Well we've got a 4x4 pickup on order as it's pretty much essential for my wife's new business. Why the hell should we pay extra tax on a vehicle essential to completing the main tasks of the business?
Ill conceived meddling seems to be de rigeur in UK politics at the moment.
What am I saying, that's the definition of British politics.
|
|
|
Who are these 'I can't have one so nobody else can' people?
I think there's also a fair proportion of 'I don't want one, so I don't see why anyone else should get one' people.
The same people tend to think that people shouldn't be allowed to drive sports cars either.
|
Some relevant information and links on the ABD (Association of British Drivers) website, including a link to a printable banner for any 4x4 owners about to venture off to La Belle France.
www.abd.org.uk/4x4.htm
|
Article published in "The Scotsman"
Lib Dems Pledge Tax Brake on 4X4 Gas Guzzlers
By Jamie Lyons, Political Correspondent, PA News
The Liberal Democrats today attacked 4x4 city motorists, pledging to tax them off the roads.
The party condemned ?Chelsea tractors? as environmentally unfriendly and dangerous and promised new taxes to make drivers think again before buying them.
The Lib Dems want to overhaul road tax so bills depend on the type of car motorists drive.
That would mean people with gas-guzzling cars, such as 4x4s, would face higher taxes.
The chairman of the Lib Dem parliamentary party, Matthew Taylor, said it would be wrong to tell people they could not drive the car of their choice. The party would instead introduce incentives to persuade people to choose more fuel efficient cars.
?If you drive a huge American people carrier or four-wheel drive you are going to pay more than if you drive a small fuel-efficient family car,? he said.
?I think Chelsea tractors can expect to pay more. They are not environmental. They use more fuel.
?They are also extremely dangerous to pedestrians. Children are at their most vulnerable around the school gate. If you are hit by an ordinary family saloon, they are effectively designed so you will ride off over the bonnet and you will be to some extent protected.
?But if you are hit by a 4x4 you are normally caught under the vehicle.?
Lord Razzall, who chairs the party?s elections team, said public pressure would also help persuade motorists to abandon their 4x4s.
?Individual freedom means they can carry on driving them until a campaign embarrasses them into not doing it,? he said.
?That is what tends to happen. A few kids get killed around a school and people soon think ?Oh my God, do I want to drive to school in that???
The Lib Dems say there would be no rise in the overall revenue raised by car taxes. They want to use it as a tool to make people more environmentally-friendly rather than to raise cash.
Now replace "4x4" with "Transit-type van".
The article makes just as much sense..... like none at all.
|
Here's an article published by the Lib Dems last year (for balance.....)
4x4s:
A Programme for Change
Norman Baker MP
Lib Dem Shadow Environment Secretary
9 September 2003 Lewes East Sussex
Once upon a time in the not too distant past, 4x4 vehicles were used in rural communities as utility vehicles or by off-road enthusiasts on rugged terrain. Yet today 4x4s are used by urban families for ordinary chores like the school run and popping down to the local supermarket for a packet of teabags. Egged on by advertisers, 4x4s have evolved as status symbols and personality enhancers. But at what cost?
4x4s leave a bigger footprint on the environment than other vehicles and can intimidate pedestrians, cyclists and other road users. They are taking up space in town centres where there is precious little room for these giants of the road.
I decided to write this paper following the tremendous public response to an interview I gave on the radio on this matter earlier this year. I received a postbag of hundreds of letters, of which around 3 to 1 were in support of my comments.
I believe there is an urgent need to bring the problems caused by 4x4s under control. In this report, I have therefore made a series of recommendations which, if implemented, would, I believe, markedly improve matters. I commend this report to you.
Norman Baker MP
Lib Dem Shadow Environment Secretary
Summary of Recommendations:
Encourage manufacturers and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) to market their 4x4 vehicles responsibly, by drawing up an Advertising Code, focusing not on urban dwellers, but on traditional users of 4x4s in rural communities.
4x4s are being increasingly used by urbanites for short journeys to schools and local shops. This is having a detrimental impact on the environment, other road users and pedestrians. Manufacturers need to rethink their marketing strategies and shift the emphasis away from urban drivers.
Mandatory display of environmental information signs by showrooms selling 4x4s, along with comparative information for regular saloon cars.
Best practice amongst manufacturers means that a large number of showrooms already display environmental information on their vehicles. However, this is not compulsory and a system of comparison with other vehicles will help improve transparency for the consumer.
Introduce higher brackets of vehicle excise duty for vehicles which produce high levels of carbon dioxide emissions.
Under current regulations, vehicle excise duty is based on engine size and emissions. Although the Chancellor should be congratulated for this innovation, it does not cover the most polluting vehicles that include many makes of 4x4. There needs to be higher bands of tax beyond D and preferably up to a new band `F' to ensure the polluters pay.
Reclassification of 4x4s for company tax purposes.
