Road Charging

24 Feb 2007

Quote by Mallock2006
But not in buses

The gas-guzzling 4WD is unlikely to be around much anyway....the emissions level for vehicles are to be reduced in europe to about 120mg/Km.....

Gas guzzling :roll:
I fail to see the emissions level you speak of being implemented as many saloon cars wont be able to match that let alone anything else....
Why not charge the dirty old buses on their emissions and the clapped out old vans and trucks confused

: :?:
My 4x4 does a hell of a lot more to the gallon than they do.......Does less damage to the enviroment and the roads so why the fuk should I be priced off the road :?: :?:
Makes my fukin blood boil..... mad

:x :x
Euro news:

02/06/07
09:44:39 pm, Categories: European Union, 257 words
New emissions cut proposal from European Commission
Details of a plan that would make automobile manufacturers cut emissions from their vehicles by 25 percent overall, with an 18 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions, by 2012 will be introduced in the European Commission on Wednesday after a two-week delay in which one commissioner had argued for all cuts to come from the manufacturers alone. The plan to be introduced calls for some of the cuts to come from the use of biofuels and better tires as well as from changes made to the design of the cars themselves.
Car industry representatives had said that the proposal to make all emissions cuts the responsibility of carmakers would have sent the cost of a new car up by €2,500. Other reports said that the changes would cause the price of a car to go up by around €600. The industry also contends that consumers are not interested in vehicles that have smaller engines and produce fewer emissions, and that cheaper ways of reducing emissions lie in reducing congestion and changing the behavior of drivers.
But transport is the only European sector that has increased its carbon dioxide emissions in the past 15 years, despite improvements in engine efficiency. This is blamed on increases in the size and power of cars. And so the proposal to be introduced Wednesday holds carmakers responsible for reducing emissions down to 130g/km, down from the 2005 emissions level of 162g/km. A further 10g/km reduction in emissions would be achieved by use of biofuels and better tires, plus initiatives to make sure drivers change gears appropriately.

Yes, as you spotted, todays cars won't make it. Neither will the vans, lorries or buses. But they WILL HAVE to make it, or they WON'T be sold. There is no maybe about it. Not to worry...my van does over 50mpg...on low sulphur (part rapeseed)...and the sprinter I occasionally drive does 25mpg...in any case, with the changes to the MOT test that the future is bringing, not many cars over 10 years old will pass. The new "shaker" test will scrap loads of motors....
I didn't say that the buses ran on red diesel...just that the tanker was delivering fuel to the depot....quite a few trucks use the old fuel as well...

24 Feb 2007

Quote by jomu

But not in buses

The gas-guzzling 4WD is unlikely to be around much anyway....the emissions level for vehicles are to be reduced in europe to about 120mg/Km.....

Gas guzzling :roll:
I fail to see the emissions level you speak of being implemented as many saloon cars wont be able to match that let alone anything else....
Why not charge the dirty old buses on their emissions and the clapped out old vans and trucks confused

: :?:
My 4x4 does a hell of a lot more to the gallon than they do.......Does less damage to the enviroment and the roads so why the fuk should I be priced off the road :?: :?:
Makes my fukin blood boil..... mad

:x :x
Euro news:

02/06/07
09:44:39 pm, Categories: European Union, 257 words
New emissions cut proposal from European Commission
Details of a plan that would make automobile manufacturers cut emissions from their vehicles by 25 percent overall, with an 18 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions, by 2012 will be introduced in the European Commission on Wednesday after a two-week delay in which one commissioner had argued for all cuts to come from the manufacturers alone. The plan to be introduced calls for some of the cuts to come from the use of biofuels and better tires as well as from changes made to the design of the cars themselves.
Car industry representatives had said that the proposal to make all emissions cuts the responsibility of carmakers would have sent the cost of a new car up by €2,500. Other reports said that the changes would cause the price of a car to go up by around €600. The industry also contends that consumers are not interested in vehicles that have smaller engines and produce fewer emissions, and that cheaper ways of reducing emissions lie in reducing congestion and changing the behavior of drivers.
But transport is the only European sector that has increased its carbon dioxide emissions in the past 15 years, despite improvements in engine efficiency. This is blamed on increases in the size and power of cars. And so the proposal to be introduced Wednesday holds carmakers responsible for reducing emissions down to 130g/km, down from the 2005 emissions level of 162g/km. A further 10g/km reduction in emissions would be achieved by use of biofuels and better tires, plus initiatives to make sure drivers change gears appropriately.

