Taxing road users by mile

[cactustwirly]

It wasn't fine. By definition it was emitting excess particulates and NOx.

But will it still be on the road in 10 years? Doubt it.

There's an argument that running and old car is good for the environment, as building lots of new EVs has a high environmental cost. Plus the recycling process of old cars produces CO2

 

[martin butler]

Thing is this, Pay per mile may be OK in theory, but what happens though, if it acts as a barrier to people using cars, less milage, les tax raised, less money that the state can re-invest in public services, etc,

Eco warriors may love the idea of les pollution, less polluting cars on the road, but what's the financial cost going to be?

I certainly can't afford to by an EV, even a second hand one, and then, there's the inconvenience, of it, I can't guarantee to park outside my door, to charge it, very few of the supermarkets I use on a regular basis have charging bays yet, so it means changing where I shop,

Most likely it would mean i wouldn't have a car, so would be reliant on busses and the occasional taxi, when I need to buy a bulky bag of dog food, A trip to Lidl, would mean a 2 hour round trip, instead of a 20 min car journey because, there are no direct busses, I have to get a bus into Hastings, then another to the nearest stop, same coming back, Asda, and Tesco are about the same type of time,

 

[Krokodil]

There's an argument that running and old car is good for the environment, as building lots of new EVs has a high environmental cost. Plus the recycling process of old cars produces CO2

That only really adds up if the vehicle is for very occasional use.

 

[Mawkie]

Pay per mile may be OK in theory, but what happens though, if it acts as a barrier to people using cars, less milage, les tax raised, less money that the state can re-invest in public services, etc,

A genuine concern, but arguably we do need to reduce the casual usage - the 5 minute school run, the nip to the shop for a pint of milk, etc.

Eco warriors may love the idea of les pollution, less polluting cars on the road, but what's the financial cost going to be?

Using silly emotive terms doesn't help.

I can't guarantee to park outside my door, to charge it, very few of the supermarkets I use on a regular basis have charging bays yet, so it means changing where I shop,

The EV thread has discussed this ad nauseum. Nobody can guarantee parking outside their home with on street parking, but most will have the opportunity once every 2 weeks, which is the rate at which I charge my car.

Most likely it would mean i wouldn't have a car, so would be reliant on busses and the occasional taxi, when I need to buy a bulky bag of dog food

Most supermarkets deliver.

To be honest, your post seems a bit more of an anti EV rant rather than a comment on pay per mile.

 

[edwin_m]

Thing is this, Pay per mile may be OK in theory, but what happens though, if it acts as a barrier to people using cars, less milage, les tax raised, less money that the state can re-invest in public services, etc,

Although it's not allocated as such (hypothecated), the income from driving taxes does roughly manage the costs of the road network. If there was less driving that cost would also reduce, so it might balance out.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's an argument that running and old car is good for the environment, as building lots of new EVs has a high environmental cost. Plus the recycling process of old cars produces CO2

It depends on what you mean by "the environment".

In carbon emission terms you are probably right, though in reality there is going to be a constant flow of old cars to scrap and new cars in regardless of EV vs. not EV so it's a bit moot. If your car is still usable you'll sell it rather than scrap it so it does continue in use, just by someone else.

But what is more consequential is emissions at the point of use which is what the ULEZ is designed to (and does) reduce. That is particulates and nitrous oxide, which are at best unpleasant but are also implicated or possibly implicated in a wide range of respiratory diseases like cancers and asthma.

Thus, the idea of something that discourages use of the most polluting cars in cities and their resale for use in rural areas where there are fewer cars and fewer people makes absolute sense.

This is why when people spout that thing about "no point in EVs if they're charged from a coal fired power station or diesel generator" they're wrong, because coal fired power stations are typically not in city centres, so at least that use case for EVs moves the pollution away from the people, which is a big health gain. It also makes a fairly good case for plug in hybrids which can run on petrol in rural areas and electricity in cities.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Thing is this, Pay per mile may be OK in theory, but what happens though, if it acts as a barrier to people using cars, less milage, les tax raised, less money that the state can re-invest in public services, etc,

Eco warriors may love the idea of les pollution, less polluting cars on the road, but what's the financial cost going to be?

Remember that pay per mile will not hurt financially if it is roughly equivalent to the tax on petrol. It should be. The problem is it is more obvious to the EV owner/operator - that means they will at last notice a cost of use BUT unfortunately might also affect their voting patterns !.

I certainly can't afford to by an EV, even a second hand one, and then, there's the inconvenience, of it, I can't guarantee to park outside my door, to charge it, very few of the supermarkets I use on a regular basis have charging bays yet, so it means changing where I shop,

Most likely it would mean i wouldn't have a car, so would be reliant on busses and the occasional taxi, when I need to buy a bulky bag of dog food, A trip to Lidl, would mean a 2 hour round trip, instead of a 20 min car journey because, there are no direct busses, I have to get a bus into Hastings, then another to the nearest stop, same coming back, Asda, and Tesco are about the same type of time,

Really this is addressed/discussed in the EV thread here.
(so best go there to avoid going of topic)

In a nutshell year by year things are changing. steadily more EVs means they become a natural replacement for ICEs - EVENTUALLY.
More charging stations better batteries.
Is that progress happening fast enough - I don't know.

The problem is how the money raised by fuel duty is raised. As discussed in this very thread.

That only really adds up if the vehicle is for very occasional use.

Which is where I fit in and have done for almost 4 decades.

Although it's not allocated as such (hypothecated), the income from driving taxes does roughly manage the costs of the road network. If there was less driving that cost would also reduce, so it might balance out.

Reducing car use will also reduce health costs and injuries from road accidents (which have a cost).

Although my only ever "road accident" was in an electric bus (pulling off violently when I was half way up the stairs) !.

It depends on what you mean by "the environment".

In carbon emission terms you are probably right, though in reality there is going to be a constant flow of old cars to scrap and new cars in regardless of EV vs. not EV so it's a bit moot. If your car is still usable you'll sell it rather than scrap it so it does continue in use, just by someone else.

I think the worry is cars going for scrap prematurely. If I need a car for infrequent use I do not mind the higher cost per mile if its not the most environmentally friendly. But IF that car has a large VED slapped on it then its a scrapper even if usable. I therefore have to buy another vehicle.

But what is more consequential is emissions at the point of use which is what the ULEZ is designed to (and does) reduce. That is particulates and nitrous oxide, which are at best unpleasant but are also implicated or possibly implicated in a wide range of respiratory diseases like cancers and asthma.

Thus, the idea of something that discourages use of the most polluting cars in cities and their resale for use in rural areas where there are fewer cars and fewer people makes absolute sense.

I agree, but this only works if the cars do not have a high fixed charge on them regardless of level of use.

This is why when people spout that thing about "no point in EVs if they're charged from a coal fired power station or diesel generator" they're wrong, because coal fired power stations are typically not in city centres, so at least that use case for EVs moves the pollution away from the people, which is a big health gain. It also makes a fairly good case for plug in hybrids which can run on petrol in rural areas and electricity in cities.

Well of course there are no longer any coal fired power stations anywhere in the UK. You are right in as far as wood fired power stations are never in towns.

Did get me thinking about the gas turbine power stations and the waste burning power stations which are typicall small and in town. I have one of each a few miles from my home. Not that it bothers me to much (I think ?).

Of course with ULEZ it was not about carbon emissions but about the perticulates directly affecting peoples lungs.

 

[Bikeman78]

Exactly the point. Such vehicles should be either off the road completely, or used less. We are killing the planet and these things are a contributor.

Something like 50% of new cars in the UK have engines. The government should ban manufacturers from building new petrol/diesel cars rather than shaft the end user.

 

[35B]

Something like 50% of new cars in the UK have engines. The government should ban manufacturers from building new petrol/diesel cars rather than shaft the end user.

They tried that, and found that it didn't change behaviour enough. And as it didn't work elsewhere either, the Britissh government aligned with the rest of the world.

End users have been being shafted for donkey's years; the issue is the change of power requires a change of how tax is charged

 

[Krokodil]

Well of course there are no longer any coal fired power stations anywhere in the UK. You are right in as far as wood fired power stations are never in towns.

Even if the likes of Didcot were still open, at least they weren't in the centre of towns like the previous generation (no pun intended) of coal-fired stations were. Those mostly closed in the 1980s. Battersea being the best known example.

 

[The Ham]

The thieves will just cut through the locks or detach wheels to get hold of bikes

You basically cannot leave any sort of nice bike in Reading it will get stolen

There's a few things which might be an option:
- have the bike out of sight
- have the bike inside (which may be a folding bike)
- make the bike look like it's not a nice bike
- put several locks on the bike, as whilst one may only take 30 seconds, having 4 makes that 2 minutes and so makes getting caught more likely
- put it somewhere where there's obvious CCTV
- a mix of the above

I realise that when my ICE Honda CRV comes up for replacement I might have little choice. I paid £1,750 for it last year when it was 13 years old. In 2030 what will my choice of sub £2,000 12-15 year old cars be ?.

Although that question may be asking the wrong question, as it maybe that more expensive car to buy (even with zero fuel savings, although I suspect that the fuel duty escalator may restart when it's less politically costly to do so) might be cheaper.

For example, VED might be £200 a year more, servicing might be cheaper (no oil change, no spark plugs, brakes last longer, etc.).

Likewise an EV (subject to software) might out live many petrol or diesel cars as there's less to go wrong.

Although even a £200 a year saving could allow that purchase price to be sub £3,000 and work out cheaper over a 5 year period.

I think the mass closures of petrol stations is somewhat overstated. Currently BEV makes up only 6% of the cars on the road and at current rates is only rising 1% a year. Even if there is the previously stated cut-off of 2030, that's still the vast majority of cars requiring petrol. Average age of a car is around 10 years, maybe by 2040 demand will have dropped such that there's significant downsizing.

The thing is whilst EV's make up 6% of thecurrent UK fleet that doesn't mean that week have reduced fuel use by 6%.

The reason for this is that EV's work out most cost effective for those doing above average milage.

As such, it may well be that fuel use will fall faster than the EV percentages imply.

Likewise, the uptake of hybrids could also impact that.

There's an investingfact linkedto the fuel efficiency of cars, the amountof petrol and diesel use is broadly the same for 2025 vs 1990 even though the number of cars has increased significantly (+75%).

Thing is this, Pay per mile may be OK in theory, but what happens though, if it acts as a barrier to people using cars, less milage, les tax raised, less money that the state can re-invest in public services, etc,

Eco warriors may love the idea of les pollution, less polluting cars on the road, but what's the financial cost going to be?

I certainly can't afford to by an EV, even a second hand one, and then, there's the inconvenience, of it, I can't guarantee to park outside my door, to charge it, very few of the supermarkets I use on a regular basis have charging bays yet, so it means changing where I shop,

Most likely it would mean i wouldn't have a car, so would be reliant on busses and the occasional taxi, when I need to buy a bulky bag of dog food, A trip to Lidl, would mean a 2 hour round trip, instead of a 20 min car journey because, there are no direct busses, I have to get a bus into Hastings, then another to the nearest stop, same coming back, Asda, and Tesco are about the same type of time,

No one is saying that saying that an EV is suitable for everyone today, however over the next few years, maybe the next decade, it becomes more and more likely that it becomes more visible for more people.

Shops may find that it's worth their while adding chargers if other shops have them.

There's quite a range of charging prices, as such it's worth looking at the costs, some find a subscription to access cheaper rates is worth having.

Depending on personal milage and the capacity of the battery will determine the frequency of charging.

Where the stated range of or car is 187 miles and with an annual milage of 12,000 we charge about twice a week plus extra for our long (180 and 240 mile trips) to see family.

As such someone with a car with a stated range of 220 miles (like the e-Corsa & e-208) doing 8,000 miles a year may only need to charge once a week, less if they would be driving 20 minutes each way for shopping and get it delivered instead.

If that's weekly at an average speed of 30mph that's a saving of around 1,000 miles a year, so even at 12p a mile for fuel (would need a car achieving 55mpg with a fuel costing £1.50) that's about £120 a year or £2.30 a week - so around the same cost as paying for online shopping to be delivered weekly.

 

[styles]

But what is more consequential is emissions at the point of use which is what the ULEZ is designed to (and does) reduce. That is particulates and nitrous oxide, which are at best unpleasant but are also implicated or possibly implicated in a wide range of respiratory diseases like cancers and asthma.

Exactly this.

I lived in London for a few years (it wasn't my cup of tea but worth giving it a go). Around 6-12 months after moving there, cycling ~30 minutes each way to work, I developed exercise-induced asthma. The doctor made me feel better about it by informing me that apparently a lot of Olympic/world class athletes have it . I was on brown (preventative) and blue (relief) inhalers. I do a lot of hillwalking and cycling and it was really affecting me.

The air pollution where we lived was bad. I know not only because there were monitoring devices around taking measurements to generate public data on it, but also both because I bought an air purifier and it filled up very quickly, and because we could literally see the black caking on the windows.

I left London for the countryside, where I feel more at home. After about 6 months, no asthma symptoms, even when doing intense exercise.

Now I don't have proof that my asthma was caused and relieved by local air pollution but I'd eat my hat if it turned out not to be the case.

There is of course PM2.5/PM10 pollution from EVs still - tyres and braking mainly - but it is nowhere near as bad as people driving petrol and diesel cars past the house.

 

[adc82140]

My PHEV has a range of 30 miles. That's about a tenth of the range of a full EV. So why should I pay half the rate of an EV, should it not be a tenth? How can the government determine how much distance I cover on full electric vs hybrid mode or self charging mode?

Additionally, about 20% of my annual mileage is in France. I pay the French government for the privilege via fuel duty (which is higher than the UK) and motorway tolls. Why should I have to pay the UK government for the same mileage?

 

[JamesT]

My PHEV has a range of 30 miles. That's about a tenth of the range of a full EV. So why should I pay half the rate of an EV, should it not be a tenth? How can the government determine how much distance I cover on full electric vs hybrid mode or self charging mode?

Additionally, about 20% of my annual mileage is in France. I pay the French government for the privilege via fuel duty (which is higher than the UK) and motorway tolls. Why should I have to pay the UK government for the same mileage?

A large proportion of journeys fit within the battery range of a PHEV. The government isn’t trying to match your individual circumstances, but has set the charge at a level that reflects on average driving being done on electric versus ICE.

Similarly, the percentage of miles driven by UK vehicles abroad is 2%. It would make the system far more complex and intrusive to exclude overseas travel rather than taking a simple flat rate across all mileage.

 

[SargeNpton]

Similarly, the percentage of miles driven by UK vehicles abroad is 2%. It would make the system far more complex and intrusive to exclude overseas travel rather than taking a simple flat rate across all mileage.

Are you happy to accept a 2% overcharge on every other bill you have to pay?

 

[Harpers Tate]

Are you happy to accept a 2% overcharge on every other bill you have to pay?

It's not a surcharge. It's a tax, and being a tax, it can apply however the government wants it to. It's not a ring-fenced fund (eg for roads), and it's not a bill for any goods or service specific. It's a tax on using a UK registered vehicle - at all.