EVs to pay road tax from 2025

Grumpy_chap

MattMattMattUK said:

Grumpy_chap said:

What about cars with no working odometer?

MOT fail, penalty charge based on a very high mileage, points on the license of the registered keeper?

Except it is not an MOT fail.
Nor can I see any reason it would be added to the MOT, which is all about safety.  Not knowing the total distance travelled has nothing to do with safety in anyway conceivable.

facade

Grumpy_chap said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Grumpy_chap said:

What about cars with no working odometer?

MOT fail, penalty charge based on a very high mileage, points on the license of the registered keeper?

Except it is not an MOT fail.
Nor can I see any reason it would be added to the MOT, which is all about safety.  Not knowing the total distance travelled has nothing to do with safety in anyway conceivable.

It would be hard to test, unless the failure criteria was "If you know for a fact it isn't working, because there is no display, or the mileage is exactly the same as last year = fail"

Car_54

Herzlos said:

Car_54 said:

Herzlos said:

It'd be easier to just charge everyone the maximum and be done with it.

Maybe having the charge linked to the vehicle weight would be the fairest option - that way a 3000kg  SUV will be more expensive to tax than a 1500kg supermini.

In what way would that be 'fairer'? It seems no less arbitrary than charging white cars more than black (which BTW I'd wold support).

Bigger cars are more likely to have more people and stuff in em, will be driven by people in a better financial position and will be worse for roads/congestion/environment.

Assuming of course that we want to keep trying to incentivize more socially and environmentally responsible vehicles, and have the financial burden paid by those that are better able to afford it.

I certainly don't mind paying a bit more tax for a bigger car but a lot of people would resent having to pay the same tax for a Vauxhall Corsa-e and a Tesla Model X.

Of course, basing it on list price or a combination of list price and weight would may be better.

.1. It must be better for the environment, and for congestion, to carry as many people and as much stuff as possible, rather than have them make multiple separate journeys.

2. Wear to the roads is generally estimated to be proportional to the fourth power of the weight of the vehicle, i.e. a 2x heavier vehicle causes 16x the wear, and a single truck or bus causes as much wear as many thousands of cars. Overall, the wear caused by cars must be almost negligible.

Grumpy_chap

facade said:

Grumpy_chap said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Grumpy_chap said:

What about cars with no working odometer?

MOT fail, penalty charge based on a very high mileage, points on the license of the registered keeper?

Except it is not an MOT fail.
Nor can I see any reason it would be added to the MOT, which is all about safety.  Not knowing the total distance travelled has nothing to do with safety in anyway conceivable.

It would be hard to test, unless the failure criteria was "If you know for a fact it isn't working, because there is no display, or the mileage is exactly the same as last year = fail"

On my Focus, now passed on to my Nephew, the LCD display had failed so there was no odometer readout.
I suspect, though, that the mileage could be read by plugging into the diagnostics report.

In fact, no display means no readout for mileage, trip counter, outside temperature, average fuel, miles remaining and a whole host of other stuff that is unimportant. 
No display also means no warning messages, so if the amber or red lights illuminate, the driver cannot see what the indication relates to.  That latter data could, under certain circumstances, be safety related.  

Ectophile

Grumpy_chap said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Grumpy_chap said:

What about cars with no working odometer?

MOT fail, penalty charge based on a very high mileage, points on the license of the registered keeper?

Except it is not an MOT fail.
Nor can I see any reason it would be added to the MOT, which is all about safety.  Not knowing the total distance travelled has nothing to do with safety in anyway conceivable.

The government has already added emissions tests to the MOT, and they aren't about safety.  they could add an odometer requirement too, for any vehicle that would have been fitted with an odometer when new.

But I would expect a boom in sales of devices to "correct" odometer readings on cars.  Would anyone ever know if I adjusted my readings down a couple of thousand miles every year?

Herzlos

Car_54 said:

Herzlos said:

Car_54 said:

Herzlos said:

It'd be easier to just charge everyone the maximum and be done with it.

Maybe having the charge linked to the vehicle weight would be the fairest option - that way a 3000kg  SUV will be more expensive to tax than a 1500kg supermini.

In what way would that be 'fairer'? It seems no less arbitrary than charging white cars more than black (which BTW I'd wold support).

Bigger cars are more likely to have more people and stuff in em, will be driven by people in a better financial position and will be worse for roads/congestion/environment.

Assuming of course that we want to keep trying to incentivize more socially and environmentally responsible vehicles, and have the financial burden paid by those that are better able to afford it.

I certainly don't mind paying a bit more tax for a bigger car but a lot of people would resent having to pay the same tax for a Vauxhall Corsa-e and a Tesla Model X.

Of course, basing it on list price or a combination of list price and weight would may be better.

.1. It must be better for the environment, and for congestion, to carry as many people and as much stuff as possible, rather than have them make multiple separate journeys.

2. Wear to the roads is generally estimated to be proportional to the fourth power of the weight of the vehicle, i.e. a 2x heavier vehicle causes 16x the wear, and a single truck or bus causes as much wear as many thousands of cars. Overall, the wear caused by cars must be almost negligible.

The vast bulk of cars seem to have a single occupant, so the bigger car being able to take more people doesn't work. 
It's not like someone will choose a 7 seater SUV or 2 supeminis.
I reckon my 7 seater does at least 2/3rds of the mileage with just me in it.

And yeah, busses and trucks do the bulk of the damage but that doesn't mean we can't incentivise people driving more efficient cars where possible.. 

[Deleted User]

Car_54 said:

2. Wear to the roads is generally estimated to be proportional to the fourth power of the weight of the vehicle, i.e. a 2x heavier vehicle causes 16x the wear, and a single truck or bus causes as much wear as many thousands of cars. Overall, the wear caused by cars must be almost negligible.

This estimate is based on axle load and not the total weight of the vehicle.  Most large passenger vehicles / trucks have more axles which offsets the fourth power. 

Additionally the 4th power tests were carried out with 2 wheels per axle, many heavy vehicles have 4 wheels per axles as well.

So a typical 40 tonne truck will have 5-6 axles and 18-22 wheels, so the 4th power doesn't directly apply.

Going back to EV's as per the OP, then typically they are much heavier than the ICE equivalent. Look at a Fiat 500 ICE vs EV for example - 900kg vs 1300kg, using the ^4 then the EV version does 4 times the amount of wear on the roads.

So if we tax based on road wear, the EV Fiat 500 should pay 4 times that tax rate, but as VED is CO2 related, maybe half it to take into account the 50% CO2 average for EV's and therefore they should just pay double VED.

MikeJXE

They will find a way for sure as they will with cigarettes and anything else thats heavily taxed we give up. 

billy2shots

Grumpy_chap said:

 Not knowing the total distance travelled has nothing to do with safety in anyway conceivable.

It's not the total distance traveled that's an issue. It is the distance traveled from Date A to Date B.

Certain consumables and car components are required to be changed after a set length of time OR mileage. 

So yes, not tracking a cars mileage can be a safety issue. 

Flight3287462

Worth a look.

https://youtu.be/7JJHr78Ksx0