Yes, as you spotted, todays cars won't make it. Neither will the vans, lorries or buses. But they WILL HAVE to make it, or they WON'T be sold. There is no maybe about it. Not to worry...my van does over 50mpg...on low sulphur (part rapeseed)...and the sprinter I occasionally drive does 25mpg...in any case, with the changes to the MOT test that the future is bringing, not many cars over 10 years old will pass. The new "shaker" test will scrap loads of motors....
I didn't say that the buses ran on red diesel...just that the tanker was delivering fuel to the depot....quite a few trucks use the old fuel as well...
So if the buses arent running on it why make the statement dunno

There is little or probably nothing you can tell me about new vehicle sales and MOT's as I work for a truck main dealer so am well versed in rules and regs :-)

24 Feb 2007

Quote by Mallock2006
So if the buses arent running on it why make the statement
There is little or probably nothing you can tell me about new vehicle sales and MOT's as I work for a truck main dealer so am well versed in rules and regs :-)

I didn't say that the buses ran on red diesel, just that they ran on high sulphur. The tanker delivers different fuels at the same time.
Obviously you are not too well informed about the new euro emissions for vans, trucks and cars. loads of them coming out every year. Love the new digital tacho...no more truckers running around without cards in the tacho...all the info stored on the PERSONAL card...makes it near impossible to fiddle hours...and when everyone has the new card they won't be running several jobs...

24 Feb 2007

Quote by jomu
Obviously you are not too well informed about the new euro emissions for vans, trucks and cars. loads of them coming out every year. Love the new digital tacho...no more truckers running around without cards in the tacho...all the info stored on the PERSONAL card...makes it near impossible to fiddle hours...and when everyone has the new card they won't be running several jobs...

I think you had better think again....
I am as well informed as you believe you are ....

25 Feb 2007

The technology is dangerous (for safe drivers)! What if big brother gives the information from the black box in our car to the 'safety' SCAMera partnerships?
We all pay speed tax and get banned. mad

That will reduce congestion but we all loose our jobs so Greedy Gordon has less tax to waste.

27 Feb 2007

Quote by banlwales
Firstly, my apologies for only partially quoting you Neil.

no worries! apologies for snipping yours in my turn! ;)
i'm not clever enough to know what the right solution might be, but seems noone's ever happy with the choices they're given.
road tax is increased for more polluting / less fuel efficent cars . . . drivers bitch about it. congestion charges are proposed . . . drivers bitch about it. fuel duty is increased . . . drivers bitch about it. tolls on the M6 or elsewhere . . . drivers bitch about it. drivers do not generally want to accept that they absolutely should be taxed, in a fair and proportionate way, to offset the damage they do. generally speaking, many, many drivers reject any and all attempts to make them pay for their lifestyle choices.
fuel tax seems the fairest way to do it, cos it's a truely proportionate tax on use, on the proviso that taxation raised from fuel duties verging on the punitive, is ringfenced and spent on alternative transport solutions. if you simultaneously introduced some kind of scheme whereby businesses could reclaim a certain percentage of that duty, along the lines of what happens with VAT, you could raise revenue, and deter frivolous use in one fell swoop, while protecting non-drivers from increases in the cost of living arising from higher delivery costs for distributors.
that seems altogether sensible to me, just off the top of me 'ead, though i accept i might not have thought it through? ;)

Quote by Snowman1075
The technology is dangerous (for safe drivers)! What if big brother gives the information from the black box in our car to the 'safety' SCAMera partnerships?
We all pay speed tax and get banned. That will reduce congestion but we all loose our jobs so Greedy Gordon has less tax to waste.

i'm not sure i follow you? 'safe' drivers caught for speeding shouldn't be banned? confused

you'd only pay 'speed tax' and lose your jobs if you were caught bang to rights committing a criminal offence, no? or have i read you wrong? dunno

neil x x x ;)

27 Feb 2007

I hate to point this out, not. But. All drivers of private transport pay large taxes to the government to drive.
Ignoring the yearly contribution of about (up or down...whatever) if you drive 5000 miles a year @ 50mpg, then you use (about) 100gallons. At a(rounded) total cost of £400, you pay (about) £288 in tax. Don't forget the insurance premium tax.
The motoring public paid £42 billion in taxes in 2002 (the last figure I could find !)
So, how much more should be paid ?
On roads, the amount spent is about £8.4 billion (slight discrepancy ?)
The buses got a sub of £5.2 billion....the trains got about £3.6 billion.
The buses also get a fuel duty rebate.....Yes, as well as a yearly sub. They also get gov cash for other things, like refurbising the engines (so they smoke more when they're in front)
So, if everyone stops driving the car....we're looking at something like £50 billion in extra taxation from somewhere.....Guess bus fares will have to go up a bit.
Oh yeah....and plane taxes as well....some gov think-tank or other reckons that aircraft taxes will have to rise by £9 billion to cover their pollution....it probably won't go on building bigger skies though...

