Craggers - a new acronym for our times

[Flyfisher]

The thing that surprised me about my old Land Rover is that it did around 50,000 on one set of tyres. I don't think I've ever got more than 20k miles from a 'normal' car.

 

[skier-hughes]

That brings to mind another point......

Land rovers are built to last, so they are on the road for much longer than a mondeo, so not filling up the land fill so fast!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[AMc]

I seem to be being misrepresented or at least misunderstood. There are no simple answers and no fast fixes and I am not suggesting there are.

In my first post I said "My personal experience is that people who feel 'safe' in their volvos and 4x4s seem to pay less attention." in the context of driving in London. My point was that adding bull bars to your urban transport is unnecessary and anitsocial and I stand by that. If you're in the outback or the Welsh hills then I can see the point.

The media and the public are beginning to demonise 4x4 owners as the root of climate change, polution and congestion which is a simplification that would anger me if I had bought a 4x4 for a sensible reason and was lumped in with the kind of pillock who buys a Hummer.

If someone owns a 4x4 because they're a builder or a farmer or their weekend hobby is dragging around a caravan then I understand it would be ridiculous to purchase a fleet of cars to suit every purpose. I drive our 'family car' around when I'm on my own - it would be more fuel efficient if I rode a scooter but then I'd have to buy and maintain that too. So I cycle short distances and drive longer ones.

There are good reasons to own a 4x4 but being higher up than everyone else and being 'safer' by making everyone else less safe don't strike me as two of them particularly in urban areas. I think its antisocial just like I disapprove of spitting and letting your dog dump on the pavement both of which are less objectionable in the wide open countryside. Someone else's opinion may be different, they're entitled to buy and drive what they like and I have the freedom to form whatever opinion I like of them.

What about Rolls Royce, Bentley, Ferrari, Lambougini, Aston Martin, TVR, and numerous other big fast cars which pollute at the same rate or more than 4x4's?

I said bigger, heavier cars (regardless of their drive train arrangement). I took that as read to include gas guzzlers of all persuasions - as far as I'm aware the volume of TVRs on the road isn't rising at the same rate (insert joke about reliability here). Whatever you're driving you get 0mpg when sitting in traffic.

I refer you to my first post In my humble opinion if a 4x4 has dirt on it, a business name or a towbar then there is a chance it has a purpose other than being a rolling "up yours" to everyone else sharing the road..

 

[AMc]

"The bulletin then compared statistics over a supposed journey from London to Edinburgh.
SNIP
A diesel Land Rover would have come in at 106kg, while a 1.6 Mini Cooper S would have generated 107 kg. That tells a different story, doesn't it?

I can't get London to Edinburgh but London to Glasgow...17.6kg by train
http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/gogreener/

 

[skier-hughes]

"The bulletin then compared statistics over a supposed journey from London to Edinburgh.
SNIP
A diesel Land Rover would have come in at 106kg, while a 1.6 Mini Cooper S would have generated 107 kg. That tells a different story, doesn't it?

I can't get London to Edinburgh but London to Glasgow...17.6kg by train
http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/gogreener/

Their calculator seems to be up the spout, or different trains create different amounts of CO2.

B'ham to Edingburgh is 41.3 via newcastle
B'ham London is 4.9

But London to Edingburgh is only 17.6

But what if the train only has one person on board, is this the amount of CO2? If so, if it's full at rush hour then your CO2 for L>E could be something like 35g

 

[Penners]

People believe it's dangerous to drive in London.

Yes - my wife for one. She seems to regard driving in London as a totally different activity from driving in any other village, town or city.

My argument to her is that driving is always the same, no matter where. There are only two vehicles that matter - the one in front of you and the one behind.

 

[skier-hughes]

and that is why so many motorcycle accidents happen.... do you not watch the adverts.............


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

If you do only concentrate on your vehicle you'll be fine, becuase you will watch out for everyone else who may come to hit you.

 

[Penners]

The thing that surprised me about my old Land Rover is that it did around 50,000 on one set of tyres. I don't think I've ever got more than 20k miles from a 'normal' car.

That's because it was so slow, and the brakes were so crap, that the tyres were never stressed!

It may also have something to do with the fact that standard Land Rover tyres are made out of concrete (well, that's what it feels like, anyway).

 

[AMc]

It could be that the calculator takes account of average occupancy and they use diesel for some routes and electric for others....or it could just be a bit wonky

 

[Lime]

My argument to her is that driving is always the same, no matter where. There are only two vehicles that matter - the one in front of you and the one behind.

I fear that is exactly how a great many people drive.
They appear not to "read" the road whatever.
They drive totally dependant on their brakes working immediately the brake lights show on the car in front because they are so close (at any speed).
To prove my point, there have been several times recently when I have stopped in a lay-by to find the driver directly behind pulling over too and then suddenly going back to the road on the realisation of where I was going. It appears the indicators don't mean much to them.

