Pay per mile

400ixl

WellKnownSid said:

badmemory said:

Adding it to fuel would not solve the problem of EVs on the whole causing more damage to roads than normal personal vehicles.

This is a new one on me... please explain?

EV's are typically heavier than their fossil fuelled counterparts. Therefore they cause more damage to the road surface.

Putting a tax on fuel which EV's don't use means you will still not be taxing the cars which cause the most damage to the infrastructure, just those which cause more air pollution.

born_again

400ixl said:

WellKnownSid said:

badmemory said:

Adding it to fuel would not solve the problem of EVs on the whole causing more damage to roads than normal personal vehicles.

This is a new one on me... please explain?

EV's are typically heavier than their fossil fuelled counterparts. Therefore they cause more damage to the road surface.

Putting a tax on fuel which EV's don't use means you will still not be taxing the cars which cause the most damage to the infrastructure, just those which cause more air pollution.

like for like, Niro EV is 140KG heaver than the PHEV, no figure for HEV on Kia site.
So a couple of passenger's difference.

Many petrol/diesel are far heavier 🤷‍♀️ VED by weight?

People seem to have forgotten EV will pay the same VED as other cars from next April.

Tax electric, Mmm One way to lose any support the Government has 🤣

Road pricing has been doing the rounds for decades. To have a true & fair system will cost billions & require a new computer system to charge people. We all know how well government IT projects do in terms of being on time & on budget 🤣
As to be fair requires ANPR camera's to be fitted through out the country as there is no other way to do it. Black boxes can be defeated. Cloning will become a major issue. 

user1977

400ixl said:

WellKnownSid said:

badmemory said:

Adding it to fuel would not solve the problem of EVs on the whole causing more damage to roads than normal personal vehicles.

This is a new one on me... please explain?

EV's are typically heavier than their fossil fuelled counterparts. Therefore they cause more damage to the road surface.

Putting a tax on fuel which EV's don't use means you will still not be taxing the cars which cause the most damage to the infrastructure, just those which cause more air pollution.

Trivial compared to the difference with e.g. HGVs though. And besides, that's not the purpose of the tax. It's just a tax, not a road-mending surcharge.

400ixl

It didn't make the initial comment, someone just asked for an explanation of why someone made the comment which I gave.

I gave no opinion on whether it was the right or wrong thing to do, or the taxation now or the future. Other than putting a tax on fuel will not change what an EV vehicle owner pays.

400ixl

user1977 said:

Trivial compared to the difference with e.g. HGVs though. And besides, that's not the purpose of the tax. It's just a tax, not a road-mending surcharge.

Indeed, and hence why they are charged a lot more tax.

It is true that it is a tax which is not dedicated to repairing roads. But that is not the topic of the thread. It is about what vehicle owners are charged what tax, not how that tax is spent.

Car_54

WellKnownSid said:

badmemory said:

Adding it to fuel would not solve the problem of EVs on the whole causing more damage to roads than normal personal vehicles.

This is a new one on me... please explain?

EVs are generally heavier than the equivalent ICE car, and so cause considerably more damage to the roads.

However, it is still as nothing compared to goods vehicles and buses.

LightFlare

A typical medium/large SUV weighs quite a bit as well and loads of them around.

I Would guess that any “pay per mile” would be introduced via ANPR on motorways first and foremost but who knows.

That would have some effect of driving vehicles onto our already congested A and B roads though.

The miles at MOT seems a “reasonable” option, which yes, it won’t cover 100% but probably enough to make it workable (be interesting to know what % don’t have an MOT) They might have to make it from year 1 and not 3 though

400ixl

LightFlare said:

The miles at MOT seems a “reasonable” option, which yes, it won’t cover 100% but probably enough to make it workable (be interesting to know what % don’t have an MOT) They might have to make it from year 1 and not 3 though

Not really, just implement an annual mileage reading at an MOT station, doesn't need to be a full MOT. There is more consideration being given to extending the 3 years to 4 or more that shortening it, which is a whole other topic.

Car_54

400ixl said:

LightFlare said:

The miles at MOT seems a “reasonable” option, which yes, it won’t cover 100% but probably enough to make it workable (be interesting to know what % don’t have an MOT) They might have to make it from year 1 and not 3 though

Not really, just implement an annual mileage reading at an MOT station, doesn't need to be a full MOT. There is more consideration being given to extending the 3 years to 4 or more that shortening it, which is a whole other topic.

That was a consultation which concluded "no change" a couple of years ago.

Goudy

From what I have read about various schemes put forward by certain pro road pricing groups, the "vanilla" scheme might be the favoured step into pay per mile.
To start with at least as there are many difficulties with other schemes at the moment.

This is a tax payable on cars average mileage, but tiered depending on what vehicle and emissions class it is.

This would mean you would pay a tiered mileage rate time based on emissions, times the average mileage for private cars or average mileage for commercial vans or average mileage for HGV's and so on.

There are certain, yet to be resolved problems with some other schemes.
MOT mileage does seem like a good idea, but there's a massive headache for everyone involved if you sell/buy a car before the MOT is due.
This is going to require owners to officially verify mileages on the day of sale or pass the tax burden on to the next owner. 

Electronic tagging has some privacy issues that don't fit in with our laws as they currently stand.

ANPR tracking would require a massive infrastructure put in place, the system would have to track you door to door, which again has some privacy issues.

These schemes also have issues with who is driving when and who is responsible for the tax, so it would appear a system that charges the registered keeper would be the starting point as it's something we're all familiar with.

Once that is up and running, then it would be a matter of working out how to track the mileages more accurately which can come at a later date.

By then we'd be already used to the mileage scheme and technology will have chance to catch up with the accurate tracking.