27 Feb 2007

Jomu, yep, i did kinda know that? lol

not working very well is it? ;)
what you're saying up there, as i read it, is that it costs me as a non-driver roundabout as much as it costs the average essential driver? it's a grand or two a year on average for most whether they drive or not?
if people switch from their cars to PT then yep, there's less cars to tax. primary school subtraction? :P wouldn't that also mean that consequent increased use of PT creates greater PT revenues, with higher taxes on their profits? they might even become viably self-supporting after a while, needing less of a government subsidy in the meantime, in which case more ((( ringfenced ))) tax might get spent on proper traffic management?
got to be paid for first obviously, but PT users are already making their contribution to the future, whether it be by choice or obligation. a little pain now for a whole lot of relief for our kids a little later on? which is for richer, for poorer, for better or for worse? confused

neil x x x
BTW . . . just how much of that 42 Billion in 2002 was spent on the wars in Iraqistanael, and just how much was pumped into the NHS? ;) roads weren't exactly high priority that year, were they? ;)

28 Feb 2007

If you go back over the years you'll find that maintaining the road system has never been a priority. Ever. When pt was a public service it was starved of funds, now it is privately run, and the same happens. I won't even mention that, at peak times, the rail system is running at near its maximum capacity. Or that if everyone stopped driving cars and used buses it would mean increasing the bus capacity by 30. Probably more, these figures tend to be a bit woolly.
I think you will also find that the road system at the moment is infinitely better than it will be when car taxes are removed from the equation. If there is one thing government is good at, it's being bad at everything it does. I think there are about 4 million people on the public payroll at the moment (it's gone up by nearly 400,000 since this lot got in) That's a lot of salaries, a lot of holidays and a lot of pensions. All of which are paid one way or another out of taxes. The war in irag/afghanistan and the coming one in iran are just chicken feed. Petty cash. We would have been paying that money to the forces anyway, one way or another. Nhs ?
Don't I also pay NHI ?
Over £1000 the last year...not counting the employers contribution....about 12.5% of earnings ?...Even with all this dosh the government cannot make ends meet.
The buses are crap, the trains are crap, and the companies running then are neck deep in cash. Need I say any more ?
There is always money to pay the shareholders but never any for investment (ignoring virgin....please)

Drivers' group throws down gauntlet to Greenpeace
Major polluter stops for breatherLondon's air quality has been damned for breaching EU particle emissions levels on 36 days already this year. Yet anti-car groups like Greenpeace have not called for a bus-free day that would show city-dwellers that much pollution is due to buses and not car-related.
ABD spokesman Mark McArthur-Christie said "Buses are a major source of the fine particles that are clogging London's air and Londoners' lungs. As someone who regularly cycles and rides a motorcycle in the City, I know at first hand how filthy some of them are. It's time London's authorities woke up to the better ways to get around town."
Oxford, another heavily bus-reliant city that has banned cars from its centre, has air quality that is so bad it is equivalent to smoking more than 61 cigarettes each day.
The ABD believes that the introduction of the Congestion Charge makes bus pollution even worse, with more buses on the road than ever before. This is backed by Transport for London's own figures which show that private cars make up less than half of the traffic entering the congestion charge zone. The buses, taxis, vans and trucks that make up the majority of the traffic all have the larger diesel engines that are particularly bad for particulate emissions, with bus exhausts containing the two most carcinogenic chemicals (3-NBA and 1,8-DNP) known to science.
New diesel cars have to meet stringent EU4 emission regulations from the end of 2005 which will drastically cut their contribution to the capital's particulates. Petrol cars produce negligible quantities of this pollutant.
Cars have cleaned up their act. Given that a family of four travelling by car is the most environmentally friendly way to travel, its time for buses and trains to stop polluting our towns and cities with impunity, and long overdue for Greenpeace to call for a Bus Free Day.

28 Feb 2007

Quote by jomu
Oh yeah....and plane taxes as well....some gov think-tank or other reckons that aircraft taxes will have to rise by £9 billion to cover their pollution....it probably won't go on building bigger skies though...

You obviously haven't read the EU dossier on the Single European Sky yet.... :small-print: :scared: