EVs to pay road tax from 2025

Tahlullah.H

Ectophile 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.

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?

What about those who cannot afford to repair their car odometer?  Or can't afford to buy a new car with a working odometer?  The individuals who live in areas of the country with low employment opportunities, and low salaries that go along with the region, such as those who live in the country, or coastal areas that die back when the tourists leave in winter;  and only provide low paid retail and service industry jobs.

There is no easy answer to this.  Some people who drive heavy vehicles may do so because they need their vehicles to be fitted with extra equipment because of eg, their disabilities.  Or some may drive large SUV's because they live off main roads and down unmade tracks in the country and a Nissan Micra will not cut the mustard.

I look forward to seeing what the Government come up with as a solution that meets the needs of all individuals in society.  And if not, what concessions they put into place for those who do not fit the mould.

Herzlos

I dare say that there will always be some winners and losers with any arrangement, and some of those winners will be rich whilst some losers will be poor. 

I'm personally happy paying a bit more to drive a bigger car even though the driving favtor is disability. 

Martyn1981

[Deleted User] said:

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.

Hi. Not quite correct. You also have to include the footprint of the car, which will depend on the width of the tyres and their pressure. In the case of the Fiat 500 for example, if they have the same size tyres, then the EV would need to be at a higher pressure, and therefore increase wear and tear. But if the tyres are wider, then the difference is less. Yes a larger footprint means more rubber on tarmac, but wear outside of braking is minimal, it's weight and tyre pressure that damage the road surface - Just like a vehicle with twice the weight and twice the tyre width v's a smaller vehicle, would do the same 'damage' to a field (soft surface) as the smaller vehicle.

In the case of road wear, cars are almost negligible. the vast majority of wear is as a result of HGV's. You suggest 18-22 wheels, I'd suggest 14 to 16 - tractor may have 6 (2+4), but let's say 8 tyres for heavier vehicles (2 + 2 + 4), and the trailer will typically have 6 across 3 axles. When trailers moved from 2 axles with 8 tyres, to 3 axles with 6 supersingles, the wear actually increased.

Think of a big(ish) BEV like a Tesla model 3 at around 1,700kg, with the weight spread across 4 tyres (425kg each) at ~40psi, then compare that to a 44tn HGV with 14tyres (3,140kg each) at 130psi+.

I may be misremembering, but I think the ratio estimate of road wear for a car v's max weight HGV is around 1 : 5,000.

Also, HGV's can 'break' roads if there is a small dip or rise, as their weight will punch down on the road a couple of metres after the imperfection.


[A similar argument could be made for bikes, where a road bike with 15mm tyres at well over 100psi, spreads the load far less than a mountain bike with say 70mm tyres at 50psi. But of course the actual wear and tear from bikes and the like, is negligible - Regardless of whether folk feel they should, or shouldn't contribute.]


But ....... as has been said on this thread, the Gov needs to raise money from multiple sources to fund its expenditure. So assuming the amount from some sort of road funding remains the same, then charging HGV's 5,000x more than cars doesn't work, since those costs would be passed straight on to all of us via the cost of goods, materials etc etc.. After all, lorries aren't doing anything wrong, they are simply moving goods for 'us', so one way or another, 'we' have to pay for it.

thegentleway

Martyn1981 said:

Deleted_User said:

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.

Hi. Not quite correct. You also have to include the footprint of the car, which will depend on the width of the tyres and their pressure. In the case of the Fiat 500 for example, if they have the same size tyres, then the EV would need to be at a higher pressure, and therefore increase wear and tear. But if the tyres are wider, then the difference is less. Yes a larger footprint means more rubber on tarmac, but wear outside of braking is minimal, it's weight and tyre pressure that damage the road surface - Just like a vehicle with twice the weight and twice the tyre width v's a smaller vehicle, would do the same 'damage' to a field (soft surface) as the smaller vehicle.

In the case of road wear, cars are almost negligible. the vast majority of wear is as a result of HGV's. You suggest 18-22 wheels, I'd suggest 14 to 16 - tractor may have 6 (2+4), but let's say 8 tyres for heavier vehicles (2 + 2 + 4), and the trailer will typically have 6 across 3 axles. When trailers moved from 2 axles with 8 tyres, to 3 axles with 6 supersingles, the wear actually increased.

Think of a big(ish) BEV like a Tesla model 3 at around 1,700kg, with the weight spread across 4 tyres (425kg each) at ~40psi, then compare that to a 44tn HGV with 14tyres (3,140kg each) at 130psi+.

I may be misremembering, but I think the ratio estimate of road wear for a car v's max weight HGV is around 1 : 5,000.

Also, HGV's can 'break' roads if there is a small dip or rise, as their weight will punch down on the road a couple of metres after the imperfection.


[A similar argument could be made for bikes, where a road bike with 15mm tyres at well over 100psi, spreads the load far less than a mountain bike with say 70mm tyres at 50psi. But of course the actual wear and tear from bikes and the like, is negligible - Regardless of whether folk feel they should, or shouldn't contribute.]


But ....... as has been said on this thread, the Gov needs to raise money from multiple sources to fund its expenditure. So assuming the amount from some sort of road funding remains the same, then charging HGV's 5,000x more than cars doesn't work, since those costs would be passed straight on to all of us via the cost of goods, materials etc etc.. After all, lorries aren't doing anything wrong, they are simply moving goods for 'us', so one way or another, 'we' have to pay for it.

Why are we using hgvs instead of trains?

molerat

thegentleway said:

Why are we using hgvs instead of trains?

Because people want things next day, not next week.  The whole UK supply system would need changing to move the majority of freight back on to the railway.

Car_54

molerat said:

thegentleway said:

Why are we using hgvs instead of trains?

Because people want things next day, not next week.  The whole UK supply system would need changing to move the majority of freight back on to the railway.

And the railways would need to be expanded massively. About 25 years ago an often-quoted 'fact' was that doubling rail freight would reduce lorry traffic by about 1%.

billy2shots

And when the train drivers go on strike...