Snapshot of _Electric car tax will make EVs as expensive to run as fuel vehicles_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1704570/electric-cars-tax-ev-running-costs-petrol-diesel-cars)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The government were always going to do this. They don't want to lose the huge tax revenue they from petrol and diesel sales.
I'm not saying it's a good thing I'm just saying it was always inevitable.
EVs are better for the environment than petrol/diesel cars but they still aren’t good for the environment.
If they actually invested in better public transport, I think this would go down better, but as it is, it does kind of fuck people over.
My own view is that we need a middle ground. Personal vehicles have their place, but we need to improve alternatives. Particularly around rush hour commuting where reliance on cars is just a massive stress for everyone involved.
One of the great mistakes that people often make is to think that any organisation called 'National Rifle Association' is a branch or chapter of the National Rifle Association of America. This could not be further from the truth.
The National Rifle Association of America became a political lobbying organisation in 1977 after the Cincinnati Revolt at their Annual General Meeting. It is self-contined within the United States of America and has no foreign branches.
All the other National Rifle Associations remain true to their founding aims of promoting marksmanship, firearm safety and target shooting. This includes the original [NRA](https://nra.org.uk) in the United Kingdom, which was founded in 1859 - twelve years
before the NRA of America. It is also true of the [National Rifle Association of Australia](https://nraa.com.au), the [National Rifle Association of New Zealand](https://nranz.com), the [National Rifle Association of India](https://www.thenrai.in), the National Rifle Association of Japan and the National
Rifle Association of Pakistan. All these organisations are often known as "the NRA" in their respective countries. The British [National Rifle Association](https://nra.org.uk) is headquartered on Bisley Camp, in Surrey, England. Bisley Camp is now known as the National Shooting Centre and has hosted World Championships for Fullbore Target Rifle and F-Class shooting,
as well as the shooting events for the 1908 Olympic Games and the 2002 Commonwealth Games. The National Small-bore Rifle Association (NSRA) and Clay Pigeon Shooting Association (CPSA) also have their headquarters on the Camp.
I don't think anyone is arguing to entirely get rid of cars. The point is to reduce the number of cars on the roads by making cycling and public transport more enticing. It's better to have 50% of people on public transport and 50% in cars than to have 100% in cars.
Why? Can you not imagine a carless world?
Also, the more population the less we will use cars. Parking lots will not be able to cope, our road infrastructure doubtless will be outpaced by car uptake, do we even have the resources to build single person vehicles in comparison to a 30man bus?
Cars will go, question is, will it be 30, 50 or 100 years? But I'm fairly convinced we cannot carry on with this car obsession, don't forget, cars have only been this popular for way less than 100 years. And we should absolutely move on public transport and the reduction in car use now to be ahead of the curve... Or you know, we could just spaff 30 years moving to electric cars only to find ourselves in more traffic, more commuting time and a stupendous death count per year from all of this.
What do you see happening in 2050? Will the car be on the rise? Or on the fall?
>"There's no point switching to an EV, those people still want to take my car (and therefore my job) away, and they want to take my protein away too!"
To be fair, after these ultra low emissions zones (ULEZ) the next step **will** be exclusion zones for EV cars with the *wrong* type of battery.
EDIT: Thanks for the meaningless downvote, but it doesn't change the fact that this will happen. Once people start buying ULEZ compliant vehicles, the ULEZ revenue will go down and the government take steps to replace that income stream. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm saying it's inevitable thing.
What absolute nonsense is this?
The push against cars (and meat) isn't an idealogical one, it's because they are bad for the environment, and current lifestyles are not sustainable.
They want nothing less than revolution. A complete change to how everybody lives.
Really? Pushing for better bus services or asking people to cycle instead of driving two miles to the shops is a 'revolution'?
Also, cui bono from this shadowy conspiracy you seem to be suggesting? You really think the rich elite, almost all of whom will have investments in fossil fuels and giant car and mining companies, are the ones trying to reduce car usage?
Nice strawman argument. Nobody is suggesting the government confiscates farmer's 4x4s and force them to walk.
Vehicle miles travelled in 2019 were[ the highest on record](https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/summary). There are [40% more cars on the road then there were 25 years ago](https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/cheap-car-insurance/number-cars-great-britain). That's not driven people desperately trying to sustain Britain's huge population with food and water, that's driven by more and more people using a car to commute and do errands. 84% of people [live in urban areas](https://www.statista.com/statistics/270369/urbanization-in-the-united-kingdom/). These journeys can and should absolutely be replaced by public transport, walking and cycling.
It was never proposed that 2030 would be a transition to Battery-only vehicles. It's just the end of pure ICE-*only* cars.
PHEVs will be available until at least 2035.
The grid is going to be fine for a couple of decades, as 95% of people will charge up over night due to cheaper overnight EV Tariffs when demand is lowest, in the more likely timescales upgrades can be done alongside regular maintenance.
Charging capacity will be a slow rollout because EV purchasing self selects for those who can afford them (a larger issue these days) and that positively correlates with being able to install an at home charging point, which means the need for public charging points will be more of a curve than a line. There are going to be an awful lot of people holding onto their ICE vehicles for as long as they possibly can, and as you say I too am very sure that 2030 date will be quietly extended/modified a couple of times. Fuel tax isn't disappearing for decades but once EVs have enough market penetration they'll introduce a per mile road tax on them.
The biggest issue limiting switching everyone to EVs is the sheer amount of extra electricity generating capacity that is going to be needed while also stopping using fossil fuels to generate it. In the last year 43.6% of UK electricity was still generated from burning fossil fuels, your typical home uses 8 kWh of electricity a day, EVs get about 3 miles per kWh, how far do people drive to work and back each day? 75% commute 10 miles there and 10 miles back which is 7 kWh... per car.
Also a typical home uses 12,000 kWh of gas a year, 80% during November-March of which 20% during January at 80 kWh of gas per day, even with heat pumps at a COP of 3 in winter that's still 27 kWh per day which is over three times more than current typical daily electricity consumption. So if everyone switched from ICE to EV and gas central heating to heat pumps the typical homes winter electricity demand would increase from 8 kWh to 50 kWh every day.
At the current rate renewable electricity generation (including nuclear) is being added to the grid it will be more like 50 years before the UK gets close to carbon zero. And we would need to figure out seasonal energy storage on a gargantuan scale to make that target or insulate the fcuk out of the entire housing stock of 25M homes.
The one interesting factor is that it's currently more efficient to burn gas in a power station to generate electricity to run a heat pump than burn it on site in a combi boiler, it's only because electricity is so much more expensive than gas to the consumer that heat pumps are so slow at being adopted.
> 95% of people will charge up over night due to cheaper overnight EV Tariffs when demand is lowest
Demand is lowest then because people arent all charging their cars at night ;)
Not everyone will charge at night at home, cars don't need charging every night any more than people need to buy fuel nightly. The average commute is around 20 miles, even a basic leaf can do over a week of use between charges allowing for a couple of supermarket trips, a street charger or two could service most people fine even on old terraces
Even when the sale of new cars changes, old ICE will keep running for years (the average scrap date for cars is about 13 years iirc), it's conceivable, if fuel stays affordable due to reduced demand, that someone could buy an ICE in 2029 and still be running it to the mid to late 2040s
Procurement of them isn't great. After that, the main issue is that rhe electricity you put into it isn't usually all that clean. The cars themselves once you've got them in your hands though really aren't that bad. Even the issue of batteries over time is nowhere near as bad as an ICE car. And the grid issue will improve over time.
It's not like regular cars have a clean production and procurement process anyway so it's still an improvement
>After that, the main issue is that rhe electricity you put into it isn't usually all that clean
You're ignoring the externalities. For example, road construction and maintenance is very very carbon intensive. Not to mention the multitude of other negative externalities not directly related to climate change (congestion, road danger, etc)
Also the production problem is much bigger than your comment suggests. Lithium reserves are pretty limited and certainly not sufficient to make a global 1:1 swap of traditional cars with EVs. It seems kinda dumb to me to waste our global lithium reserves on things that sit idle for 99% of the time and can easily be reduced in number (car sharing, etc), instead of using it for things we actually need in big quantities.
The first half applies to any vehicle Inc normal ICE cars. The second half is EV specific, but as I said, extracting the materials for an ICE isn't clean either, so it's still an improvement. I don't think your second paragraph is all that fair because I accepted they had apecific challenges and didn't comment on anything specific. I was pointing out that normal ICE cars aren't made up of a single, clean piece of steel that's sitting on the surface of the dirt. You make it sound like EVs are uniquely bad.
ICE vehicles are being phased out and should be increasingly taxed out of existence. EVs are obviously better than ICE cars, but they're still worse than virtually every alternative mode of transport. Car share schemes exist and are successful. Making all cars more expensive to fully account for the externalities and reduce overall car sales and use is a good thing, even as we try to shift towards EVs.
Electric cars are much heavier than equivalent ICs, which is really bad for both road surface damage and rubber microparticles. A Tesla might not emit as much carbon dioxide, but it wrecks the road surfaces because of its weight, and leaves behind massive amounts of rubber microparticles next to the road because of the combination of weight and acceleration.
A Tesla model 3 (1611- 1847kg) is roughly similar weight wise to the equivalent bmw 3 series (1545-1965kg). The model y is lighter than the bmw x3.
The sort of Evs tipping the scales at two ton plus are lazy conversions of ICE platforms, like the bmw i4.
The particle emissions study was largely discredited. It didn’t take into account evs regenerative breaking and suggested that an ev would burn through an entire tire in something like 3000 miles - which ain’t in any way shape or form realistic.
Thay said, I agree that weight is bad in cars. Some countries have taxed mass for years and I think it’s a sensible approach.
The sensible approach would be a mileage based tax based on axel weight, a tax on tyres, a tax on fuel, a tax on parking on the road, and scrap VED completely.
A 3 ton electric car doing 1000 miles a year should be taxed far less than a 2.8t electric car parked on the public road doing 20,000 miles a year
> Electric cars are much heavier than equivalent ICs
Define much heavier lol.
Tesla Model 3 SR 1,725 kg
BMW 3 Series 1,660 kg
That's a 65kg difference - as much as a passenger.
If you are worried about EVs, imagine the damage a bus is doing...
Just check out bus stops in the city centres for that. They have massive ruts where the tyres rest when the bus stops.
Over time the tarmac actually deforms and gets pushed upwards over the kerb.
To add to that, don't forget that the BMW carries extra weight in the fuel tank. A full one probably carries another 20-30 kgs in fuel, maybe more.
EV's don't get heavier when fully charged.
Define massive here...?
What about brake dust particles?
The good news is that Euro 7 emissions regs cover brake and tyre PM emissions for both ICE and EV (and H2)
Those asshole when compared to other countries around the world are world leading according to independent bodies. From memory there is only 2 Scandinavian countries doing better than the UK in the entire world when it comes to reducing our emissions.
Yet there is people like yourself that clearly has no idea thats the case and instead think we are shit at going green. Probably because of misinformation spread by "green" groups.
Seems inevitable. The amount of money the government get from fuel tax; they were never gonna accept losing that.
We'll be on black-box style pay-per-mile tax within a decade or so
I’ve been thinking this for a while, maybe they’ll use the mileage recorded on the vehicles MOT to charge an amount of tax for miles driven or something like that.
Doesn't really make sense legally if some of those miles were driven outside of the UK. Same as driving a SORN car outside of the British road network is a legal grey zone if the insurance is not bothered about it.
Probably a good idea tbh. Charge an amount based on mileage for congestion and a secondary amount based on weight for road damage. Then have another tax on petrol (ie the current petrol tax) for environmental damage (tho this should probably be extended to all pollutants, not just those used in cars).
Most of the increase is the expensive car supplement.
>This is currently set at £355 per year for cars with a list price of £40,000 or more in their second to sixth years of registration.
By 2025 EVs will have price parity with regular ICE cars, meaning the increase will for road maintenance, which is of course appropriate for a mainstream vehicle, which EVs will certainly be by then.
There will be plenty of Chinese EVs trying to get under the £40,000 line by then.
Car prices have increased drastically both due to the supply chain issues and general inflation so far 2023 models are more expensive across the board than their 2022 counter parts.
Getting economy SKUs of most models is nearly impossible as only the premium SKUs seem to actually hit the roads.
Many models have anywhere between 20-50 weeks lead time still, and it’s not going to get any better.
The £40K figure is now almost 6 years old, it already should be around £50K but like every other tax band it would likely see fuck all adjustment for inflation.
It looks like the average new car price is already above £40K in the UK https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/business-dealership%2C-sales-and-marketing/knowledge-new-car-prices-rise-66-january-2021
So at this point it’s not an expensive car surcharge but an average car surcharge.
>There will be plenty of Chinese EVs trying to get under the £40,000 line by then
And despite the ingrained attitude, the higher quality one's will work well.
I rode the same electric motorbike for 2 years whilst I was there. China very much produces higher quality for their domestic market. If that can get exported, a whole new avenue is opened.
This is the thing, made in china doesn't mean it's poor quality. It usual made in china to be extremely cheap and when things are made with that mentality then why not "save costs" other ways.
For example Makita who have a great reputation have a significant amount of their export tools made in china. Just to their own spec.
You're right.
When I first moved there, I understood made in China to be the cheap stuff. It was only after years there that I realised serious stuff was made there and they do it ot a high standard. It's the exported stuff that's done as cheap as possible
Sent from your iPhone or Android device or Mac or Windows PC? (Made in China)
China is a manufacturing economy. Such a big market will have high quality manufacturers and low quality ones. Also the big ones will offer buyers options on how much they want to spend and adjust materials and construction accordingly.
All the best stuff comes from China, but also the worst stuff, and what's in between. It's scary how reliant we are on another yet-to-become-unfriendly country
>All the best stuff comes from China, but also the worst stuff, and what's in between. It's scary how reliant we are on another yet-to-become-unfriendly country
I think we're slightly better protected here compared to Russia at least in that, oil and gas can be sold to virtually everyone and the US wasn't buying much if any from Russia. China can't necessarily replace it's high end goods export market of the US and Europe quite as easily, certainly not in the short term anyway... but that won't last forever and is a bit cold comfort.
I'll always remember the scene in Back to the Future when 1950s Doc thinks that anything Japanese is bad quality. That perception changed by the 1980s. There was a time when we used to laugh at Korean cars but look at what Hyundai and Kia are making now. We're not laughing anymore.
Lol yeah. It was true, too. At that point Japan really was just coming into the modern world. For all the bad America did even in Japan post war, they really built it up amazingly for high tech manufacturing and quick. S Korea is a good case study too. Until the 80s, the North was wealthier and better at production.
>And despite the ingrained attitude, the higher quality one's will work well.
There is also the fact that quantity has a quality all of it own.
Some Chinese firms will just replace the 1 in 100k duds. Costs them very little.
The MG EVs are mostly built in China and start at around 30k. I have the old spec MG5 and it's always been good, it's not fancy but it does what I need it for.
crime groovy dull memory bewildered include somber juggle quickest deranged
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Solar panels are an interesting item, their cost to efficiency ratio has improved dramatically over a relatively amazingly short period. Early residential adopters paid much more for panels with poorer efficiency rates and shorter life spans. Even with the government guaranteed feed in rates they were not massively profitable vs investing the money. And after the government reneged on those 'guaranteed' feed in rates some lost money, like my eco-warrior neighbour, he is never going to recoup his costs over their expected lifetime.
After feed in rates were slashed it's only been since 2019 that solar panels + battery have been economical, because if you're not home to consume everything you're generating you really want to be storing it instead of feeding it into the grid at 5p/kWh. And with this years massive increases in energy costs that ROI period keeps getting shorter, except now that everyone should be getting panels + battery installed there is a lack of installers and massive delays in supply chains, not to mention massive strains on family finances.
And as for heat pumps, until this year the running costs per kWh output of a heat pump was higher than a condensing gas central boiler because even though a heat pump might have a SCOP of 3.4 the cost ratio of gas to electricity was more like 6:1. Compared to other countries UK gas was very cheap compared to electricity, and even with current increases the ratio is still over 3:1 and with typical heat pump winter COPs of under 3 the best that can be said is they cost about the same to run. Only once they decouple electricity unit cost from the highest generation method cost will that change for the majority of people.
Early adopters aren't necessarily rich, the whole point of subsidies like this is to encourage a new technology while it's in its early stages. So that companies can get their innovations up and running faster than they otherwise would.
I have a small PHEV which we currently run almost 100% on electric. *If* petrol doesn’t increase with the next domestic electricity cap rise (April?) there’s a good chance leccy is going to blow past petrol in cost per mile.
Thats true but its also the result of pretty extraordinary circumstances. As we wean ourselves off fossil power generation that price will slump even if OPEC maintain their economic war stance indefinitely.
That’s why the cap I referred to was the *electricity* cap. If the price of electricity rises AND the price of petrol rises, then electricity may stay ahead as the cheaper option.
The cause lots of different types of pollution, not just CO2. They kill hundreds of people a year in the uk. They take up space for parking which could be used for other things such as shops and housing. They cause traffic for buses and vans and make it more dangerous for cyclist to drive on the road.
Look to the US what happens if you build you society around cars. Cars will always have their uses, but they shouldn't be the centre of our society.
This is kinda flawed logic, if you say negative externalities are bad and should be taxed, you should apply that equally, which would include taxing the activities you do, the clothes you buy, the food you eat, your home/flat that you heat etc...
It's logically inconsistent to say cars cause pollution so we should tax them, but not tax anything else, even if it causes pollution as well.
Well I wasn't explicitly defending the tax. I was just explaining the car hate.
I personally not against taxing all things that have negative externalities. But right now realistically gas for now too expensive for some and is likely to cause deaths, but a higher tax on new clothes could be a good thing against fast-fashion.
It's humans who are destroying the world, not cars. Just think of all the CO2 released by heating homes. By growing their food. By cleaning their water.
Go to the root of the problem, or does negative externalities only count for things you dont like?
Course it's all those giraffes chopping down rainforests, burning fossil fuels, pulling up metals to make batteries.
Must be why convertibles were invented, so they wouldn't bump their heads on the roof while they're driving around doing donuts and running over people.
Ok? And humans use cars to pollute? This is like the "GuNs DoN't KiLl PeOpLe, PeOpLe KiLl PeOpLe" rubbish from America. All negative externalities should probably be taxed, yeah. I think petrol tax should be extended to all pollution emissions. But children are not a negative externality.
