Cheap Petrol on the Way!
Originally Posted by Blueblaster
A quick glance in the back of Autocar suggests that there is NOT a strong correlation between mpg and CO2.
I am afraid that when parents take their kids to school in a massive 4x4 and a few hours walking around London leaves you with thick black bogies, there are very real reasons to tax certain types of car heavily. There is also the minor issue of global warming which, if left unchecked, will destroy all life as we know it. But that will only affect Gaurdian readers so doesn't really matter.
One thing I have noticed about this forum is that if someone makes a grown up comment then the thread dies a quick death, but if someone asks something superficial about Scoobies it drags on for an eternity. Perhaps this is as good an illustration as any that most people who drive high polluting cars do need taxation to make them make the "right" choices.
INCOMING
I am afraid that when parents take their kids to school in a massive 4x4 and a few hours walking around London leaves you with thick black bogies, there are very real reasons to tax certain types of car heavily. There is also the minor issue of global warming which, if left unchecked, will destroy all life as we know it. But that will only affect Gaurdian readers so doesn't really matter.
One thing I have noticed about this forum is that if someone makes a grown up comment then the thread dies a quick death, but if someone asks something superficial about Scoobies it drags on for an eternity. Perhaps this is as good an illustration as any that most people who drive high polluting cars do need taxation to make them make the "right" choices.
INCOMING
As for your black bogies, is it not more likely that these are caused by so-called eco-friendly diesel cars, even the most modern of which seem to be capable of chuscking out copiuos quantities of black smoke, which surely can not be good for us.
This is supposed to be a free country, I don't disagree with the basic concept of green taxes, and I have as much dislike for the school run mums in their nice big safe 4X4s as the next Scoob driver but in a free country we should not be penalising a particular group with ridiculous taxes that would plainly have very little to do with the amount of pollution produced.
I have yet seen no plans for this super tax to be applied to older vehicles - is this sensible? Older vehicles are probably significantly less efficient but all these new rules would seem to apply only to new cars with quoted CO2 emmissions.
As a matter of interest do you actually own/drive a Subaru, your comments and views would seem to make it unlikley in which case what are you doing here ?
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
by the time we make the difference
Originally Posted by Blueblaster
And what would be the argument against a tax system which penalises those cars that do the most damage to the planet?
while we pay the price hikes, the americans want to rule the world... dictate the price of oil, sit on their reserves, drive their god dam 5.5 ltr tanks, but hey GOD BLESS AMERICA BRO.....!!!!!! has the north sea oil run out? or did we sell that off??? lmfao
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
quite right
GOD BLESS AMERICA BRO.....!
Originally Posted by hojkoff
Amen! Increasing the duty on fuel and road tax is an easy way for the government to say that it's doing it's thing for the planet. When in all truth cars arn't even half the battle.
Imagine if the government hicked through the roof TAX on heavy polluting industry. Companies would have to close down and unemployment would increase and that's not what anyone wants. What about cheap air travel? A plane jacks out a HUGE amount of CO2 and as domestic flight prices fall, pollution goes up because more flights are put on.
I can fly if I book enough in advance from Edinburgh to Bristol return for about £30. If is was to drive I'm looking at about £150+ in fuel. Now which on is going to pollute more? The plane of course!
Even if everyone in the world suddenly decided for the next 10 years nobodies going to use a car because the fuel is to expensive, the world would still heat up.
From a biological point of view gobble warming is a limiting factor for the population of the earth. And it is going to happen. The more people there are the more the earth heats up through human activity. The planet that we live is wasn't designed to take as many people as are in it now. And this is the way it's going to knock the population down. When enough people die from the heat, the would will cool down again and the population can expand. The only thing that we can change is how fast global warming hits us and the government soon need to understand that discouraging people from using there cars (which are are a drop in the ocean compared to the bigger picture) isn't the complete answer.
And as long as Bush is in power not giving two ****s about the environment, as long as china keeps pumping the **** of the day into the atmosphere, we're all ****ed. So Blair, let us enjoy our cars whilst we still can!
Imagine if the government hicked through the roof TAX on heavy polluting industry. Companies would have to close down and unemployment would increase and that's not what anyone wants. What about cheap air travel? A plane jacks out a HUGE amount of CO2 and as domestic flight prices fall, pollution goes up because more flights are put on.
I can fly if I book enough in advance from Edinburgh to Bristol return for about £30. If is was to drive I'm looking at about £150+ in fuel. Now which on is going to pollute more? The plane of course!
Even if everyone in the world suddenly decided for the next 10 years nobodies going to use a car because the fuel is to expensive, the world would still heat up.
From a biological point of view gobble warming is a limiting factor for the population of the earth. And it is going to happen. The more people there are the more the earth heats up through human activity. The planet that we live is wasn't designed to take as many people as are in it now. And this is the way it's going to knock the population down. When enough people die from the heat, the would will cool down again and the population can expand. The only thing that we can change is how fast global warming hits us and the government soon need to understand that discouraging people from using there cars (which are are a drop in the ocean compared to the bigger picture) isn't the complete answer.
And as long as Bush is in power not giving two ****s about the environment, as long as china keeps pumping the **** of the day into the atmosphere, we're all ****ed. So Blair, let us enjoy our cars whilst we still can!
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by RJMS
I'm sorry but until you can explain why CO2 emmissions are not in direct proportion to the amount of petrol used rather than quoting figures from Autocar, I have no idea how the CO2 figure is calculated but what I do know is that the so-called representative MPG figures are a complete load of tosh, often only achievable by driving like a granny on a motorway certainly not in London traffic.
As for your black bogies, is it not more likely that these are caused by so-called eco-friendly diesel cars, even the most modern of which seem to be capable of chuscking out copiuos quantities of black smoke, which surely can not be good for us.
This is supposed to be a free country, I don't disagree with the basic concept of green taxes, and I have as much dislike for the school run mums in their nice big safe 4X4s as the next Scoob driver but in a free country we should not be penalising a particular group with ridiculous taxes that would plainly have very little to do with the amount of pollution produced.
I have yet seen no plans for this super tax to be applied to older vehicles - is this sensible? Older vehicles are probably significantly less efficient but all these new rules would seem to apply only to new cars with quoted CO2 emmissions.
As a matter of interest do you actually own/drive a Subaru, your comments and views would seem to make it unlikley in which case what are you doing here ?
As for your black bogies, is it not more likely that these are caused by so-called eco-friendly diesel cars, even the most modern of which seem to be capable of chuscking out copiuos quantities of black smoke, which surely can not be good for us.
This is supposed to be a free country, I don't disagree with the basic concept of green taxes, and I have as much dislike for the school run mums in their nice big safe 4X4s as the next Scoob driver but in a free country we should not be penalising a particular group with ridiculous taxes that would plainly have very little to do with the amount of pollution produced.
I have yet seen no plans for this super tax to be applied to older vehicles - is this sensible? Older vehicles are probably significantly less efficient but all these new rules would seem to apply only to new cars with quoted CO2 emmissions.
As a matter of interest do you actually own/drive a Subaru, your comments and views would seem to make it unlikley in which case what are you doing here ?
MPG varies according to your speed and type of driving. CO2 emissions are fixed according to the design of the car. Ergo, the two are not directly related. There would be no point in emphasising a car's CO2 levels if they were directly proportional to mpg. I am not saying there is no connection, but there is not perfect correlation.
If you study economics, one of the arguments in favour of the State is that it can impose rules and regulations which are of benefit to us, but would otherwise be ignored by the majority of people. Green taxes are one such case. There is a time lag between cause and effect. If, every time you drove your excessively polluting car you were drenched in acid rain, there would be no need for a tax. However, because the consequences will not be fully felt for some years the government has to step in to influence our behaviour today. The same argument applies to tobacco, alcohol etc. You would still live in a free country, as you so righteously put it, but you would be charged fully for the consequences of your actions in a way that the free market is unable to do.
As for the Americans, well, we can't do anything about their laws. We just have to rely on the next President to have a brain. The fact that large number of Americans are switching to more fuel efficient cars without any complaints about their new vehicles suggests that increasing the price of high-pollution motoring does have the desired effect and is quickly adapted to.
I am not sure it would be entirely fair to hit the oldest cars the hardest. You would certainly need a lengthy transition for this kind of tax change. Generally the poorest people drive the oldest cars and increasing their tax burden significantly would be unfair given our car-reliant society. Taxes on new cars could be changed instantly because people buying them would have a choice as to which model they buy and therefore how muich tax they pay.
What is rather predictable is that everyone has assumed that a tax like this would mean the end of driving as a past time. We would all have to drive around in boring eco-boxes. I don't think you give the car manufacturers enough credit. The only reason there are not more fuel efficient cars on the road is that not enough people would buy them and so they would not generate sufficient profit. Change the tax laws so everyone wants them and instantly the product becomes better. Who is to say that, given the right incentives, Subaru can't make an exciting car that is more fuel efficient?
Up until a month ago I drove a 55-plate STI. I would therefore suggest I have every right to post on this forum. Or would you prefer it to be censored so that only Subaru worshipers are allowed to post? I don't think it would be much of a forum if everyone had the same opinion. Free country anyone?
Don't be silly, Pete.......
It HAS to come down, to give the Scuffy Scots Pension Thief chance to up the duty at the next mini-budget, without anyone noticing too much.
Petrol companies working with government? Surely not?
Petrol companies working with government? Surely not?
Originally Posted by Blueblaster
As expected, lots of grown up responses, all of which are based around the "he's doing it as well, Miss!" argument.
MPG varies according to your speed and type of driving. CO2 emissions are fixed according to the design of the car. Ergo, the two are not directly related. There would be no point in emphasising a car's CO2 levels if they were directly proportional to mpg. I am not saying there is no connection, but there is not perfect correlation.
If you study economics, one of the arguments in favour of the State is that it can impose rules and regulations which are of benefit to us, but would otherwise be ignored by the majority of people. Green taxes are one such case. There is a time lag between cause and effect. If, every time you drove your excessively polluting car you were drenched in acid rain, there would be no need for a tax. However, because the consequences will not be fully felt for some years the government has to step in to influence our behaviour today. The same argument applies to tobacco, alcohol etc. You would still live in a free country, as you so righteously put it, but you would be charged fully for the consequences of your actions in a way that the free market is unable to do.
As for the Americans, well, we can't do anything about their laws. We just have to rely on the next President to have a brain. The fact that large number of Americans are switching to more fuel efficient cars without any complaints about their new vehicles suggests that increasing the price of high-pollution motoring does have the desired effect and is quickly adapted to.
I am not sure it would be entirely fair to hit the oldest cars the hardest. You would certainly need a lengthy transition for this kind of tax change. Generally the poorest people drive the oldest cars and increasing their tax burden significantly would be unfair given our car-reliant society. Taxes on new cars could be changed instantly because people buying them would have a choice as to which model they buy and therefore how muich tax they pay.
What is rather predictable is that everyone has assumed that a tax like this would mean the end of driving as a past time. We would all have to drive around in boring eco-boxes. I don't think you give the car manufacturers enough credit. The only reason there are not more fuel efficient cars on the road is that not enough people would buy them and so they would not generate sufficient profit. Change the tax laws so everyone wants them and instantly the product becomes better. Who is to say that, given the right incentives, Subaru can't make an exciting car that is more fuel efficient?
Up until a month ago I drove a 55-plate STI. I would therefore suggest I have every right to post on this forum. Or would you prefer it to be censored so that only Subaru worshipers are allowed to post? I don't think it would be much of a forum if everyone had the same opinion. Free country anyone?
MPG varies according to your speed and type of driving. CO2 emissions are fixed according to the design of the car. Ergo, the two are not directly related. There would be no point in emphasising a car's CO2 levels if they were directly proportional to mpg. I am not saying there is no connection, but there is not perfect correlation.
If you study economics, one of the arguments in favour of the State is that it can impose rules and regulations which are of benefit to us, but would otherwise be ignored by the majority of people. Green taxes are one such case. There is a time lag between cause and effect. If, every time you drove your excessively polluting car you were drenched in acid rain, there would be no need for a tax. However, because the consequences will not be fully felt for some years the government has to step in to influence our behaviour today. The same argument applies to tobacco, alcohol etc. You would still live in a free country, as you so righteously put it, but you would be charged fully for the consequences of your actions in a way that the free market is unable to do.
