|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 28, 2014 14:36:54 GMT
If your car produces 100g/km or less of CO2 you pay zero road tax period. Cars that produce up to 130g/km of CO2 don't pay any tax for the first year. You can see the costs here; www.parkers.co.uk/cars/advice/road-tax-guide/2013/april-/road-tax-rates-for-2013/Basically if you drive an electric car you'll never have to pay road tax. If you drive a hybrid the most you'll probably have to pay is £30 a year. This is for cars registered after March 2001. Cars registered before this have their tax based on engine size. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 28, 2014 14:38:31 GMT
the other option is to make them with hot swappable battery packs. It would be a bit of a challenge handling the financial side - but then a driver could go to a battery station and get a battery swap. of course, the other option is to not use EVs for long distance travel. a 100 mile range is plenty adequate for the average commuter, and with improvements in auto train tech or simply renting a conventional car for vacation the occasional long range trip is covered. The problem with swapping complete battery packs is the size of the battery. What many do not realize is that the energy stored in a battery is in the chemical makeup of the electrodes, not in the electrolyte solution. In order to have a lot of stored energy, you have to have a lot of electrode material and all of the support structure to hold it. This makes for a very large and heavy battery pack. One of the advantages of this liquid electrode battery is that the actual battery cell is fairly small and you can concentrate a lot of electrode material in tanks and just pump it into the cell as needed. You could even keep a spare tank of electrode liquid "on charge" at home while your are out driving as the electrode liquid can be reused over and over. It will be a while before this technology is ready for prime time, if it ever is. But I personally know some of the people at Argonne National Lab and they are pretty excited about it. the great thing about battery technology is that it can be made modular. the weakness that immediately comes to mind with the liquid electrode battery is that you are trusting ordinary people to safely handle liquid electrode fluid. are you familiar with my quite "you can try to make it idiot proof, but they will just build a better idiot" sealed cell battery packs are much more conducive to making idiot resistant since most people can already manage rechargeable batteries on their cordless tools. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 28, 2014 14:43:38 GMT
If your car produces 100g/km or less of CO2 you pay zero road tax period. Cars that produce up to 130g/km of CO2 don't pay any tax for the first year. You can see the costs here; www.parkers.co.uk/cars/advice/road-tax-guide/2013/april-/road-tax-rates-for-2013/Basically if you drive an electric car you'll never have to pay road tax. If you drive a hybrid the most you'll probably have to pay is £30 a year. This is for cars registered after March 2001. Cars registered before this have their tax based on engine size. here, many states are frantically trying to figure out how to increase the road tax on high efficiency cars. this is because many states base their road tax on fuel consumed (for example, Oregon charges 30 cents per gallon road tax) plug in electrics thus pay no road tax other than the $34.00 per two years licensing fee. it IS a puzzle - because a car which uses only electricity should still pay some road taxes, but how does one institute such a tax fairly without making it burdensome to process? addendum: note that this road tax is typically the sole source of funding for the state and country roads. - there are also federal road taxes on gasoline which fund the interstate highway system. people complain that their gas taxes are too high, and they complain in the same breath that the roads are deteriorating. occasionally one will draw a connection and complain that the highway workers must be overpaid. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 28, 2014 15:12:22 GMT
Simple answer would be to have a flat base tax for anyone who wants to use the road using a motorised vehicle. Then maybe you add in additional fees based on the weight of the vehicle. (Exclude buses and heavy goods vehicles, or just give them a higher base tax and ignore the weight-related tax).
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 28, 2014 15:58:38 GMT
Simple answer would be to have a flat base tax for anyone who wants to use the road using a motorised vehicle. Then maybe you add in additional fees based on the weight of the vehicle. (Exclude buses and heavy goods vehicles, or just give them a higher base tax and ignore the weight-related tax). so then the little old lady who only drives to church pays the same tax as the guy who drives 200 miles a day on a delivery route? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 28, 2014 16:00:04 GMT
commercial haulers do pay a weight mile tax instead of a fuel tax - light trucks have the option of how they want to do it and most do fuel tax.
less paperwork.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 28, 2014 16:05:42 GMT
Simple answer would be to have a flat base tax for anyone who wants to use the road using a motorised vehicle. Then maybe you add in additional fees based on the weight of the vehicle. (Exclude buses and heavy goods vehicles, or just give them a higher base tax and ignore the weight-related tax). several states have their road tax on the registration of the vehicle, based on the current market value. many people pay over $1000 per year to register vehicles in California. Washington switched over from registration tax to gas tax a couple decades back - mainly to make registration fraud pointless. (people would register their cars in Oregon to avoid the tax) |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 28, 2014 16:39:29 GMT
the great thing about battery technology is that it can be made modular. the weakness that immediately comes to mind with the liquid electrode battery is that you are trusting ordinary people to safely handle liquid electrode fluid. are you familiar with my quite "you can try to make it idiot proof, but they will just build a better idiot" sealed cell battery packs are much more conducive to making idiot resistant since most people can already manage rechargeable batteries on their cordless tools. It's just a matter of developing a practical way of transferring the liquid electrode. We've done it with gasoline. We think nothing of an 80 year old lady transferring 20 gallons of a highly "explosive" liquid into her car. Look, I'm not pushing this or any other EV technology. In fact, I'm perfectly happy with the IC engine. I'm just saying that this is only the second possible solution to the EV's limited range and long recharge times that I have seen. The first being hydrogen-oxygen based fuel cells, which have been around for 50+ years and don't seem to be going anywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 28, 2014 16:52:19 GMT
If your car produces 100g/km or less of CO2 you pay zero road tax period. Cars that produce up to 130g/km of CO2 don't pay any tax for the first year. You can see the costs here; www.parkers.co.uk/cars/advice/road-tax-guide/2013/april-/road-tax-rates-for-2013/Basically if you drive an electric car you'll never have to pay road tax. If you drive a hybrid the most you'll probably have to pay is £30 a year. This is for cars registered after March 2001. Cars registered before this have their tax based on engine size. Why call it a "road" tax when it has absolutely nothing to do with the road? Call it what it is. It's an environmental tax. My state has a fairly substantial tax on gasoline. I would have no problem with that if the tax was used for sustaining the road infrastructure. That would make sense. The more you drive and use the roads, the more gasoline you use and the more tax you pay to maintain those roads. But that's not the way it works here. The gasoline tax goes into the general fund and supports everything from state employee pensions to education. This is while we are losing our wheels in pot holes. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 28, 2014 16:57:11 GMT
the great thing about battery technology is that it can be made modular. the weakness that immediately comes to mind with the liquid electrode battery is that you are trusting ordinary people to safely handle liquid electrode fluid. are you familiar with my quite "you can try to make it idiot proof, but they will just build a better idiot" sealed cell battery packs are much more conducive to making idiot resistant since most people can already manage rechargeable batteries on their cordless tools. It's just a matter of developing a practical way of transferring the liquid electrode. We've done it with gasoline. We think nothing of an 80 year old lady transferring 20 gallons of a highly "explosive" liquid into her car. Look, I'm not pushing this or any other EV technology. In fact, I'm perfectly happy with the IC engine. I'm just saying that this is only the second possible solution to the EV's limited range and long recharge times that I have seen. The first being hydrogen-oxygen based fuel cells, which have been around for 50+ years and don't seem to be going anywhere. but we are not trusting her to then transfer the gasoline from the car to a charging tank while transferring other gasoline back to the car - all without spilling it. and we do have occasional screwups with gasoline and diesel. not that I am saying this is an inherently bad idea. if you went with this technology and a filling station usage model, it should be no less problematic than propane or CNG fueling. I am just having visions of someone not securing a connection properly and leaking out the electrode fluid all over their garage floor. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 28, 2014 16:59:34 GMT
If your car produces 100g/km or less of CO2 you pay zero road tax period. Cars that produce up to 130g/km of CO2 don't pay any tax for the first year. You can see the costs here; www.parkers.co.uk/cars/advice/road-tax-guide/2013/april-/road-tax-rates-for-2013/Basically if you drive an electric car you'll never have to pay road tax. If you drive a hybrid the most you'll probably have to pay is £30 a year. This is for cars registered after March 2001. Cars registered before this have their tax based on engine size. Why call it a "road" tax when it has absolutely nothing to do with the road? Call it what it is. It's an environmental tax. My state has a fairly substantial tax on gasoline. I would have no problem with that if the tax was used for sustaining the road infrastructure. That would make sense. The more you drive and use the roads, the more gasoline you use and the more tax you pay to maintain those roads. But that's not the way it works here. The gasoline tax goes into the general fund and supports everything from state employee pensions to education. This is while we are losing our wheels in pot holes. in Oregon we even stripped gas tax money from maintaining state parks and rest areas. - which has resulted in a severe decline in rest areas, and in state parks charging day use fees |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 28, 2014 17:14:04 GMT
in Oregon we even stripped gas tax money from maintaining state parks and rest areas. - which has resulted in a severe decline in rest areas, and in state parks charging day use fees I can see not using gas tax to support state parks. But no rest stops? That could definitely contribute to an increase in road rage incidents. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 28, 2014 17:19:42 GMT
in Oregon we even stripped gas tax money from maintaining state parks and rest areas. - which has resulted in a severe decline in rest areas, and in state parks charging day use fees I can see not using gas tax to support state parks. But no rest stops? That could definitely contribute to an increase in road rage incidents. I think freeway rest stops are funded with federal highway money - but a lot of rural rest stops were in the state parks system - some are still maintained with state park fees, but some have been closed, and others are in parks which charge day use fees. the frustrating thing is that it is true that money is not always well managed - and we can't just solve the problem by throwing more money at it. when I had more money I would buy state and county season use permits - whether I planned to use facilities or not, just to support the system. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 1, 2014 8:04:28 GMT
If your car produces 100g/km or less of CO2 you pay zero road tax period. Cars that produce up to 130g/km of CO2 don't pay any tax for the first year. You can see the costs here; www.parkers.co.uk/cars/advice/road-tax-guide/2013/april-/road-tax-rates-for-2013/Basically if you drive an electric car you'll never have to pay road tax. If you drive a hybrid the most you'll probably have to pay is £30 a year. This is for cars registered after March 2001. Cars registered before this have their tax based on engine size. Why call it a "road" tax when it has absolutely nothing to do with the road? Call it what it is. It's an environmental tax. Yes and no. Yes, it is an environmental tax of sorts and one that comes from agreements to at least try and reduce CO2 emissions worldwide. The tax system as it stands is intended to promote lower emission vehicles, which were prior to these changes not seen as viable alternatives to conventional IC engines. However road tax has always been connected to emissions to some extent, since the old system based the tax on the engine size - larger engines tend to be more polluting and less efficient than smaller ones. If you think about it logically there is also an argument that lower polluting vehicles tend to be smaller and lighter, and as such cause less damage to road surfaces. Most wear caused to British motorways comes not from family cars but from trucks, which makes sense when you compare respective weights - a truck is several times the weight of a family car. You can also argue that smaller vehicles are also far less likely to be driven long distances, so the minimal damage they cause is further reduced and limited to a fairly small area. In this context it does make sense to relate emissions (and before that engine size) to road tax. What little damage smaller cars cause is offset by the taxes on fuel (unless using hydrogen cars. Last I heard there is no fuel duty on hydrogen.) The problem with this approach in the US is that you tend to use much larger and heavier vehicles, and in many cases have to drive longer distances. This is most likely simply a factor of the respective sizes of the UK and US. For example I live in an area that would be consider somewhat rural (there are several farms near where I live, the closest is about 150 yards away from where I'm sitting right now). That said there are two moderately sized towns with shopping centres within two or three miles as the crow flies and a major city within ten miles. I'm guessing that to our American members a ten mile drive is nothing, heck I wouldn't be surprised if several of them have to drive more than ten miles to get to something other than the local corner store. In this context larger and heavier vehicles make sense, partly to allow for larger fuel tanks and partly because chances are fairly good that US vehicles will have to carry more cargo than their UK counterparts. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 1, 2014 10:01:49 GMT
Why call it a "road" tax when it has absolutely nothing to do with the road? Call it what it is. It's an environmental tax. Yes and no. Yes, it is an environmental tax of sorts and one that comes from agreements to at least try and reduce CO2 emissions worldwide. The tax system as it stands is intended to promote lower emission vehicles, which were prior to these changes not seen as viable alternatives to conventional IC engines. However road tax has always been connected to emissions to some extent, since the old system based the tax on the engine size - larger engines tend to be more polluting and less efficient than smaller ones. If you think about it logically there is also an argument that lower polluting vehicles tend to be smaller and lighter, and as such cause less damage to road surfaces. Most wear caused to British motorways comes not from family cars but from trucks, which makes sense when you compare respective weights - a truck is several times the weight of a family car. You can also argue that smaller vehicles are also far less likely to be driven long distances, so the minimal damage they cause is further reduced and limited to a fairly small area. In this context it does make sense to relate emissions (and before that engine size) to road tax. What little damage smaller cars cause is offset by the taxes on fuel (unless using hydrogen cars. Last I heard there is no fuel duty on hydrogen.) The problem with this approach in the US is that you tend to use much larger and heavier vehicles, and in many cases have to drive longer distances. This is most likely simply a factor of the respective sizes of the UK and US. For example I live in an area that would be consider somewhat rural (there are several farms near where I live, the closest is about 150 yards away from where I'm sitting right now). That said there are two moderately sized towns with shopping centres within two or three miles as the crow flies and a major city within ten miles. I'm guessing that to our American members a ten mile drive is nothing, heck I wouldn't be surprised if several of them have to drive more than ten miles to get to something other than the local corner store. In this context larger and heavier vehicles make sense, partly to allow for larger fuel tanks and partly because chances are fairly good that US vehicles will have to carry more cargo than their UK counterparts. my local corner store is about 10 miles away. still - the average range of a US automobile is around 300 miles - whether it is a semi truck or a super economy car. of course, I live in a very rural area. as I said earlier, there are a lot of people who live in urban areas and do not even own a car. the simple elegance of a fuel tax is that it is so self-adjusting. if you have a bigger engine, carry more weight, or drive more miles - you burn more fuel and thus pay more taxes to offset your wear and tear on the roads and the environment. there is a "guzzler tax" applied to a certain class of especially low efficiency "status cars" but that is a one time tax, when the car is sold, brand new. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 1, 2014 13:06:42 GMT
Commercial rates are a hell of a lot higher....
The cost of the tax for a Heavy good vehicle runs into the thousands.
Its divided into classes, car, light goods, and upwards to heavy heavy goods....
The car tax is a nominal amount, the rest of the tax comes through the pump, so those wo drive more pay more.
... on this subject, news from HM Revenues, Tax disks will be obsolete by the end of this year, as Police officers and other authorities have ANPR and computers systems, they can check if tax is valid (paid), so the tax disk is not actually needed....
The money raised from Road tax goes towards the upkeep of the roads.
Its official name is road fund licence.
Far more than is raised is required each year to repair the roads we drive on, or build new ones, etc, and that tax is supposed to be ring-fenced to pay for that, but it does cost more than that anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 1, 2014 13:28:28 GMT
Going back slightly to the multi-car family...
We have different approaches to vehicle ownership.
In the UK, Driving is a "Privilege" not a Right....
As in, if you can prove you are worthy of holding a licence, you are allowed to drive.
And on that subject, I have been one of the voices responsible for pressurising the Govt to make the Driving test "Fit for purpose", as in, dont just give it to any fool who rocks up and says he needs one, make sure he aint THAT kind of fool who is dangerous?... the avoiding stupid part of my Tag line applies there.
We need a better filter to show you can drive than just turning up with a car you borrowed of "a mate" on the day?... you need to prove you can drive, can drive safely, and are not a danger to other road users....
That is the "Fit for purpose".
We would also like to see mandatory re-tests brought in, so that drivers who have not driven for many years, those who may have heath issues that affect their ability to drive, those who have developed bad habits, can be educated into modern road conditions....
And the issue of changes in Law.
Ask the average person on the street what the national sped limit is, and more than is healthy will say 70....
Its not.
Its actually 60.
70 is the Motorway limit, and ONLY motorways....
Yes the test is now "harder", more comprehensive, it encourages the motorist to actually know where oil and water gores, what the road signs mean, and what to do in an emergency, including tha need to now show you can control the vehicle in a variety of weather conditions, night, and rain... where previously you could just do a week driving in bright sunny days and have no idea where the headlight switch is.....
So back to the point.
In the USA, because of the distances between places, you probably NEED a car in a household, if you dont live in a city centre, to be able to get from place to place, or to get supplies in.
Here, things are a lot more within walking distance, or public transport distance, so the requirement to actually own a car on over populated roads is not (Was not?..) as great....
So saying that, traditionally, we were not so reliant on actually owning a vehicle, and there are still households in this street who do not own a single car...