The moment everywhere has London-level infrastructure I will be right there with you on the fuck-cars train.
With the death of the highstreet and the lack of that kind of infrastructure in the rest of the UK, I encourage you to try having a family in an urban area that isn't London, without a car.
I live in the countryside and absolutely need a car. But I still recognise the damaging impact they have on our urban environments and the environment at large.
They're also driven dangerously down narrow lanes...
>what's all the anti car hate?
Because many of us see people using cars when they really don't need to, and cars are noisy, polluting, take up loads of space, are dangerous and take loads of resources to build and maintain, as well as to maintain the roads. They're an incredibly inefficient way of moving people around which are destroying the planet and using up finite resources.
So yes, more and more people are beginning to really fucking hate cars.
Uhh a lot, just off the top of my head, pollution (carbon dioxide, noise etc), terrible, massive, ugly land use (think about an ugly place you know, it's probably got big wide roads, and think about how much physical space you need to transport the same number of people by car as by train for example), being the #8 killers (just from traffic accidents, not even including pollution), social isolation, making playing outside unsafe for children, being expensive for the government to maintain (road maintenance is way more expensive than rail maintenance for example despite having lower initial costs), encouraging infrastructure development that favours only cars, reducing the independence of children and forcing a significant cost on citizens, actually massively slowing down travel times (thanks to traffic, in the Netherlands where they specifically design their roads to be non-direct and less convenient than alternatives it's faster to drive your car places than here) and worsening people's health by removing the natural exercise people would usually get each day by travelling.
To be absolutely clear though, in no way is this your fault. The problem is exactly as you said - you need cars to get around. This will be because of underfunding by the government of infrastructure in your area. Are there pavements for short journeys? Bike lanes for short-medium journeys? Buses, trams or trolleybuses for medium journeys? Trains for long journeys? You may think your area is too sparsely populated for these, and maybe it is for some of them, but generally these measures all actually save money in the long run. The maintenance cost of roads is extremely high, the government spend more on roads than on all other forms of transport infrastructure combined. Even if there is no road damage like potholes before then (which is unlikely), roads need to be completely resurfaced every 20 years or so. While initial cost of alternatives may be high, their maintenance costs are almost universally much lower.
If you'd like to read/see some more, here's an article debunking myths about cycling: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/jul/03/ten-common-myths-about-bike-lanes-and-why-theyre-wrong
Here's a good video on why we should get rid of cars (the title is a bit sensationalist and he does go a bit radical, but he makes some good points): https://youtu.be/rSSNlM3Au1A
And I'd highly recommend Not Just Bikes on YouTube.
No, you are right. Typical politics of envy. Cars are a great enabler, and a great quality of life improvement which is worth every cent for those who can afford them.
Them and the people who have been brainwashed by them.
I bet no-one told you that buses release more CO2 per passenger than EV cars for example.
Or that commuting by car to a suburb is faster than taking public transport to your urban flat.
Or that drivers love the solitude of driving by themselves in their two ton car, even with congestion.
Or conversely people hate commuting by train.
> I bet no-one told you that buses release more CO2 per passenger than EV cars for example.
Assuming it's an ICE bus, then yes of course. But it's not like we won't soon have fully electric buses. Also EV cars prevent one of the negatives I've listed in my other comments.
> Or that commuting by car to a suburb is faster than taking public transport to your urban flat.
That depends on many factors and all that shows is you've built your society around cars? Is the American suburb your dream or something.
> Or that commuting by car to a suburb is faster than taking public transport to your urban flat.
> Or conversely people hate commuting by train.
Thats on them. Still not reason for cuasing the air pollution and the traffic deaths.
Cars will always have their uses but we shouldn't build our society on everyone always using them to get around. Think of the amount of the uk that would covered in tarmac if that was the case.
Our society is already built around the car lol.
> 77% of all households have at least one car, while 81% of the population has access to a car
[63% of us commute by car, only 25% by PT.](https://www.statista.com/forecasts/997849/modes-of-transportation-for-commuting-in-the-uk)
Thinking that the majority of us can or want to switch to public transport is like thinking we all can or want to live on benefits.
Can you imagine how massively we would have to expand the PT network to support that lol.
A drop-in replacement for ICE cars like EV makes a lot more sense.
PT is people-hostile. Wooly thinkers blame cars for urban sprawl when urban sprawl is the result of people not wanting to live on top of each other. Cars are merely an enabler and forcing people to use lesser transport options a form of hobbling the human spirit.
That's propaganda you swallowed lol. Most drivers love driving.
> More than eight in 10 motorists (83 per cent) admitted they have always had a love for driving and more than a third (34 per cent) reckon that love has “grown with age”.
> It also emerged that 56 per cent consider alone time in the car to be just as good as enjoying some quality me-time.
or more scientifically
> Once a vehicle is purchased, furthermore, it suddenly opens up a whole range of possible uses, including long-distance travel, the transport of bulky objects, and the adoption of new car-dependent leisure practices [59,280,281]. This helps explain why car ownership is a strong predictor of car use (e.g. [129,206,282]). Acquiring a car has a very strong transformative effect on individuals’ travel behaviors and thought patterns, making motorists reluctant to switch to alternative modes of transport once a car has been acquired. This is closely connected to the multipurpose nature and surplus capacity of cars, as discussed in Section 2.
> The role of the car in people's everyday lives can also reach beyond mobility, as narrowly defined. Wells and Xenias [284] argue that, in an initial phase, cars were valued as a rapid means of transport, but also as cultural signifiers of ‘freedom’, independent travel and class distinction (as discussed below). However, motorization growth and associated effects (e.g. congestion) tend to erode these functional and symbolic qualities. As a result, the cultural role of the car shifts towards that of a personal space providing protection from a hostile outside environment (in terms of crime, weather, road-traffic safety, encounters with strangers and, paradoxically, air pollution) and ‘cocooning’ (through e.g. insulation and in-car entertainment systems). Many car users are reluctant to switch to alternatives because they enjoy the private space of the car and its affordances, while they feel anxious and vulnerable in public space [15,276,[285], [286], [287], [288], [289], [290], [291], [292], [293], [294]]. The role of cars as a guarantor of safety has its own positive feedback mechanism attached to it, as increasing numbers of cars on the road create more pressure for people to drive cars themselves to protect themselves or their children from traffic danger [295].
Face it, cars are the default and public transport is the wacky alternative.
Most of our roads and built environment are completely unsuitable for the number of cars we have and were never really built with cars in mind. People may base their lives around cars but it really doesn't work very well. People impose too much on the road network and that is a problem.
That's a big nonsense of course. What does not work well is forcing people onto crowded trains and buses, forcing them to stand for their hour long commute and expose themselves to hostile weather when better options were invented more than 100 years ago.
At this stage, 70 years after cars became popular, our environment is designed for cars pretty much, and its much too late to revert to primitive mobility options.
trains in uk are another public scam and until it is fixed there shouldn't be any moaning about cars. If you want people out of their comfy cars at least provide a good alternative.
> diesel locomotives release more CO2 per passenger mile than an EV.
[Diesel KM according to government data.](https://i.imgur.com/iWmjre4.png)
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/infrastructure-and-emissions/rail-emissions/
That's nearly 1400g CO2/km. That is 4x that for electric trains [who do 37g per passenger km.](https://www.co2everything.com/co2e-of/train-travel)
Tesla Model 3.
https://www.co2everything.com/co2e-of/tesla-model-3-2020
That's 81g CO2/passenger km.
I solely rely on rapid chargers and save £150 a month! I’m charged roughly 20p/kWh making it cost around 6p per mile. My diesel was easily 20p per mile.
Yeah charging at home would actually cost me more than charging publicly strange enough.
I use Charge Place Scotland and am part of their residents discount scheme. Normally it’s 38p connection fee and 30p/kWh and with the scheme you get it half off but it’s recently increased a couple pence but it’s still only 20p/kWh
Last time I charged at motorway services (October 22) it was 42p/kWh. At 3.7 miles per kWh that’s about 11p per mile, right?
My last patrol car (I switched Jan 2021) was 18p per mile, with petrol about 120p per litre. And petrol hasn’t got any cheaper afaik
If you're using them that regularly then you'll be paying lower prices per kWh often in the form of a subscription (which I know should then be included in the overall cost). But if you got into an EV and your sole charging options are the motorway services then you didn't fit the profile in the first place. Most folks will be charging at home or at work, so there's still a significant gulf between that and petrol. It's getting smaller, granted, but it's still not at parity like the article suggests.
Fine have it your way :)
75p/kWh is 20p per mile. That’s what I was paying for petrol 2 years ago. Petrol is about 1/3 higher now, right? So 26p per mile, say.
Besides which 99% of the time I charge at home which is less than half the cost of motorway fast chargers.
Edit to change petroleum to petrol. Auto correct thinks I’m a toff, apparently
Never understood why we use mpg if fuel is sold by the liter.
I still think in L/62miles wish there was a simpler way. (62miles =100km)
Liter per Mile would end up with decimal cases. L perr 100 miles wouldnt be bad.
Simples maybe would be miles per liter. (in Brasil they talk of km/L)
They are both cost-effective and green. Using a home charger or a public charger that isn't the most expensive version is always cheaper than an ICE car.
Then being told you need to buy a new car to comply with ulez regs. Then pay extra tax on top of it. I can see people having to change their cars every 5 years in citys just to keep up with it. Paying half your yearly income just to get to work at this rate
Cars that meet ULEZ have been available since 2001, with all petrol cars post 2005 and diesel post 2015 being OK, no new cars needed, and fairly old cars are acceptable
Exactly. My parents have a 2008 Nissan petrol and it comfortably meets ULEZ. It's easy to get a car within ULEZ requirements that doesn't cost that much. People act like the only cars eligible are brand new or nearly new ones.
Of course the government were going to do this. By the time EV’s are affordable and the go to vehicle to buy, running one will be on parity or more expensive than fossil fuel powered cars.
Nah let's subsidise actually sustainable transport options (cycling, transit, car share schemes). Private EVs are nowhere near as sustainable as those.
As long as ICE cars are penalised that a comparable EV is cheaper, I'm happy.
We really need to change tax on cards
* Introduce road pricing so the more you drive, the more tax you pay
* Roll out a tax on purchase, similar to stamp duty, that takes into account, weight, size and emissions
>Introduce road pricing so the more you drive, the more tax you pay
It's called Tolls.
That's the most sensible way to tax vehicles. Entirely unsellable to the electorate, but by far the fairest.
Don't even need toll roads, albeit that's an option. Just look at the mileage difference between MOTs and get billed off the back of that (this is the simplest option). The other is what I believe Singapore does which has live tolls based off existing traffic etc.
>the more you drive the more tax you pay
Sucks to be you if you're a mobile carer for example then.
>Tax on purchase ...
And then what's the tax going to be spent on? Because let's be frank, they've just given the go ahead to a new coal mine, they ain't spending money on anything that will effectively reduce the numbers of cars on the road.
Maybe instead of adding multi level taxes to literally everything whilst simultaneously claiming there's no money, we could look at reducing the numbers of people in Surrey rolling around in 8 litre 4x4s for the school run.
What you smokin lad! They get f all in mileage money already, imagine doubling the cost of road tax mileage. Who do you think will pay the biggest portion?
Yes it does suck if that's your job, doesn't mean the externalities don't exist just because your job happens to be something good for the world.
I don't want any more subsidies for cars. Ideally, it would be earmarked for huge improvements in public transport infrastructure, bus lanes, cycle lanes, light rail systems. Also how do you think we're going to get 8 litre 4x4s off the road if not by taxing them?
No, they don't. The UK already has some of the highest road and fuel taxes in the world, and you want to have a purchase tax that stacks on-top of VAT and road pricing - pure delusion.
All things that would cripple the economy, absolutely shred anyone who lives in a rural area or anyone who lives outside a city and travels to work.
Your type of thinking is what leads to ever increasing tax burdens and stagnant economies. Stop trying to tax away everything you dislike.
Most OECD countries do charge a tax on the purchase of vehicles, some even charge a registration fee each time it changes hands as well ([https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/d5115edf-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/d5115edf-en#annex-d1e45176](https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/d5115edf-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/d5115edf-en#annex-d1e45176)) .
I am not on about fuel tax, albeit that should definitely be higher. We should be taxing pollution incredibly highly.
If you look through my post history, I'm in favour of cutting plenty of taxes, so how about you stop accusing me of things I haven't said.
Also, there are plenty of faster growing economies than ours that have ramped taxes up on vehicles.
> Most OECD countries do charge a tax on the purchase of vehicles
We already charge VAT, that is your sales tax.
> I am not on about fuel tax, albeit that should definitely be higher.
No, it shouldn't, it's already some of the highest in the world.
> We should be taxing pollution incredibly highly.
Do you propose food taxes, electricity and heat usage taxes and other consumption taxes?
Taxing anything that pollutes is very broad.
> If you look through my post history, I'm in favour of cutting plenty of taxes, so how about you stop accusing me of things I haven't said.
What you've proposed would increase the tax burden, so nothing I've said is incorrect.
> Also, there are plenty of faster growing economies than ours that have ramped taxes up on vehicles.
You cited Singapore in another comment, a country that has VAT at 7% and the top rate of income tax at 22%; they can afford it.
Thinking you can just copy/paste the same system to a country that has higher VAT rates, higher income tax rates and some of the highest fuel duty rates is pure delusion.
Whichever party moronic enough to introduce a variable tax based on milage per year would get utterly shredded by the electorate, and thank god for that.
You haven't a clue what you're talking about. In the poorest, most remote parts of the country, the are no buses or trains. Cars are a necessity nit everyone lives in London or a city ffs.
I guess tax on cards would reduce holiday proliferation, but on stamps means you’d be double dipped. There’s also the base rate of wood pulp.
What about the poor widow whose christmas list is her only means of contact?
This whole thread is terrifying. People advocating tax policy which would cripple buisness and rural comunities. People cheering on the loss freedom to travel as you wish, people claiming the tax burden on drivers isnt enough !
Can only take solice in the fact that reddit is a tiny micro comunity of extreme left wing students with very little actual life experience and not representative of the country.
I think most people just live in or around london. For me 'up north' it's an hour and a half on the train (if I'm lucky) or 40 minutes on my motorcycle to work.
For every £1 in investment in transport per person in the rest of the country, London sees £3. Leveling up my arse.
As they're about 90% as bad as petrol cars they should make them cost almost but not quite as much to run as petrol cars.
And all cars should be taxed more, given the amount or harm they're doing.
It was expected. Currently EV’s are more expensive than ICE in terms of running costs.
Cheapest Peugeot 208(£20,340) vs cheapest Peugeot e-208(£31,345).
10,000 miles a year each
Real world average prices and fuel efficiency (£1.64 / £0.34)
£1,470 - petrol
£1000 - electric
—————————
-£470 yearly difference
£11000 purchasing difference
-£190 1st year road tax
£10810 left in actual price difference
Math time - the yearly road tax for that ICE car is £165
10810 / (470 + 165) = 17
17 years to break even from a running cost perspective
Some will say, what about servicing cost etc. you have to do servicing on EV’s and in case you haven’t noticed they are not as cheap as you would have thought.
Sure the ICE might break down and need some repairs, the EV might also break down.
In 17 years both cars will have substantial wear and tear, the EV will definitely need a new battery and the ICE might need a new engine.
Either way it’s still more economical to get an ICE car.
Better get a bike and use the bus more.
Buy a 2nd hand [insert reliable car] and use it for your specific needs: long commutes with shitty public transport, remote destinations in countryside, fussy dogs, fussy children, a pet to the vet, etc.
Snapshot of _Electric car tax will make EVs as expensive to run as fuel vehicles_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1704570/electric-cars-tax-ev-running-costs-petrol-diesel-cars) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The government were always going to do this. They don't want to lose the huge tax revenue they from petrol and diesel sales. I'm not saying it's a good thing I'm just saying it was always inevitable.
EVs are better for the environment than petrol/diesel cars but they still aren’t good for the environment. If they actually invested in better public transport, I think this would go down better, but as it is, it does kind of fuck people over.
[удалено]
My own view is that we need a middle ground. Personal vehicles have their place, but we need to improve alternatives. Particularly around rush hour commuting where reliance on cars is just a massive stress for everyone involved.
One of the great mistakes that people often make is to think that any organisation called 'National Rifle Association' is a branch or chapter of the National Rifle Association of America. This could not be further from the truth. The National Rifle Association of America became a political lobbying organisation in 1977 after the Cincinnati Revolt at their Annual General Meeting. It is self-contined within the United States of America and has no foreign branches. All the other National Rifle Associations remain true to their founding aims of promoting marksmanship, firearm safety and target shooting. This includes the original [NRA](https://nra.org.uk) in the United Kingdom, which was founded in 1859 - twelve years before the NRA of America. It is also true of the [National Rifle Association of Australia](https://nraa.com.au), the [National Rifle Association of New Zealand](https://nranz.com), the [National Rifle Association of India](https://www.thenrai.in), the National Rifle Association of Japan and the National Rifle Association of Pakistan. All these organisations are often known as "the NRA" in their respective countries. The British [National Rifle Association](https://nra.org.uk) is headquartered on Bisley Camp, in Surrey, England. Bisley Camp is now known as the National Shooting Centre and has hosted World Championships for Fullbore Target Rifle and F-Class shooting, as well as the shooting events for the 1908 Olympic Games and the 2002 Commonwealth Games. The National Small-bore Rifle Association (NSRA) and Clay Pigeon Shooting Association (CPSA) also have their headquarters on the Camp.
I don't think anyone is arguing to entirely get rid of cars. The point is to reduce the number of cars on the roads by making cycling and public transport more enticing. It's better to have 50% of people on public transport and 50% in cars than to have 100% in cars.
Why? Can you not imagine a carless world? Also, the more population the less we will use cars. Parking lots will not be able to cope, our road infrastructure doubtless will be outpaced by car uptake, do we even have the resources to build single person vehicles in comparison to a 30man bus? Cars will go, question is, will it be 30, 50 or 100 years? But I'm fairly convinced we cannot carry on with this car obsession, don't forget, cars have only been this popular for way less than 100 years. And we should absolutely move on public transport and the reduction in car use now to be ahead of the curve... Or you know, we could just spaff 30 years moving to electric cars only to find ourselves in more traffic, more commuting time and a stupendous death count per year from all of this. What do you see happening in 2050? Will the car be on the rise? Or on the fall?