As for the Americans, well, we can't do anything about their laws. We just have to rely on the next President to have a brain. The fact that large number of Americans are switching to more fuel efficient cars without any complaints about their new vehicles suggests that increasing the price of high-pollution motoring does have the desired effect and is quickly adapted to.
I am not sure it would be entirely fair to hit the oldest cars the hardest. You would certainly need a lengthy transition for this kind of tax change. Generally the poorest people drive the oldest cars and increasing their tax burden significantly would be unfair given our car-reliant society. Taxes on new cars could be changed instantly because people buying them would have a choice as to which model they buy and therefore how muich tax they pay.
What is rather predictable is that everyone has assumed that a tax like this would mean the end of driving as a past time. We would all have to drive around in boring eco-boxes. I don't think you give the car manufacturers enough credit. The only reason there are not more fuel efficient cars on the road is that not enough people would buy them and so they would not generate sufficient profit. Change the tax laws so everyone wants them and instantly the product becomes better. Who is to say that, given the right incentives, Subaru can't make an exciting car that is more fuel efficient?
Up until a month ago I drove a 55-plate STI. I would therefore suggest I have every right to post on this forum. Or would you prefer it to be censored so that only Subaru worshipers are allowed to post? I don't think it would be much of a forum if everyone had the same opinion. Free country anyone?
Say I am in a position to run an SLR as a play thing and I drive 5000 km per year and (according to Autocar's figures) therefore emit 1740kg of CO2 per year, my next door neighbour has a Prius and does 20,000 km per year, and therefore emits 2080 kg of Co2 per year, who is polluting more? Is it fair that I pay probably 10 times the "green" tax that the Prius owner does.
Any green taxes must be based on usage, not be some pathetic attempt at social engineering to penalise those groups who choose to drive certain types of cars to gain some political credibility.
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 32,398
Likes: 1
From: Old Codgers Home
Originally Posted by andyfish
As soon as petrol is 84p a litre and there's a picture of my **** in all it's glory on Scoobynet.
Wanting to show your bum ................. I don't know
and putting such an achievable price on it too!!Pete
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,089
Likes: 0
From: Edinburgh (ish)
Originally Posted by alcazar
It HAS to come down, to give the Scuffy Scots Pension Thief chance to up the duty at the next mini-budget, without anyone noticing too much.
Petrol companies working with government? Surely not?
Petrol companies working with government? Surely not?
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Petrol at 74p per litre is still a rip off. Just got back from Bahrain, and filled my focus with the cheap stuff at a whopping 8p per litre....it's almost worth driving over there to fill up. However the expensive petrol is a little dear at 14p per litre
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by RJMS
Haven't got tome for a lengthy reply but harking back to one of your early post - "The Polluter must pay".
Say I am in a position to run an SLR as a play thing and I drive 5000 km per year and (according to Autocar's figures) therefore emit 1740kg of CO2 per year, my next door neighbour has a Prius and does 20,000 km per year, and therefore emits 2080 kg of Co2 per year, who is polluting more? Is it fair that I pay probably 10 times the "green" tax that the Prius owner does.
Any green taxes must be based on usage, not be some pathetic attempt at social engineering to penalise those groups who choose to drive certain types of cars to gain some political credibility.
Say I am in a position to run an SLR as a play thing and I drive 5000 km per year and (according to Autocar's figures) therefore emit 1740kg of CO2 per year, my next door neighbour has a Prius and does 20,000 km per year, and therefore emits 2080 kg of Co2 per year, who is polluting more? Is it fair that I pay probably 10 times the "green" tax that the Prius owner does.
Any green taxes must be based on usage, not be some pathetic attempt at social engineering to penalise those groups who choose to drive certain types of cars to gain some political credibility.
I used the SLR figures because that was the worst polluting car I could think of off the top of my head. It would have probably been more relevant to use the new STI which produces 2.5 times the CO2 of the Prius. You will need quite enormous taxes to deter someone from buying a supercar as money is generally no object. However, road tax of £1000 per year on an STI will make a lot of people think twice.
Your last sentence provided all the evidence I need to support my case. Your car (I assume you have some kind of turbocharged Subaru) causes more harm to society than it needs to. Currently the tax system does not penalise you in proportion to this harm. It should do. You cause the damage when you drive your car so you should pay for that damage. It is the same principle as smoking. Or do you dismiss taxes on cigarettes as unnecessary social engineering as well? If you agree with cigarette taxes then please explain the difference between taxing them to protect society and taxing cars to protect society.
And finally, for the record, I love cars. Always have and always will. However I want there to be a planet for my descendants to enjoy them too.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
From: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
This argument is really a waste of time. Energy savings in the home and at work will be far far far more affective than excessive taxes on petrol/diesel/road tax.
How many people/firms have energy efficient light bulbs, or generate their own electricity through solar panels or wind turbines? How many pcs tvs etc are left on standby. The list really does go on and on.
Coupled with a farsighted and properly funded transport plan. If all the current revenue from vehicles was ringfenced for funding on 'green' alternatives as well as road improvements we'd be a much happier, greener and efficient nation.
I'd like to see a national network of cycle roadways, dedicated soley for cycles, not a portion of a road.
How many people/firms have energy efficient light bulbs, or generate their own electricity through solar panels or wind turbines? How many pcs tvs etc are left on standby. The list really does go on and on.
Coupled with a farsighted and properly funded transport plan. If all the current revenue from vehicles was ringfenced for funding on 'green' alternatives as well as road improvements we'd be a much happier, greener and efficient nation.
I'd like to see a national network of cycle roadways, dedicated soley for cycles, not a portion of a road.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,576
Likes: 0
From: Worthing..
Originally Posted by RJMS
The argument would be that if these cars use more fuel then you are already paying more tax on the fuel, what on earth is wrong with putting "green" taxes on fuel, the more you use (and pollute) the more you pay - simple. I did 1400 miles in 6 months in my Scoob why should I pay the same green taxes as someone who does 10 times that?
Precisely.
Scrap road tax (why should the pensioner doing 2 trips to the shops a week pay potentially the same tax as me using my car twice a day) Put duty on fuel to cover it - which would be what, 1 or 2 pence. Tax according to usage, put it on fuel, the more you use the more you pay. The more you pollute, the more you pay. It promotes purchases of more economic cars, promotes keeping cars in good working order, promotes more economic driving.
Scooby Newbie
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
im all for cheaper fuel, whether for my chelsea tractor (Toyota land cruiser VX) or my 99MY WRX STi, or even for my Horsebox, as i can get any of them to do more than 22mpg lol. and i cover about 40,000miles per year....
Originally Posted by Blueblaster
You are absolutely right that would not be fair and at no point have I suggested that. Read back through my postings and you will see that I recommeneded a balance between a purchase tax to make sure people are encouraged to buy the right car and a fuel tax which charges dependent on usage. Say both the SLR and the Prius have a life expencancy of 100,000 miles. Over the course of those miles the SLR will chuck out over 3 times the pollution. The mileage per year is irrelevant when talking about the purchase tax. Given that an SLR is a totally unnecessary (albeit fantastic) car people should be made to pay for the damage it does. It is currently impossible to buy a car with better efficiency than the Prius so we shouldn't penalise (i.e. tax) people for making the best choice available. We should however penalise people greatly for making the worst choices available.
I used the SLR figures because that was the worst polluting car I could think of off the top of my head. It would have probably been more relevant to use the new STI which produces 2.5 times the CO2 of the Prius. You will need quite enormous taxes to deter someone from buying a supercar as money is generally no object. However, road tax of £1000 per year on an STI will make a lot of people think twice.
Your last sentence provided all the evidence I need to support my case. Your car (I assume you have some kind of turbocharged Subaru) causes more harm to society than it needs to. Currently the tax system does not penalise you in proportion to this harm. It should do. You cause the damage when you drive your car so you should pay for that damage. It is the same principle as smoking. Or do you dismiss taxes on cigarettes as unnecessary social engineering as well? If you agree with cigarette taxes then please explain the difference between taxing them to protect society and taxing cars to protect society.
And finally, for the record, I love cars. Always have and always will. However I want there to be a planet for my descendants to enjoy them too.
I used the SLR figures because that was the worst polluting car I could think of off the top of my head. It would have probably been more relevant to use the new STI which produces 2.5 times the CO2 of the Prius. You will need quite enormous taxes to deter someone from buying a supercar as money is generally no object. However, road tax of £1000 per year on an STI will make a lot of people think twice.
Your last sentence provided all the evidence I need to support my case. Your car (I assume you have some kind of turbocharged Subaru) causes more harm to society than it needs to. Currently the tax system does not penalise you in proportion to this harm. It should do. You cause the damage when you drive your car so you should pay for that damage. It is the same principle as smoking. Or do you dismiss taxes on cigarettes as unnecessary social engineering as well? If you agree with cigarette taxes then please explain the difference between taxing them to protect society and taxing cars to protect society.
And finally, for the record, I love cars. Always have and always will. However I want there to be a planet for my descendants to enjoy them too.
However I think I am right in saying that petrol is a hydrocarbon, and that therefore the amount of CO2 being produced is directly proportional to the amount of petrol used. Adding any green tax to this would be far simpler to administer and would also automatically by it's very nature force all polluters to pay proportionate to the amount they pollute. I really can't understand this obsession with so-called Chelsea tractors, yes they are to a certain extent unnecessary for the use they are put to (not in all cases of course) but follow that to it's logical conclusion does any one need to have anything more than a 1 litre Corsa (for example), it will do the national speed limit on motorways, surely no one needs to go any faster, so anything else is unnecessary under your model.
As for cigarettes I think that you will find that this follows a similar model, if you smoke you are taxed, if you don't you are not, the more you smoke the more you are taxed, simple. You don't have to pay a different annual charge based on what strength of cigarette you smoke.
Yes I do drive a turbo-charged Subaru, and because of this I may well pay twice as much tax for any one journey as someone doing the same in a Prius, I pollute so I pay - fair enough, at least that is my choice.
Last edited by RJMS; Sep 26, 2006 at 11:42 AM.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Too busy to make lengthy reply so just a few bullet points.
The most fuel efficient car on the market is not the least polluting. It is down to the design of the engine. It just so happens that a bi-product of lower emissions is fuel efficiency.
All cigarettes are equally bad for you. The more you smoke the more you pay. Regardless of how much pollution your car produces we all pay the same for petrol. How about the price you pay per litre is directly proportional to the pollution generated by your car? Currently the fuel tax system does not fully charge the motorist for the amount of pollution their car generates.
Ultimately we do not need any more than a 1 litre Corsa. Sad but true. The last thing I want to see is the end to the performance car but it will happen. I pick up my new car tomorrow. The 1.1litre Fiat Scecento I borrowed to tide me over has been perfectly adequate. More fun than the STI too.
Ultimately we will end up with heavy charges for polluters. It is inevitable. They will be imposed, like speed cameras, on the basis that we all need looking after by the government, even though their primary goal will be to raise tax revenue. We will be left with efficient cars for the masses and supercars for the superrich - there will be very little market for anything in between. Whether you like it or not the writing is on the wall for cars like the Impreza.
The most fuel efficient car on the market is not the least polluting. It is down to the design of the engine. It just so happens that a bi-product of lower emissions is fuel efficiency.
All cigarettes are equally bad for you. The more you smoke the more you pay. Regardless of how much pollution your car produces we all pay the same for petrol. How about the price you pay per litre is directly proportional to the pollution generated by your car? Currently the fuel tax system does not fully charge the motorist for the amount of pollution their car generates.
Ultimately we do not need any more than a 1 litre Corsa. Sad but true. The last thing I want to see is the end to the performance car but it will happen. I pick up my new car tomorrow. The 1.1litre Fiat Scecento I borrowed to tide me over has been perfectly adequate. More fun than the STI too.
Ultimately we will end up with heavy charges for polluters. It is inevitable. They will be imposed, like speed cameras, on the basis that we all need looking after by the government, even though their primary goal will be to raise tax revenue. We will be left with efficient cars for the masses and supercars for the superrich - there will be very little market for anything in between. Whether you like it or not the writing is on the wall for cars like the Impreza.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 902
Likes: 0
From: West Yorkshire
Sounds great just think of all the chavs and school runners forced off the road to make way for us
Originally Posted by JohnD
LibDems are obviously scared of power - who would vote for them with that anti- motorist manifesto!
£800 - in your dreams! A new Scoob would be 2 grand - comes in the same emissions category as the Chelsea tractors!
JohnD
£800 - in your dreams! A new Scoob would be 2 grand - comes in the same emissions category as the Chelsea tractors!
JohnD
Originally Posted by Blueblaster
Too busy to make lengthy reply so just a few bullet points.
The most fuel efficient car on the market is not the least polluting. It is down to the design of the engine. It just so happens that a bi-product of lower emissions is fuel efficiency.
All cigarettes are equally bad for you. The more you smoke the more you pay. Regardless of how much pollution your car produces we all pay the same for petrol. How about the price you pay per litre is directly proportional to the pollution generated by your car? Currently the fuel tax system does not fully charge the motorist for the amount of pollution their car generates.
Ultimately we do not need any more than a 1 litre Corsa. Sad but true. The last thing I want to see is the end to the performance car but it will happen. I pick up my new car tomorrow. The 1.1litre Fiat Scecento I borrowed to tide me over has been perfectly adequate. More fun than the STI too.
Ultimately we will end up with heavy charges for polluters. It is inevitable. They will be imposed, like speed cameras, on the basis that we all need looking after by the government, even though their primary goal will be to raise tax revenue. We will be left with efficient cars for the masses and supercars for the superrich - there will be very little market for anything in between. Whether you like it or not the writing is on the wall for cars like the Impreza.
The most fuel efficient car on the market is not the least polluting. It is down to the design of the engine. It just so happens that a bi-product of lower emissions is fuel efficiency.
All cigarettes are equally bad for you. The more you smoke the more you pay. Regardless of how much pollution your car produces we all pay the same for petrol. How about the price you pay per litre is directly proportional to the pollution generated by your car? Currently the fuel tax system does not fully charge the motorist for the amount of pollution their car generates.
Ultimately we do not need any more than a 1 litre Corsa. Sad but true. The last thing I want to see is the end to the performance car but it will happen. I pick up my new car tomorrow. The 1.1litre Fiat Scecento I borrowed to tide me over has been perfectly adequate. More fun than the STI too.
Ultimately we will end up with heavy charges for polluters. It is inevitable. They will be imposed, like speed cameras, on the basis that we all need looking after by the government, even though their primary goal will be to raise tax revenue. We will be left with efficient cars for the masses and supercars for the superrich - there will be very little market for anything in between. Whether you like it or not the writing is on the wall for cars like the Impreza.
I do note in another post you claimed that your new car costs "50% less to insure, uses 150% less fuel and costs 300% less to maintain".
I can believe the 50% less to insure but how can it possibly use 150% less fuel, has it got some kind of pressurised petrol tank that forces fuel back into the tank when you "fill up" and as for the maintenance do the dealers pay you when you take it in for a service?
I only quote this to illustrate how you seem to inhabit some kind of dream world where all the normal laws of physics, chemisty and mathematics appear to be suspended to justify your arguement
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
My new car numbers were working backwards from my current status quo. i.e. my insurance has now halved, I get 50mpg+ rather than 20+ (150 % more MPG) and tyres, break pads, servicing etc costs less than a third of my old STI (i.e. the STI is 300% more expensive). The person I was talking to got the jist of what I was saying so that is all that matters.
I have to go to work now but will dig out some info to prove there is not a perfect correlation between mpg and CO2 levels. You can then say sorry
As for no reasoning with me...you don't want to pay extra tax so you won't face facts. I can understand why you don't want to pay but in a few years if you want to keep your Subaru you are going to have to start paying for it. This years increase in road tax was just the tip of the iceberg.
I have to go to work now but will dig out some info to prove there is not a perfect correlation between mpg and CO2 levels. You can then say sorry
As for no reasoning with me...you don't want to pay extra tax so you won't face facts. I can understand why you don't want to pay but in a few years if you want to keep your Subaru you are going to have to start paying for it. This years increase in road tax was just the tip of the iceberg.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post