Taking multi-car households where him her and a kid or two own at least one vehicle into account, of the nearest 100 properties to mine, the average of vehicles per household is LESS than one.
Thats about Normal round here. You could extend that to over a thousand nearest households and get about the same figure?...
This is the reason why Multi-vehicle Multi-ability ownership is seen as a stupid alternative to one-for-all traditional vehicles... some households, or rather the majority of households who own a car can only afford to run ONE vehicle.
Financially it just doesnt make sense.
Plus, the attitude "I can only drive one at a time" applies.... why pay tax insurance MOT costs and other running charges for multi-vehicle when you cant actually afford it?...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 1, 2014 14:01:39 GMT
Off the top of my head you do have to retest...if you are over 70 or have a degenerate medical condition that may (or will eventually) reduce your ability to drive.
I think most if not all US States require that the licence is renewed every few years. I'm not sure if they require a retest first.
Cue corrections/comments from US members.
The first time I needed to use headlights was two months after passing my test. At that point I'd only been told where the switch was, and then only because I accidentally turned the lights on rather than the wipers during a lesson. (I did have a great instructor, it was just one of those things that you didn't need to be taught at the time.)
Of course it turns out that the wires for the headlights had come free and been rubbing against the fanbelt, so I ended up driving around for a week with only the sidelights on before someone noticed. Thankfully I was only driving on well lit main roads at dusk at the time, and not backroads at night as I did later on.
Even more fortunately it was a such a minor problem the AA were able to fully repair the damage in less than ten minutes - I think the guy was delighted to find that this was something between 'The driver is an idiot/should have been able to do this themselves/is wasting my time' and 'So much for dinner, I'll be here for hours/I'm going to have to tell the driver that their car is going to have to be towed to a garage and pay a small fortune to fix this'.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 1, 2014 16:04:13 GMT
Commercial rates are a hell of a lot higher.... The cost of the tax for a Heavy good vehicle runs into the thousands. Its divided into classes, car, light goods, and upwards to heavy heavy goods.... The car tax is a nominal amount, the rest of the tax comes through the pump, so those wo drive more pay more. ... on this subject, news from HM Revenues, Tax disks will be obsolete by the end of this year, as Police officers and other authorities have ANPR and computers systems, they can check if tax is valid (paid), so the tax disk is not actually needed.... The money raised from Road tax goes towards the upkeep of the roads. Its official name is road fund licence. Far more than is raised is required each year to repair the roads we drive on, or build new ones, etc, and that tax is supposed to be ring-fenced to pay for that, but it does cost more than that anyway. here, our registration fee (not officially a tax) is one rate for vehicles under 10,000 GWV and an increasing rate for vehicles over. for example, Mrs TLW's truck costs $34.00 per two years to register, while mine costs around $400.00 per year to register. the proof comes in the form of a sticker or pair of stickers for your license plate; for the policeman to easily see as he passes by; and a paper for your glove box, in case he pulls you over. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 1, 2014 16:07:36 GMT
Off the top of my head you do have to retest...if you are over 70 or have a degenerate medical condition that may (or will eventually) reduce your ability to drive. I think most if not all US States require that the licence is renewed every few years. I'm not sure if they require a retest first. Cue corrections/comments from US members. The first time I needed to use headlights was two months after passing my test. At that point I'd only been told where the switch was, and then only because I accidentally turned the lights on rather than the wipers during a lesson. (I did have a great instructor, it was just one of those things that you didn't need to be taught at the time.) Of course it turns out that the wires for the headlights had come free and been rubbing against the fanbelt, so I ended up driving around for a week with only the sidelights on before someone noticed. Thankfully I was only driving on well lit main roads at dusk at the time, and not backroads at night as I did later on. Even more fortunately it was a such a minor problem the AA were able to fully repair the damage in less than ten minutes - I think the guy was delighted to find that this was something between 'The driver is an idiot/should have been able to do this themselves/is wasting my time' and 'So much for dinner, I'll be here for hours/I'm going to have to tell the driver that their car is going to have to be towed to a garage and pay a small fortune to fix this'. in Oregon, it is retest after 70, and your doctor has the authority to say "your illness prevents you from driving safely." as contrasted to an airplane license where your doctor has the authority to say "your state of health renders you eligible to keep your pilot's license until your next mandatory checkup" a traffic judge also has the authority to order a retest. |
|