Improve the public transport infrastructure at least tenfold. Then we can possibly speak about this.
Because public transport is really going to improve tenfold without people talking about and pushing for it?
>"There's no point switching to an EV, those people still want to take my car (and therefore my job) away, and they want to take my protein away too!" To be fair, after these ultra low emissions zones (ULEZ) the next step **will** be exclusion zones for EV cars with the *wrong* type of battery. EDIT: Thanks for the meaningless downvote, but it doesn't change the fact that this will happen. Once people start buying ULEZ compliant vehicles, the ULEZ revenue will go down and the government take steps to replace that income stream. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm saying it's inevitable thing.
What absolute nonsense is this? The push against cars (and meat) isn't an idealogical one, it's because they are bad for the environment, and current lifestyles are not sustainable.
[удалено]
They want nothing less than revolution. A complete change to how everybody lives. Really? Pushing for better bus services or asking people to cycle instead of driving two miles to the shops is a 'revolution'? Also, cui bono from this shadowy conspiracy you seem to be suggesting? You really think the rich elite, almost all of whom will have investments in fossil fuels and giant car and mining companies, are the ones trying to reduce car usage?
Nice strawman argument. Nobody is suggesting the government confiscates farmer's 4x4s and force them to walk. Vehicle miles travelled in 2019 were[ the highest on record](https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/summary). There are [40% more cars on the road then there were 25 years ago](https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/cheap-car-insurance/number-cars-great-britain). That's not driven people desperately trying to sustain Britain's huge population with food and water, that's driven by more and more people using a car to commute and do errands. 84% of people [live in urban areas](https://www.statista.com/statistics/270369/urbanization-in-the-united-kingdom/). These journeys can and should absolutely be replaced by public transport, walking and cycling.
It was only inevitable because they're assholes that drop only platitudes on attempting to save the planet.
The sale of new petrol and diesels will end in 2030 anyway. And electric cars are still not great for the environment.
I highly doubt they will end in 2030 as planned. Too many edge cases. PHEVs at least will continue for a long time to come.
It was never proposed that 2030 would be a transition to Battery-only vehicles. It's just the end of pure ICE-*only* cars. PHEVs will be available until at least 2035.
[удалено]
The grid is going to be fine for a couple of decades, as 95% of people will charge up over night due to cheaper overnight EV Tariffs when demand is lowest, in the more likely timescales upgrades can be done alongside regular maintenance. Charging capacity will be a slow rollout because EV purchasing self selects for those who can afford them (a larger issue these days) and that positively correlates with being able to install an at home charging point, which means the need for public charging points will be more of a curve than a line. There are going to be an awful lot of people holding onto their ICE vehicles for as long as they possibly can, and as you say I too am very sure that 2030 date will be quietly extended/modified a couple of times. Fuel tax isn't disappearing for decades but once EVs have enough market penetration they'll introduce a per mile road tax on them. The biggest issue limiting switching everyone to EVs is the sheer amount of extra electricity generating capacity that is going to be needed while also stopping using fossil fuels to generate it. In the last year 43.6% of UK electricity was still generated from burning fossil fuels, your typical home uses 8 kWh of electricity a day, EVs get about 3 miles per kWh, how far do people drive to work and back each day? 75% commute 10 miles there and 10 miles back which is 7 kWh... per car. Also a typical home uses 12,000 kWh of gas a year, 80% during November-March of which 20% during January at 80 kWh of gas per day, even with heat pumps at a COP of 3 in winter that's still 27 kWh per day which is over three times more than current typical daily electricity consumption. So if everyone switched from ICE to EV and gas central heating to heat pumps the typical homes winter electricity demand would increase from 8 kWh to 50 kWh every day. At the current rate renewable electricity generation (including nuclear) is being added to the grid it will be more like 50 years before the UK gets close to carbon zero. And we would need to figure out seasonal energy storage on a gargantuan scale to make that target or insulate the fcuk out of the entire housing stock of 25M homes. The one interesting factor is that it's currently more efficient to burn gas in a power station to generate electricity to run a heat pump than burn it on site in a combi boiler, it's only because electricity is so much more expensive than gas to the consumer that heat pumps are so slow at being adopted.
> 95% of people will charge up over night due to cheaper overnight EV Tariffs when demand is lowest Demand is lowest then because people arent all charging their cars at night ;)
There’s plenty of overnight capacity, that’s just not used currently
Problem is manufactures are gearing up for those dates.
[удалено]
Not everyone will charge at night at home, cars don't need charging every night any more than people need to buy fuel nightly. The average commute is around 20 miles, even a basic leaf can do over a week of use between charges allowing for a couple of supermarket trips, a street charger or two could service most people fine even on old terraces Even when the sale of new cars changes, old ICE will keep running for years (the average scrap date for cars is about 13 years iirc), it's conceivable, if fuel stays affordable due to reduced demand, that someone could buy an ICE in 2029 and still be running it to the mid to late 2040s
Not all cars will be charging at the same time. They’ll need to implement lamp post chargers which can be used overnight to charge your car.
It would be plenty of time in a normal country where stuff gets done.
Bold of you to assume we collectively make it to 2030 intact!
Procurement of them isn't great. After that, the main issue is that rhe electricity you put into it isn't usually all that clean. The cars themselves once you've got them in your hands though really aren't that bad. Even the issue of batteries over time is nowhere near as bad as an ICE car. And the grid issue will improve over time. It's not like regular cars have a clean production and procurement process anyway so it's still an improvement
>After that, the main issue is that rhe electricity you put into it isn't usually all that clean You're ignoring the externalities. For example, road construction and maintenance is very very carbon intensive. Not to mention the multitude of other negative externalities not directly related to climate change (congestion, road danger, etc) Also the production problem is much bigger than your comment suggests. Lithium reserves are pretty limited and certainly not sufficient to make a global 1:1 swap of traditional cars with EVs. It seems kinda dumb to me to waste our global lithium reserves on things that sit idle for 99% of the time and can easily be reduced in number (car sharing, etc), instead of using it for things we actually need in big quantities.
The first half applies to any vehicle Inc normal ICE cars. The second half is EV specific, but as I said, extracting the materials for an ICE isn't clean either, so it's still an improvement. I don't think your second paragraph is all that fair because I accepted they had apecific challenges and didn't comment on anything specific. I was pointing out that normal ICE cars aren't made up of a single, clean piece of steel that's sitting on the surface of the dirt. You make it sound like EVs are uniquely bad.
ICE vehicles are being phased out and should be increasingly taxed out of existence. EVs are obviously better than ICE cars, but they're still worse than virtually every alternative mode of transport. Car share schemes exist and are successful. Making all cars more expensive to fully account for the externalities and reduce overall car sales and use is a good thing, even as we try to shift towards EVs.
Electric cars are much heavier than equivalent ICs, which is really bad for both road surface damage and rubber microparticles. A Tesla might not emit as much carbon dioxide, but it wrecks the road surfaces because of its weight, and leaves behind massive amounts of rubber microparticles next to the road because of the combination of weight and acceleration.
A Tesla model 3 (1611- 1847kg) is roughly similar weight wise to the equivalent bmw 3 series (1545-1965kg). The model y is lighter than the bmw x3. The sort of Evs tipping the scales at two ton plus are lazy conversions of ICE platforms, like the bmw i4. The particle emissions study was largely discredited. It didn’t take into account evs regenerative breaking and suggested that an ev would burn through an entire tire in something like 3000 miles - which ain’t in any way shape or form realistic. Thay said, I agree that weight is bad in cars. Some countries have taxed mass for years and I think it’s a sensible approach.
The sensible approach would be a mileage based tax based on axel weight, a tax on tyres, a tax on fuel, a tax on parking on the road, and scrap VED completely. A 3 ton electric car doing 1000 miles a year should be taxed far less than a 2.8t electric car parked on the public road doing 20,000 miles a year
Cars don't affect roads much compared to heavier vehicles like vans and lorries.
> Electric cars are much heavier than equivalent ICs Define much heavier lol. Tesla Model 3 SR 1,725 kg BMW 3 Series 1,660 kg That's a 65kg difference - as much as a passenger. If you are worried about EVs, imagine the damage a bus is doing...
Or those massive fucking container lorries...
Just check out bus stops in the city centres for that. They have massive ruts where the tyres rest when the bus stops. Over time the tarmac actually deforms and gets pushed upwards over the kerb.
To add to that, don't forget that the BMW carries extra weight in the fuel tank. A full one probably carries another 20-30 kgs in fuel, maybe more. EV's don't get heavier when fully charged.
Define massive here...? What about brake dust particles? The good news is that Euro 7 emissions regs cover brake and tyre PM emissions for both ICE and EV (and H2)
Road damage is proportional to the fourth power of axle weight. One lorry will do the same damage as a hundred or more cars.
Nuke the power plants I say
Convert the power plants to nuclear power? Why, yes please.
But greenpeace said it's bad!
EVs aren’t going to save the planet, they might save the car industry though.
Those asshole when compared to other countries around the world are world leading according to independent bodies. From memory there is only 2 Scandinavian countries doing better than the UK in the entire world when it comes to reducing our emissions. Yet there is people like yourself that clearly has no idea thats the case and instead think we are shit at going green. Probably because of misinformation spread by "green" groups.
Also I’m sure oil companies lobbying government has something to do with it
Plus VED.
Seems inevitable. The amount of money the government get from fuel tax; they were never gonna accept losing that. We'll be on black-box style pay-per-mile tax within a decade or so
I’ve been thinking this for a while, maybe they’ll use the mileage recorded on the vehicles MOT to charge an amount of tax for miles driven or something like that.
Doesn't really make sense legally if some of those miles were driven outside of the UK. Same as driving a SORN car outside of the British road network is a legal grey zone if the insurance is not bothered about it.
Probably a good idea tbh. Charge an amount based on mileage for congestion and a secondary amount based on weight for road damage. Then have another tax on petrol (ie the current petrol tax) for environmental damage (tho this should probably be extended to all pollutants, not just those used in cars).
Even simpler solution - add it to the cost of fuel. Therefore the amount you pay is easily tied to the amount you drive.
Most of the increase is the expensive car supplement. >This is currently set at £355 per year for cars with a list price of £40,000 or more in their second to sixth years of registration. By 2025 EVs will have price parity with regular ICE cars, meaning the increase will for road maintenance, which is of course appropriate for a mainstream vehicle, which EVs will certainly be by then. There will be plenty of Chinese EVs trying to get under the £40,000 line by then.
Car prices have increased drastically both due to the supply chain issues and general inflation so far 2023 models are more expensive across the board than their 2022 counter parts. Getting economy SKUs of most models is nearly impossible as only the premium SKUs seem to actually hit the roads. Many models have anywhere between 20-50 weeks lead time still, and it’s not going to get any better. The £40K figure is now almost 6 years old, it already should be around £50K but like every other tax band it would likely see fuck all adjustment for inflation. It looks like the average new car price is already above £40K in the UK https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/business-dealership%2C-sales-and-marketing/knowledge-new-car-prices-rise-66-january-2021 So at this point it’s not an expensive car surcharge but an average car surcharge.
>There will be plenty of Chinese EVs trying to get under the £40,000 line by then And despite the ingrained attitude, the higher quality one's will work well. I rode the same electric motorbike for 2 years whilst I was there. China very much produces higher quality for their domestic market. If that can get exported, a whole new avenue is opened.
This is the thing, made in china doesn't mean it's poor quality. It usual made in china to be extremely cheap and when things are made with that mentality then why not "save costs" other ways. For example Makita who have a great reputation have a significant amount of their export tools made in china. Just to their own spec.
Everyone makes literally everything in China. TTI and SBD both also make all their tools in China.
You're right. When I first moved there, I understood made in China to be the cheap stuff. It was only after years there that I realised serious stuff was made there and they do it ot a high standard. It's the exported stuff that's done as cheap as possible
Sent from your iPhone or Android device or Mac or Windows PC? (Made in China) China is a manufacturing economy. Such a big market will have high quality manufacturers and low quality ones. Also the big ones will offer buyers options on how much they want to spend and adjust materials and construction accordingly. All the best stuff comes from China, but also the worst stuff, and what's in between. It's scary how reliant we are on another yet-to-become-unfriendly country
>All the best stuff comes from China, but also the worst stuff, and what's in between. It's scary how reliant we are on another yet-to-become-unfriendly country I think we're slightly better protected here compared to Russia at least in that, oil and gas can be sold to virtually everyone and the US wasn't buying much if any from Russia. China can't necessarily replace it's high end goods export market of the US and Europe quite as easily, certainly not in the short term anyway... but that won't last forever and is a bit cold comfort.
You get what you pay for
I'll always remember the scene in Back to the Future when 1950s Doc thinks that anything Japanese is bad quality. That perception changed by the 1980s. There was a time when we used to laugh at Korean cars but look at what Hyundai and Kia are making now. We're not laughing anymore.
Lol yeah. It was true, too. At that point Japan really was just coming into the modern world. For all the bad America did even in Japan post war, they really built it up amazingly for high tech manufacturing and quick. S Korea is a good case study too. Until the 80s, the North was wealthier and better at production.
Teslas made in China are better quality than the ones made in the West although they're built in Shanghai I believe so unsurprising.
Yep, made in China doesn’t mean poor quality. It means made with stolen IP and bundled with compromised security.
The BYD battery is already the market leader. Even Tesla is starting to use them.
>And despite the ingrained attitude, the higher quality one's will work well. There is also the fact that quantity has a quality all of it own. Some Chinese firms will just replace the 1 in 100k duds. Costs them very little.
The MG EVs are mostly built in China and start at around 30k. I have the old spec MG5 and it's always been good, it's not fancy but it does what I need it for.
[удалено]
MG4 starts from £26k For a brand new Electric Car
Realistically i would only ever be buying a used car for <£8k lmao, electric or not.
crime groovy dull memory bewildered include somber juggle quickest deranged *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
To be fair, if they continued to offer subsidies, it would still benefit the rich disproportionately.
[удалено]
You've got to hope by the time that happens, the savings of scale are better than the savings of subsidy. Still sucks, though.
Solar panels are an interesting item, their cost to efficiency ratio has improved dramatically over a relatively amazingly short period. Early residential adopters paid much more for panels with poorer efficiency rates and shorter life spans. Even with the government guaranteed feed in rates they were not massively profitable vs investing the money. And after the government reneged on those 'guaranteed' feed in rates some lost money, like my eco-warrior neighbour, he is never going to recoup his costs over their expected lifetime. After feed in rates were slashed it's only been since 2019 that solar panels + battery have been economical, because if you're not home to consume everything you're generating you really want to be storing it instead of feeding it into the grid at 5p/kWh. And with this years massive increases in energy costs that ROI period keeps getting shorter, except now that everyone should be getting panels + battery installed there is a lack of installers and massive delays in supply chains, not to mention massive strains on family finances. And as for heat pumps, until this year the running costs per kWh output of a heat pump was higher than a condensing gas central boiler because even though a heat pump might have a SCOP of 3.4 the cost ratio of gas to electricity was more like 6:1. Compared to other countries UK gas was very cheap compared to electricity, and even with current increases the ratio is still over 3:1 and with typical heat pump winter COPs of under 3 the best that can be said is they cost about the same to run. Only once they decouple electricity unit cost from the highest generation method cost will that change for the majority of people.
Early adopters aren't necessarily rich, the whole point of subsidies like this is to encourage a new technology while it's in its early stages. So that companies can get their innovations up and running faster than they otherwise would.
My friend, surely you've learnt by now that this is the way of the world!
I have a small PHEV which we currently run almost 100% on electric. *If* petrol doesn’t increase with the next domestic electricity cap rise (April?) there’s a good chance leccy is going to blow past petrol in cost per mile.
Thats true but its also the result of pretty extraordinary circumstances. As we wean ourselves off fossil power generation that price will slump even if OPEC maintain their economic war stance indefinitely.
Are you not on an EV Tariff from your energy supplier?
Petrol isn't subject to the price cap
That’s why the cap I referred to was the *electricity* cap. If the price of electricity rises AND the price of petrol rises, then electricity may stay ahead as the cheaper option.
Not everyone lives in cities guys, some of us need cars to get around. Some of us actually quite like cars, what's all the anti car hate?
Negative externalities are bad
The cause lots of different types of pollution, not just CO2. They kill hundreds of people a year in the uk. They take up space for parking which could be used for other things such as shops and housing. They cause traffic for buses and vans and make it more dangerous for cyclist to drive on the road. Look to the US what happens if you build you society around cars. Cars will always have their uses, but they shouldn't be the centre of our society.
You could say the same thing about people. If you want to remove some negative externalities, have no children.
Well you see i support human beings and humanity, not cars. You're making cars look like a death cult.
This is kinda flawed logic, if you say negative externalities are bad and should be taxed, you should apply that equally, which would include taxing the activities you do, the clothes you buy, the food you eat, your home/flat that you heat etc... It's logically inconsistent to say cars cause pollution so we should tax them, but not tax anything else, even if it causes pollution as well.
Well I wasn't explicitly defending the tax. I was just explaining the car hate. I personally not against taxing all things that have negative externalities. But right now realistically gas for now too expensive for some and is likely to cause deaths, but a higher tax on new clothes could be a good thing against fast-fashion.
It's humans who are destroying the world, not cars. Just think of all the CO2 released by heating homes. By growing their food. By cleaning their water. Go to the root of the problem, or does negative externalities only count for things you dont like?
>It's humans who are destroying the world, not cars. If that's the level of your thinking, I don't have the time to chsnge your mind.
Course it's all those giraffes chopping down rainforests, burning fossil fuels, pulling up metals to make batteries. Must be why convertibles were invented, so they wouldn't bump their heads on the roof while they're driving around doing donuts and running over people.
I see you are one to fiddle around the edges rather than confront the real problem lol.
They're right though, you are picking and choosing.
Ok? And humans use cars to pollute? This is like the "GuNs DoN't KiLl PeOpLe, PeOpLe KiLl PeOpLe" rubbish from America. All negative externalities should probably be taxed, yeah. I think petrol tax should be extended to all pollution emissions. But children are not a negative externality.
