cars, all occupants are likely to survive - however in the same crash with a normal car and a 4x4 the occupants in the normal car will in all certainty die or sustain serious injury, as the bumper of the 4x4 rides over the cars bonnet and crumple zones, through the windscreen and hits the driver and passenger in the head.
I have no problems with people having the freedom to have whatever car they feel but 4x4's are dangerous and on that basis people should be disincentivised to own them. Have one by all means, but you should have to pay big time. Why should owners of truly sensible cars be hit by the tax man in the same way as a 4x4?
The majority of the people in the country need 4wd not 4x4's in winter - an Audi Quattro or Subaru Legacy or Golf 4-motion will do perfectly fine - probably better than the vast majority of 4x4's you can buy on slippery and wintry tarmac'd roads. No need for a big 4x4's, which on small narrow country lanes just further increases the chance of having a crash with other cars.
Fair enough if you are a farmer or you have a business that requires you to drive off road then there could be mechanisms in place that exempts you from the tax, however 4x4's should be discouraged for the average person on the street. They are just ridiculous. The Q8 is a case in point - what a monstrosity.
Same goes for big transit vans and pick-ups (again unless you have a business that requires it).
1. If they crash into the central reservation on a motorway or dual carridgeway their CofG is so high the car topples over the barriers and into the oncoming traffic therefore not only killing the occupants of the 4x4 but people on the other side of the carridgeway. This has happened several times resulting in multiple deaths. This doesn't happen with lorries because they are travelling slowly and shouldn't be in the outside lane.
2. Normal cars are designed to have crumple zones. 4x4's don't, or if they do they are too high to be effective. The result is that in all but the most violent of collisions between 2 normal cars, all occupants are likely to survive - however in the same crash with a normal car and a 4x4 the occupants in the normal car will in all certainty die or sustain serious injury, as the bumper of the 4x4 rides over the cars bonnet and crumple zones, through the windscreen and hits the driver and passenger in the head.
I have no problems with people having the freedom to have whatever car they feel but 4x4's are dangerous and on that basis people should be disincentivised to own them. Have one by all means, but you should have to pay big time. Why should owners of truly sensible cars be hit by the tax man in the same way as a 4x4?
The majority of the people in the country need 4wd not 4x4's in winter - an Audi Quattro or Subaru Legacy or Golf 4-motion will do perfectly fine - probably better than the vast majority of 4x4's you can buy on slippery and wintry tarmac'd roads. No need for a big 4x4's, which on small narrow country lanes just further increases the chance of having a crash with other cars.
Fair enough if you are a farmer or you have a business that requires you to drive off road then there could be mechanisms in place that exempts you from the tax, however 4x4's should be discouraged for the average person on the street. They are just ridiculous. The Q8 is a case in point - what a monstrosity.
Same goes for big transit vans and pick-ups (again unless you have a business that requires it).
pauljmcnulty
Active member
I agree - and am on our second Legacy looking to let the new diesel settle down for a while and then get our third.
There are two things a 4x4 give you that a 4WD estate doesn't. Firstly a lot of people find the higher seating easier to get in and out of. I can concur that with rheumatoid arthritis my van is fine, the 944 does cause me the odd twinge as I climb over the handbrake! [
] Several people I know, not necessarily of too advanced years, drive small 4x4s like a Rav4 for this reason. A small 4x4 has a smaller footprint, lower weight and smaller engine than most large estates like the Legacy.Secondly, I'd say that 99% of owners buy a 4x4 for the image. They feel that little Formica and Mezzanine are safer in a Discovery, and didn't watch the Top Gear episode where they crash-tested one. Other peoples' kids are sadly not a priority when the advertising creates a huge tug on the survival instinct strings. What will change is the way society makes these owners feel. Using a Land Cruiser Amazon to transport a 5-year-old one mile to a private school is becoming more socially unacceptable than drink-driving. Clients of mine have had their Range Rover keyed in leafy Beaconsfield, where Bentleys and Maybachs are regularly seen following Ferraris and Astons through the Old Town.
I suppose you could argue it's about free choice, but then why shouldn't I be allowed to drink a bottle of 1962 Chateau Laffitte and then drive home just because I'm better off than you?
Posts made and opinions expressed are those of the individual forum members
Use of the Forum is subject to the Terms and Conditions
