SUV-tax

[Bandidoz]

The other day on the M25 when I saw a SUV charging past it got me thinking about the dilemma of SUV-tax in so far as the toff in Chelsea would be able to stomach the high tax, but the farmer who actually "needs" a 4x4 would be heavily penalised.

Now a farmer doesn't have to drive his 4x4 very fast, does he?

So perhaps it may be worth having speed limiters on 4x4s to discourage their misuse? Or perhaps have them on all inefficient cars.....

[ianryder]

Or maybe just ban 4x4s altogether inside the M25...

As much as I agree with you, you know as well as I do that nothing will remotely be done as there are far too many vested interests. Witness GB's totally pointless tax increases in the budget.

Just remember that when it's ?2 or ?3 a litre, a 4x4 might not be so useful and the people who own them will hopefully be stuck with something that's most valuable for recycling. British farmers may well be the only people who can afford them at that point if food from across the world is no longer practical

[skeptik]

The other day on the M25 when I saw a SUV charging past it got me thinking about the dilemma of SUV-tax in so far as the toff in Chelsea would be able to stomach the high tax, but the farmer who actually "needs" a 4x4 would be heavily penalised.

Now a farmer doesn't have to drive his 4x4 very fast, does he?

So perhaps it may be worth having speed limiters on 4x4s to discourage their misuse? Or perhaps have them on all inefficient cars.....

Tax rebate at the end of the year according to post code. People in country areas can claim back a portion of the high SUV road tax. People in Notting Hill cannot.

My own thought has always been a sliding scale road tax based on passenger miles per gallon. The two seater quarter of a million quid supercar getting most heavily hit at about ?1000 a year the most fuel efficient people movers paying very little

[RogerCO]

What I dont understand given the ease of doing it with modern ignition systems and engine management, is why ALL cars don't have a speed limiter set at 70mph.
Quite apart from the legal aspect there driving at 80 uses at least 10% more fuel per mile than 70mph in almost all cars...

[skeptik]

What I dont understand given the ease of doing it with modern ignition systems and engine management, is why ALL cars don't have a speed limiter set at 70mph.
Quite apart from the legal aspect there driving at 80 uses at least 10% more fuel per mile than 70mph in almost all cars...

Hmm.. possibly dangerous. Not sure. It would suddenly limit accelleration. In some situations you need to be able to accellerate out of trouble.

Another point... Why havent we introduced the Swiss requirement that car engines switch themselves off when the car is stationary for more than a minute or two - ie stuck in a traffic jam?

[RogerCO]

Hmm.. possibly dangerous. Not sure. It would suddenly limit accelleration. In some situations you need to be able to accellerate out of trouble.

:sigh: that old chestnut.
Suggest you start with http://www.advanced-driving.co.uk/bb/vi ... php?p=2214
(the first result returned if you google UK "accelerate out of trouble")
Even if there were a few occasions where you might be able to "accelerate out of trouble" they would be swamped by the occasions on which you would in fact accelerate into trouble if you took that attittude - on balance it is definitely NOT the safer option.

On safety grounds alone there is (IMveryHO) no rational (or even sane) case to be made for allowing a car to be sold which is capable of breaking the maximum speed limit in the country.

If you fold in fuel efficiency and the need to both reduce emissions and reduce consumption then there is an even stronger case for enforcing the law in this logical way (making it impossible to break the law).

Sooner or later someone will sue the motor manufacturers for selling them a vehicle in which it is not only possible but unnecessarily easy to break the law - and I hope the car makers loose.
Our politicians are so weak and flabby that they dare not show any leadership on this issue - just wring their hands - its a disgrace.

[biffvernon]

The farmer uses pink diesel.

[XENG]

If you fold in fuel efficiency and the need to both reduce emissions and reduce consumption then there is an even stronger case for enforcing the law in this logical way (making it impossible to break the law).

Possibly the same reason that Bliar and Dubya dont go on prime time TV and tell people to consume less, vested interests.

Also, there will always be some enterprising engineer willing to reprogram the ECU to get rid of the limitation, for a nominal fee of course.

[Cycloloco]

..
Now a farmer doesn't have to drive his 4x4 very fast, does he?

So perhaps it may be worth having speed limiters on 4x4s to discourage their misuse? Or perhaps have them on all inefficient cars.....

The question of SUVs and other heavy vehicles is tricky. As intended they were built for off-road work by farmers and contractors carrying or towing loads over rough ground so they need high power. Also they are useful for anyone in snow and floods. You could say they can do this slowly so a max speed of 70 mph is OK.

On the other hand there is also the issue of wasting fuel by fast acceleration which the high power to weight (ptw) allows when they are running empty. You could specify a maximum ptw ratio in Construction and Use Regulations to limit high acceleration and that might reduce the load-carrying capacity.
On balance I think the speed limiter is most applicable but for all road vehicles, not just SUVs.

There is really no need to pick on SUVs because other heavy vehicles have high fuel consumption and the most wasteful are the ridiculously overpowered sports cars. Specifying maximum ptw and speed limiters for those makes them pointless. The owners can find something else to show their wealth.

You need to face the fact that a lot of people in rich industrial countries can afford to ride around in heavy bulky vehicles and there is no obvious way of persuading them not to.

If rich people are charged higher taxes for heavier vehicles in cities then they register them at their country cottage addresses.

If they are restricted in cities then the owners buy smaller lighter vehicle for the city trips and that leaves other family members free to drive around outer areas in the heavy vehicle.

Remember also that the propaganda against SUVs is an American campaign to deal with American conditions. In the US they are classified as light trucks rather than cars so don't have to be built to the same standards as cars, particularly fuel efficiency.

We need to support action against all private motor vehicles to reduce usage, not just against SUVs but it is only one problem. There are bigger problems, like untaxed aircraft fuel.

[Pippa]

Surely we must get away from the thinking that we can constantly change things. When we pick out one particular group as being "bad" we miss the point. All the vehicles that have been made and are now being driven around are a huge resource. It is up to us to use them as wizely as possible. Stop driving around and you can't pollute or waste. We should treat ourselves more like children - how many more times do we have to tell ourselves, no, we can't have it!

[Bandidoz]

Or perhaps have them on all inefficient cars.....

The reason for the idea of having limiters on inefficient cars, as opposed to all cars, is that the efficient ones become more "sexy" as a result.

Just a dream....