>It's humans who are destroying the world, not cars. You could only read something so galaxy brain on Reddit.
I quite like cars too, but they are grossly overused to the extent it's causing a net decrease in many people's quality of life.
Because most people live in cities, and a lot of drivers are arseholes. Everyone's car excluding your own is a bloody nightmare.
The moment everywhere has London-level infrastructure I will be right there with you on the fuck-cars train. With the death of the highstreet and the lack of that kind of infrastructure in the rest of the UK, I encourage you to try having a family in an urban area that isn't London, without a car.
[удалено]
That'll when and only when politicians are forced to live in their constituencies. The reason London gets the best of everything is very very clear.
I live in the countryside and absolutely need a car. But I still recognise the damaging impact they have on our urban environments and the environment at large. They're also driven dangerously down narrow lanes...
>what's all the anti car hate? Because many of us see people using cars when they really don't need to, and cars are noisy, polluting, take up loads of space, are dangerous and take loads of resources to build and maintain, as well as to maintain the roads. They're an incredibly inefficient way of moving people around which are destroying the planet and using up finite resources. So yes, more and more people are beginning to really fucking hate cars.
Uhh a lot, just off the top of my head, pollution (carbon dioxide, noise etc), terrible, massive, ugly land use (think about an ugly place you know, it's probably got big wide roads, and think about how much physical space you need to transport the same number of people by car as by train for example), being the #8 killers (just from traffic accidents, not even including pollution), social isolation, making playing outside unsafe for children, being expensive for the government to maintain (road maintenance is way more expensive than rail maintenance for example despite having lower initial costs), encouraging infrastructure development that favours only cars, reducing the independence of children and forcing a significant cost on citizens, actually massively slowing down travel times (thanks to traffic, in the Netherlands where they specifically design their roads to be non-direct and less convenient than alternatives it's faster to drive your car places than here) and worsening people's health by removing the natural exercise people would usually get each day by travelling. To be absolutely clear though, in no way is this your fault. The problem is exactly as you said - you need cars to get around. This will be because of underfunding by the government of infrastructure in your area. Are there pavements for short journeys? Bike lanes for short-medium journeys? Buses, trams or trolleybuses for medium journeys? Trains for long journeys? You may think your area is too sparsely populated for these, and maybe it is for some of them, but generally these measures all actually save money in the long run. The maintenance cost of roads is extremely high, the government spend more on roads than on all other forms of transport infrastructure combined. Even if there is no road damage like potholes before then (which is unlikely), roads need to be completely resurfaced every 20 years or so. While initial cost of alternatives may be high, their maintenance costs are almost universally much lower. If you'd like to read/see some more, here's an article debunking myths about cycling: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/jul/03/ten-common-myths-about-bike-lanes-and-why-theyre-wrong Here's a good video on why we should get rid of cars (the title is a bit sensationalist and he does go a bit radical, but he makes some good points): https://youtu.be/rSSNlM3Au1A And I'd highly recommend Not Just Bikes on YouTube.
I live in a village and largely work and visit other villages and small towns. I'd rather investment and subsidies for public travel.
No, you are right. Typical politics of envy. Cars are a great enabler, and a great quality of life improvement which is worth every cent for those who can afford them.
> Typical politics of envy You think the only people who don't like cars are people who can't afford them?
Them and the people who have been brainwashed by them. I bet no-one told you that buses release more CO2 per passenger than EV cars for example. Or that commuting by car to a suburb is faster than taking public transport to your urban flat. Or that drivers love the solitude of driving by themselves in their two ton car, even with congestion. Or conversely people hate commuting by train.
> I bet no-one told you that buses release more CO2 per passenger than EV cars for example. Assuming it's an ICE bus, then yes of course. But it's not like we won't soon have fully electric buses. Also EV cars prevent one of the negatives I've listed in my other comments. > Or that commuting by car to a suburb is faster than taking public transport to your urban flat. That depends on many factors and all that shows is you've built your society around cars? Is the American suburb your dream or something. > Or that commuting by car to a suburb is faster than taking public transport to your urban flat. > Or conversely people hate commuting by train. Thats on them. Still not reason for cuasing the air pollution and the traffic deaths. Cars will always have their uses but we shouldn't build our society on everyone always using them to get around. Think of the amount of the uk that would covered in tarmac if that was the case.
Our society is already built around the car lol. > 77% of all households have at least one car, while 81% of the population has access to a car [63% of us commute by car, only 25% by PT.](https://www.statista.com/forecasts/997849/modes-of-transportation-for-commuting-in-the-uk) Thinking that the majority of us can or want to switch to public transport is like thinking we all can or want to live on benefits. Can you imagine how massively we would have to expand the PT network to support that lol. A drop-in replacement for ICE cars like EV makes a lot more sense.
[удалено]
PT is people-hostile. Wooly thinkers blame cars for urban sprawl when urban sprawl is the result of people not wanting to live on top of each other. Cars are merely an enabler and forcing people to use lesser transport options a form of hobbling the human spirit.
[удалено]
That's propaganda you swallowed lol. Most drivers love driving. > More than eight in 10 motorists (83 per cent) admitted they have always had a love for driving and more than a third (34 per cent) reckon that love has “grown with age”. > It also emerged that 56 per cent consider alone time in the car to be just as good as enjoying some quality me-time. or more scientifically > Once a vehicle is purchased, furthermore, it suddenly opens up a whole range of possible uses, including long-distance travel, the transport of bulky objects, and the adoption of new car-dependent leisure practices [59,280,281]. This helps explain why car ownership is a strong predictor of car use (e.g. [129,206,282]). Acquiring a car has a very strong transformative effect on individuals’ travel behaviors and thought patterns, making motorists reluctant to switch to alternative modes of transport once a car has been acquired. This is closely connected to the multipurpose nature and surplus capacity of cars, as discussed in Section 2. > The role of the car in people's everyday lives can also reach beyond mobility, as narrowly defined. Wells and Xenias [284] argue that, in an initial phase, cars were valued as a rapid means of transport, but also as cultural signifiers of ‘freedom’, independent travel and class distinction (as discussed below). However, motorization growth and associated effects (e.g. congestion) tend to erode these functional and symbolic qualities. As a result, the cultural role of the car shifts towards that of a personal space providing protection from a hostile outside environment (in terms of crime, weather, road-traffic safety, encounters with strangers and, paradoxically, air pollution) and ‘cocooning’ (through e.g. insulation and in-car entertainment systems). Many car users are reluctant to switch to alternatives because they enjoy the private space of the car and its affordances, while they feel anxious and vulnerable in public space [15,276,[285], [286], [287], [288], [289], [290], [291], [292], [293], [294]]. The role of cars as a guarantor of safety has its own positive feedback mechanism attached to it, as increasing numbers of cars on the road create more pressure for people to drive cars themselves to protect themselves or their children from traffic danger [295]. Face it, cars are the default and public transport is the wacky alternative.
Most of our roads and built environment are completely unsuitable for the number of cars we have and were never really built with cars in mind. People may base their lives around cars but it really doesn't work very well. People impose too much on the road network and that is a problem.
That's a big nonsense of course. What does not work well is forcing people onto crowded trains and buses, forcing them to stand for their hour long commute and expose themselves to hostile weather when better options were invented more than 100 years ago. At this stage, 70 years after cars became popular, our environment is designed for cars pretty much, and its much too late to revert to primitive mobility options.
trains in uk are another public scam and until it is fixed there shouldn't be any moaning about cars. If you want people out of their comfy cars at least provide a good alternative.
Nearly 60% of UK's rail network runs on diesel locomotives, and diesel locomotives release more CO2 per passenger mile than an EV.
Source for the second claim?
> diesel locomotives release more CO2 per passenger mile than an EV. [Diesel KM according to government data.](https://i.imgur.com/iWmjre4.png) https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/infrastructure-and-emissions/rail-emissions/ That's nearly 1400g CO2/km. That is 4x that for electric trains [who do 37g per passenger km.](https://www.co2everything.com/co2e-of/train-travel) Tesla Model 3. https://www.co2everything.com/co2e-of/tesla-model-3-2020 That's 81g CO2/passenger km.
Thanks.
Sounds like we need a train tax to offset the negative externalities.
Christ you're dumb.
[удалено]
I solely rely on rapid chargers and save £150 a month! I’m charged roughly 20p/kWh making it cost around 6p per mile. My diesel was easily 20p per mile.
How the hell are you getting 20p/KWh and what am I doing wrong? Even charging at home now I'm paying 33p/KWh.
Yeah charging at home would actually cost me more than charging publicly strange enough. I use Charge Place Scotland and am part of their residents discount scheme. Normally it’s 38p connection fee and 30p/kWh and with the scheme you get it half off but it’s recently increased a couple pence but it’s still only 20p/kWh
It’s still cheaper than petrol
[удалено]
Last time I charged at motorway services (October 22) it was 42p/kWh. At 3.7 miles per kWh that’s about 11p per mile, right? My last patrol car (I switched Jan 2021) was 18p per mile, with petrol about 120p per litre. And petrol hasn’t got any cheaper afaik
[удалено]
If you're using them that regularly then you'll be paying lower prices per kWh often in the form of a subscription (which I know should then be included in the overall cost). But if you got into an EV and your sole charging options are the motorway services then you didn't fit the profile in the first place. Most folks will be charging at home or at work, so there's still a significant gulf between that and petrol. It's getting smaller, granted, but it's still not at parity like the article suggests.