As far as economy is concerned, I think the thing that matters is the mileage a person drives not the car.
It is foolish to penalise a driver of a big vehicle that drive only a few miles per week when "eco friendly" drivers of small cars drive to work often covering 1000s of miles.

 

[Flyfisher]

The thing that surprised me about my old Land Rover is that it did around 50,000 on one set of tyres. I don't think I've ever got more than 20k miles from a 'normal' car.

That's because it was so slow, and the brakes were so crap, that the tyres were never stressed!

It wasn't that bad (it was a series 1 Discovery, so maybe not a real Land Rover to the purists :wink: ). I questioned the tyre garage about the mileage I had done and was told that all 4x4 tyres tend to wear less than 2WD vehicles because the tractive forces were spread over more tyre area. I believe this is also why they tend to have better grip - it's like accelerating much more softly all the time.

I well remember the first snowy winter we had when I had the 4x4 and was astonished how easily I could drive up a relatively benign hill when all the other 2WD's were stuck at the bottom spinning their wheels - front or rear wheel drive.

I do agree with AMc about bull-bars though; there's simply no need. In fact, if you've never had any real off-road tuition you'll probably be surprised about how gentle the whole experience really is. It's not really about tearing around at high speed flinging mud everywhere - I think that's what we call 'rallying'.

As far as economy is concerned, I think the thing that matters is the mileage a person drives not the car.
It is foolish to penalise a driver of a big vehicle that drive only a few miles per week when "eco friendly" drivers of small cars drive to work often covering 1000s of miles.

Absolutely, which is why any taxes should be applied to the fuel not the vehicle. That's the only way to make the polluter pay - charging a few hundred quid more for road tax while keeping the fuel cost down is more or less a subsidy for gas guzzlers. And, as I think penners has already pointed out, the collection mechanism already exists for such things, so there's no need to invent more layers of worthless bureaucracy.

Frankly, I think it would be fairer to scrap car tax altogether and increase fuel duty instead. Think how much time, effort and money is wasted tracking down car tax evaders - it could all be saved at a stroke. It's not so easy to avoid paying fuel duty!

 

[skier-hughes]

and was told that all 4x4 tyres tend to wear less than 2WD vehicles because the tractive forces were spread over more tyre area. I believe this is also why they tend to have better grip - it's like accelerating much more softly all the time.

if you've never had any real off-road tuition you'll probably be surprised about how gentle the whole experience really is. It's not really about tearing around at high speed flinging mud everywhere - I think that's what we call 'rallying'.

Not quite all 4x4 tyres wear more slowly, though my car isn't a 4x4 in this sense, but I drive an audi quattro and this does get through tyres at a faster rate than the 2wd version.

Proper off-roading is so much fun, and as you say so slow and relaxing.

Graham

 

[AMc]

Frankly, I think it would be fairer to scrap car tax altogether and increase fuel duty instead. Think how much time, effort and money is wasted tracking down car tax evaders - it could all be saved at a stroke. It's not so easy to avoid paying fuel duty!

When you look at the full duty rates in use http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2007/bn53.htm the increase to offset the loss of revenue from car tax would be pretty minimal.

In general I agree, the only justification I can see for keeping car tax is that there is an administrative cost associated with any car no matter how low the mileage (DVLA etc.). We also need a mechanism to track and catch dangerous vehicles like write offs, cut and shuts, dangerously unroadworthy cars and stolen cars. The absence of a tax disc is one of the ways the police can legitimately stop and investigate dodgy cars.

Without car tax then the MOT would be the only mechanism for routinely keeping deathtraps off the road and as we know not every garage owner is completely scrupulous about MOT testing.

(For a laugh) You could combine the MOT (which includes an emissions test) with vehicle licencing and a visible windscreen indicator. You could then tax the vehicle based on its actual emissions rather than the manufacturers figures which would probably work in favour of well maintained cars and against those on the borders of the fail limit. Or as you say simply abandon the licence and just make the MOT sticker mandatory with closer checks on testing.

Regardles of car tax the true cost of driving a more or less fuel efficient car is paid at the pump already. The car tax variation is a political posture and I suspect it doesn't have any effect on car purchasing especially at the less efficient end.

 

[Flyfisher]

When you look at the full duty rates in use http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2007/bn53.htm the increase to offset the loss of revenue from car tax would be pretty minimal.

So it shouldn't be a problem for people then.

The absence of a tax disc is one of the ways the police can legitimately stop and investigate dodgy cars.

I'm sure there are plenty of other ways. Anyway, just change the law if necessary.

(For a laugh) You could combine the MOT (which includes an emissions test) with vehicle licencing and a visible windscreen indicator.

Excellent idea, but still no need for car tax, just make it law that an 'MOT Disc' has to be displayed. That would solve your above point as well.

You could then tax the vehicle based on its actual emissions rather than the manufacturers figures which would probably work in favour of well maintained cars and against those on the borders of the fail limit.

Vehicles only produce emissions when they are driven. The common factor is the amount of fuel consumed, so that's where the tax should be levied.

Regardless of car tax the true cost of driving a more or less fuel efficient car is paid at the pump already.

'Regardless of car tax', yes, but car tax is the discussion point.
A large part of the tax cost of running a car is paid at the pump, but certainly not all of it. If I don't use my car at all I won't produce any emissions but I'll still have to pay car tax!

The car tax variation is a political posture and I suspect it doesn't have any effect on car purchasing especially at the less efficient end.

Now you've got it! Politics of envy!

How should we deal with this sort of car I wonder?

 

[Nemesis]

Of course those with classic vehicles pay no road tax anyhow.

 

[skier-hughes]

And classic vehicles are generally well maintained and as efficient as they can be, but old cars, which also attract no car tax are often ill maintained and fuel inefficient!!!!!

 

[AMc]

Vehicles only produce emissions when they are driven. The common factor is the amount of fuel consumed, so that's where the tax should be levied.

<screws on pedant's hat>Vehicles produce emissions when the engine is running</hat off> as we were originally discussing London driving then the consumption whilst stationary (0mpg) is still important. A smaller engined car standing still will produce less polution than a bigger one except in a minority of cases but they all get 0mpg. We also discussed Hybrids which produce almost nothing (whatever the lights and stereo consume). I agree nothing that taxing fuel won't solve.

A large part of the tax cost of running a car is paid at the pump, but certainly not all of it. If I don't use my car at all I won't produce any emissions but I'll still have to pay car tax!

You'll still have to MOT and insure it though so it so you won't be cost free.

{Edited out the fuel stuff as I spotted the obvious mistake but don't have time to recalc now}


RE - Skip top Rolls
"There are almost 6.5 billion people in the world, points out Mr Robertson. "We're only looking for 800 of them at the time."
I don't think that 800 new Rolls Royces a year is really worth expending much effort on - it's the private jets they own we should probably be more worried about. I'm sure that spit in the backseats will be a common feature if they leave the Cote D'azure in it

 

[Flyfisher]

[<screws on pedant's hat>Vehicles produce emissions when the engine is running</hat off>

According to a very nice policeman who once drew up beside me in a farm gateway on a country lane while I was using my mobile phone, if the engine is running then I'm deemed to be 'driving' and since I was using a mobile phone then I could be charged with driving without due care and attention (this was before this was a penalty-point offence). Now that's pedantry for you! I described him as 'nice' because he didn't actually charge me, he seemed happy just to make his point.

as we were originally discussing London driving then the consumption whilst stationary (0mpg) is still important. A smaller engined car standing still will produce less polution than a bigger one except in a minority of cases but they all get 0mpg.

Quite so, and the more fuel that's used, the more tax should be paid. You would pay according to actual fuel consumption, which seems fair to me.

[<
You'll still have to MOT and insure it though so it so you won't be cost free.

Again, quite so, but these are not tax costs (well, apart from the ridiculously unfair IPT!!). Obviously owing a car won't be cost-free, but I don't agree that its ownership should be taxed - usage, yes, but not ownership.

<RE - Skip top Rolls
"There are almost 6.5 billion people in the world, points out Mr Robertson. "We're only looking for 800 of them at the time."
I don't think that 800 new Rolls Royces a year is really worth expending much effort on - it's the private jets they own we should probably be more worried about.

Yes, I was rather surprised that the typical owner was twice as likely to own a private jet than a yacht. How about demonising yachts? Think about all the fossil fuels consumed in pursuit of that particular 'lifestyle' industry. I bet it puts '4x4-school-run-mums' in the shade. Actually, the boating industry is already up in arms at the moment as they are about to lose their right to use red diesel in their engines because of some new EU legislation and will therefore have to pay much more tax.

I'm sure that spit in the backseats will be a common feature if they leave the Cote D'azure in it

An old friend of my father-in-law had a Rolls Royce. He used to live in St John Wood and whenever we drove into London we would park our car at his house and take the tube. Very convenient. One day he gave us a lift into the city. It was only a short journey but his car was spat at twice; once after stopping at a zebra crossing to let someone cross and once at traffic lights. I presume such people are now fully paid-up members of the anti 4x4 brigade.

 

[Nemesis]

Possibly it was spat at by Bentley owners.

 

[Flyfisher]

or 4x4 owners, perhaps