Am I Silly to buy a petrol or diesel car now, to hold for the next 5yrs+?

Bigwheels1111

Fuel prices of all types will go up.
When all cars were petrol and it was say £0.60p a gallon.
Only vans and lorries were diesel, diesel was £0.30p a gallon.
Then diesel cars began to be popular.
Up went diesel to match petrol over the next 10 - 15 years.
People switched to LPG and up went LPG prices.

marlot

"I don't do enough miles to warrant a diesel (maybe a 200-mile uk holiday once or twice a year, otherwise it's 10-15miles a day, if that), but they're just so much cheaper to buy!"

You really need to buy petrol or electric for that daily mileage.

Grumpy_chap

macman said:

With more EV's on the road, air quality should improve, even with a proportion of 'dirty' ICE cars still on the road. So ULEZ zones may become irrelevant in time.

That's an interesting thought.
The London ULEZ will be implemented in 2023 and will also have a ripple outward those who live in the home counties and need to drive into outer London.
So, there will be a bulk disposal of non-compliant vehicles replaced with compliant alternatives.  Must be EURO 4 (petrol) or EURO 6 (diesel)
Potentially, then, the charge has done the job and could be dropped in 2025.  The number that then sell their newer car to buy an older one would be miniscule.

OR, the rules could just be tightened so only EURO 5 (or 6) petrol qualifies.

Which do you think is more likely?  Once the relevant authority finds an income stream, it won't go away.

macman

It won't be dropped. But as a higher proportion of cars become compliant, the revenue will fall, though they will doubtless up the daily rate to compensate.
There is already a high rate of compliance in the existing ULEZ area, TFL claim 92%, so the actual revenue is well below the predicted level at the outset.
Most petrol cars are already compliant, being Euro 4 post 2006 (average vehicle life is 14 years). The problem ones are diesels, pre Euro 6, September 2015. If you look on the local forums, it's the owners of these who are objecting the loudest. 

Grumpy_chap

macman said:

But as a higher proportion of cars become compliant, the revenue will fall, though they will doubtless up the daily rate to compensate.

I don't think increasing the daily rate would increase the revenue raised.

The current daily rate is £12.50 so someone with a non-compliant vehicle who needs to travel to work daily using that vehicle will meet a monthly charge of £250.  That is enough for a PCP on a brand new car - obviously deposit & balloon payment on top, but the ULEZ charge is sufficiently punitive as to force that type of outcome.

So, with no-one regularly driving into the area with a non-compliant vehicle (because it would be financial folly), the remaining vehicles incurring the charge are going to be edge cases of one kind or another.  Likely these edge cases are not incurring the charge on a daily basis.  

Bigwheels1111

I will run my 2016 euro 6 diesel until the end of time now.

I think I can keep it for 4 years after they decide to include euro 6 diesel's for charging in the ULEZ.

We all know it will be coming.

Vehicles for disabled people

Blue Badge holders need to pay the ULEZ charge unless their vehicle meets the ULEZ emission standards or is registered with the DVLA as having a 'disabled' or 'disabled passenger vehicle' tax class.

Keepers of vehicles registered in these tax classes benefit from a grace period where they are exempt from paying the ULEZ charge until 24 October 2027.

baser999

Grumpy_chap said:

macman said:

But as a higher proportion of cars become compliant, the revenue will fall, though they will doubtless up the daily rate to compensate.

I don't think increasing the daily rate would increase the revenue raised.

The current daily rate is £12.50 so someone with a non-compliant vehicle who needs to travel to work daily using that vehicle will meet a monthly charge of £250.  That is enough for a PCP on a brand new car - obviously deposit & balloon payment on top, but the ULEZ charge is sufficiently punitive as to force that type of outcome.

So, with no-one regularly driving into the area with a non-compliant vehicle (because it would be financial folly), the remaining vehicles incurring the charge are going to be edge cases of one kind or another.  Likely these edge cases are not incurring the charge on a daily basis.  

But I wonder how many people we’ll get themselves into financial difficulties in not being able to meet their PCP commitment? 

Grumpy_chap

baser999 said:

But I wonder how many people we’ll get themselves into financial difficulties in not being able to meet their PCP commitment? 

I don't think the Mayor actually cares about that.

The Mayor regularly goes on BBC News to bleat at the Government for not doing enough to support people through the cost of living crisis.
In the "consultation" about extending ULEZ to outer London, there is reference to the timing of the change and the challenge to impose costs on individuals during cost of living crisis plus shortage of available new / used car stock.  That whole thing is brushed aside as inconsequential.

CoastingHatbox

It's thought 9% of premature deaths in London are caused by air pollution. That, I would say, is not inconsequential.

ULEZ might not be the ideal solution, but it is a solution. Does the charge have to be so exorbitant? Not sure.

I have to drive into the existing ULEZ on occasion (once a month on average) and it's certainly a factor.

Grumpy_chap

CoastingHatbox said:

It's thought 9% of premature deaths in London are caused by air pollution. 

If London is so polluted as to be causing premature deaths, the rest of the country is not doing as well. 
According to this data, London is the second-longest life-expectancy for UK regions, slightly bettered by the South East but in equal second place with South West:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandlifeexpectancies/bulletins/lifeexpectancyforlocalareasoftheuk/between2001to2003and2018to2020#constituent-country-and-englands-regions-comparisons


The Mayor also bleats on about high levels of deprivation in London.

I don't condone any cause of premature deaths, but how many premature deaths are there in London?  
What does 9% of that number equate to?
How is the link to these premature deaths arising from air pollution established?  
Why do all those rural areas with "clean fresh country air" have lower life expectancy?