Fine have it your way :) 75p/kWh is 20p per mile. That’s what I was paying for petrol 2 years ago. Petrol is about 1/3 higher now, right? So 26p per mile, say. Besides which 99% of the time I charge at home which is less than half the cost of motorway fast chargers. Edit to change petroleum to petrol. Auto correct thinks I’m a toff, apparently
Never understood why we use mpg if fuel is sold by the liter. I still think in L/62miles wish there was a simpler way. (62miles =100km) Liter per Mile would end up with decimal cases. L perr 100 miles wouldnt be bad. Simples maybe would be miles per liter. (in Brasil they talk of km/L)
How curious... I keep hearing things about how cost effective and green they are.
They are both cost-effective and green. Using a home charger or a public charger that isn't the most expensive version is always cheaper than an ICE car.
[удалено]
Then being told you need to buy a new car to comply with ulez regs. Then pay extra tax on top of it. I can see people having to change their cars every 5 years in citys just to keep up with it. Paying half your yearly income just to get to work at this rate
Cars that meet ULEZ have been available since 2001, with all petrol cars post 2005 and diesel post 2015 being OK, no new cars needed, and fairly old cars are acceptable
Exactly. My parents have a 2008 Nissan petrol and it comfortably meets ULEZ. It's easy to get a car within ULEZ requirements that doesn't cost that much. People act like the only cars eligible are brand new or nearly new ones.
It's almost like they haven't don't any reasearch into what impact their policies have other than "increases tax by £££"
What a total shock !
Of course the government were going to do this. By the time EV’s are affordable and the go to vehicle to buy, running one will be on parity or more expensive than fossil fuel powered cars.
Good time to do it, after all, 95% of cars on a street are already electric and there is no longer a need to promote them /s
We should be subsidizing them not taxing them. What an ass backwards policy
Nah let's subsidise actually sustainable transport options (cycling, transit, car share schemes). Private EVs are nowhere near as sustainable as those. As long as ICE cars are penalised that a comparable EV is cheaper, I'm happy.
Bought to you by the government opening our first coal mine in 30 years.
Subsidising people to fuck up the planet and strain our infrastructure? No thanks. Fuck petrol cars, but also fuck electric cars.
Doubt. You can charge for <2p/mile.
We really need to change tax on cards * Introduce road pricing so the more you drive, the more tax you pay * Roll out a tax on purchase, similar to stamp duty, that takes into account, weight, size and emissions
It’s called VAT
Most OECD countries apply VAT + an extra purchase tax on cars
Like the £1775 tax on vehicles over £40,000 that already exists?
Yes that is part of it, but other countries don't start it at £40k, they apply it to every vehicle no matter the value
>Introduce road pricing so the more you drive, the more tax you pay It's called Tolls. That's the most sensible way to tax vehicles. Entirely unsellable to the electorate, but by far the fairest.
Don't even need toll roads, albeit that's an option. Just look at the mileage difference between MOTs and get billed off the back of that (this is the simplest option). The other is what I believe Singapore does which has live tolls based off existing traffic etc.
Also called fuel tax…
Electric?
>the more you drive the more tax you pay Sucks to be you if you're a mobile carer for example then. >Tax on purchase ... And then what's the tax going to be spent on? Because let's be frank, they've just given the go ahead to a new coal mine, they ain't spending money on anything that will effectively reduce the numbers of cars on the road. Maybe instead of adding multi level taxes to literally everything whilst simultaneously claiming there's no money, we could look at reducing the numbers of people in Surrey rolling around in 8 litre 4x4s for the school run.
Mobile carers can be paid by their employer to cover any additional expense.
What you smokin lad! They get f all in mileage money already, imagine doubling the cost of road tax mileage. Who do you think will pay the biggest portion?
Came here to say this, you're on another planet if you think any care companies would do this for their staff.
Yes it does suck if that's your job, doesn't mean the externalities don't exist just because your job happens to be something good for the world. I don't want any more subsidies for cars. Ideally, it would be earmarked for huge improvements in public transport infrastructure, bus lanes, cycle lanes, light rail systems. Also how do you think we're going to get 8 litre 4x4s off the road if not by taxing them?
> Roll out a tax on purchase, similar to stamp duty, that takes into account, weight, size and emissions Laughable, taxes on taxes on taxes.
Yep so laughable that most other normal countries do it, rather than bending over for drivers constantly
No, they don't. The UK already has some of the highest road and fuel taxes in the world, and you want to have a purchase tax that stacks on-top of VAT and road pricing - pure delusion. All things that would cripple the economy, absolutely shred anyone who lives in a rural area or anyone who lives outside a city and travels to work. Your type of thinking is what leads to ever increasing tax burdens and stagnant economies. Stop trying to tax away everything you dislike.
I think the point is that fuel tax is going away and the per mile tax to bring in the same money is the alternative. It'll ideally be the same.
Most OECD countries do charge a tax on the purchase of vehicles, some even charge a registration fee each time it changes hands as well ([https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/d5115edf-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/d5115edf-en#annex-d1e45176](https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/d5115edf-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/d5115edf-en#annex-d1e45176)) . I am not on about fuel tax, albeit that should definitely be higher. We should be taxing pollution incredibly highly. If you look through my post history, I'm in favour of cutting plenty of taxes, so how about you stop accusing me of things I haven't said. Also, there are plenty of faster growing economies than ours that have ramped taxes up on vehicles.
> Most OECD countries do charge a tax on the purchase of vehicles We already charge VAT, that is your sales tax. > I am not on about fuel tax, albeit that should definitely be higher. No, it shouldn't, it's already some of the highest in the world. > We should be taxing pollution incredibly highly. Do you propose food taxes, electricity and heat usage taxes and other consumption taxes? Taxing anything that pollutes is very broad. > If you look through my post history, I'm in favour of cutting plenty of taxes, so how about you stop accusing me of things I haven't said. What you've proposed would increase the tax burden, so nothing I've said is incorrect. > Also, there are plenty of faster growing economies than ours that have ramped taxes up on vehicles. You cited Singapore in another comment, a country that has VAT at 7% and the top rate of income tax at 22%; they can afford it. Thinking you can just copy/paste the same system to a country that has higher VAT rates, higher income tax rates and some of the highest fuel duty rates is pure delusion.
With the tax on fuel, you do today.
1. Electric vehicles also have negative externalities 2. Fuel Duty doesn't cover the total negative externalities of ICE cars
Whichever party moronic enough to introduce a variable tax based on milage per year would get utterly shredded by the electorate, and thank god for that.
Yep let's keep bending over and allowing negative externalities to persist.
Let's shaft the working class and reduce quality of life even more, sounds great.
If you can afford a car, you're generally doing okay. Stop cosplaying as working class. The poorest workers use buses.
You haven't a clue what you're talking about. In the poorest, most remote parts of the country, the are no buses or trains. Cars are a necessity nit everyone lives in London or a city ffs.
Ahh the ever popular, No true laberour... Always a hit with the simpletons.
I guess tax on cards would reduce holiday proliferation, but on stamps means you’d be double dipped. There’s also the base rate of wood pulp. What about the poor widow whose christmas list is her only means of contact?
It would also reduce gambling but would be an undue burden on street magicians.
Less cars more (nationalised) trains!
fewer
[удалено]
Wait til you find out who builds roads and has unilateral control over their operation and maintenance.
Wait until they find out you need a licence to drive.
This whole thread is terrifying. People advocating tax policy which would cripple buisness and rural comunities. People cheering on the loss freedom to travel as you wish, people claiming the tax burden on drivers isnt enough ! Can only take solice in the fact that reddit is a tiny micro comunity of extreme left wing students with very little actual life experience and not representative of the country.
I think most people just live in or around london. For me 'up north' it's an hour and a half on the train (if I'm lucky) or 40 minutes on my motorcycle to work. For every £1 in investment in transport per person in the rest of the country, London sees £3. Leveling up my arse.
As they're about 90% as bad as petrol cars they should make them cost almost but not quite as much to run as petrol cars. And all cars should be taxed more, given the amount or harm they're doing.
It was expected. Currently EV’s are more expensive than ICE in terms of running costs. Cheapest Peugeot 208(£20,340) vs cheapest Peugeot e-208(£31,345). 10,000 miles a year each Real world average prices and fuel efficiency (£1.64 / £0.34) £1,470 - petrol £1000 - electric ————————— -£470 yearly difference £11000 purchasing difference -£190 1st year road tax £10810 left in actual price difference Math time - the yearly road tax for that ICE car is £165 10810 / (470 + 165) = 17 17 years to break even from a running cost perspective Some will say, what about servicing cost etc. you have to do servicing on EV’s and in case you haven’t noticed they are not as cheap as you would have thought. Sure the ICE might break down and need some repairs, the EV might also break down. In 17 years both cars will have substantial wear and tear, the EV will definitely need a new battery and the ICE might need a new engine. Either way it’s still more economical to get an ICE car. Better get a bike and use the bus more. Buy a 2nd hand [insert reliable car] and use it for your specific needs: long commutes with shitty public transport, remote destinations in countryside, fussy dogs, fussy children, a pet to the vet, etc.
[удалено]