Under current regulations, larger 4x4s are classified as vans under company car tax rules. Drivers only have to pay a nominal tax of just £500 a year. For older 4x4s this could be even lower. 4x4s should be reclassified alongside saloons and other company cars so that the full rate of company car tax is paid.
The total banning of bull bars for sale. This to be a key feature of new European legislation on protecting pedestrians.
Most manufacturers in the UK no longer sell vehicles fitted with bull bars even though there is no legislation to enforce this. However, bull bars can still be bought and fitted second hand. They are a problem because they dramatically increase the chance of injury for pedestrians in the event of a road traffic accident.
A minimum two star rating on the Euro NCAP (The European New Car Assessment Program - www.euroncap.com) tests for pedestrian safety for 4x4s. Any 4x4 failing should have safety certification removed until standards are improved.
The Euro NCAP test is an excellent scheme for measuring safety. However, more needs to be done to ensure that the results are binding on manufacturers. Falling below a two star rating, as many 4x4s do for pedestrian safety should mean a return to the drawing board.
Changes to driving test regulations to require additional lessons for people wishing to drive larger vehicles (over the weight of 2 tonnes), therefore including larger 4x4s.
4x4s can often be unwieldy to drive and park. Given the added pressure they put on other road users, and the threat they pose to pedestrians in the event of an accident, additional training for 4x4 drivers with a basic standard to be met by means of testing is a must.
4x4's: A Program for Change
4x4s are seeing a surge in popularity. The market share of 4x4 vehicles has jumped since the early 1990s. In 1993 the number of 4x4s in the UK stood at 58,563 (3.29% of the market). In 2002 the total was 137,576 (5.37%). Even though the new car market is down 2.6% in 2003, 4x4 registrations have soared by 18% (according to Autocar, 28 May 2003).
There is, of course, a range of vehicles classed within the 4x4 bracket. At the luxury end of the market, vehicles like the M-Class Mercedes retail at between £30,000 and £55,000. In comparison, cheaper vehicles like the Cherokee Jeep cost £17,995. In 2002, 4x4 sales were dominated by larger off-roaders although there has been a surge in sales of smaller ?junior off-roaders? this year.
We are now seeing new 4x4 models from Volvo, Audi, Alfa-Romeo, Porsche and Volkswagen.
But much of this growth is in the urban market, rather than for the traditional off-road use of 4x4s.
Advertisers are increasingly focusing their strategies on selling 4x4s to urban dwellers, marketing their wares as personality enhancers and fashion accessories. Below are some examples, gleamed from manufacturers' websites which reflect the overt sanctioning of the use of 4x4s in the urban environment:
Toyota RAV 4 (from Toyota GB website - www.toyota.co.uk)
?On or off the road, in or out of town, the RAV4 is the distinctive 4x4 sports utility vehicle?.
Mercedes M-Class (from Mercedes-Benz UK website - www.mercedes-benz.co.uk)
?Unlike ordinary off-roaders, when you're driving in the city or cruising down the motorways, it drives like a luxury saloon.?
A fish4cars online survey (www.fish4cars.co.uk) in October 2001, revealed the attitudes of people to their off-roader. Unsurprisingly, few like to get their 4x4 dirty:
62% of urban 4x4 drivers never go off road
Three in ten 4x4 drivers confessed they bought their 4x4 to make them look good
The most common use for 4x4s is for short ?urban drives? including trips to the shops
But in an interview with the Guardian in October 2002, Al Clark of the SMMT (The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders) admitted that, ?America is the only place on Earth where you can get the very large sports utility vehicles.? He added: ?you physically can't get them [4x4s] on to many UK residential roads.? Herein lies the conundrum: 4x4s are very often being bought as status symbols not as practical vehicles. Frequently they do not fit the driving conditions in towns, especially historic town centres which can have narrow streets and lanes.
The impact of 4x4s
(1) Safety Impact
4x4s pose a threat to other road users and pedestrians, beyond that associated with normal saloon cars. In the US, the latest figures compiled suggest that SUV's are responsible for three times the number of deaths compared with ordinary cars in accidents (according to Charles Clover, Daily Telegraph 28 May 2003).
By law all new car models must pass key safety tests before being sold. Data from the Euro NCAP safety tests, which rate vehicles on a star rating of 0 - 5 for crash assessment and 0 - 4 for pedestrian protection, support the premise that 4x4s are dangerous to pedestrians in accidents. Here is a selection of findings from tests on 4x4s:
BMW X5
Front and side impact ratings: 4/5
Pedestrian protection: 1/4
Assessment: ?High vehicles pose problems for pedestrians, especially children, and the X-5 is no exception. Its front is unfriendly and its bonnet top little better; a poor rating.?
Volvo XC90
Front and side impact ratings: 5/5
Pedestrian protection: 2/4
Assessment: ?The bumper and bonnet leading edge were unforgiving. But the top of the bonnet protected children's and adult's heads to give the XC90 a two-star rating. Volvo needs to work harder to improve pedestrian safety.?
Suzuki Grand Vitara
Front and side impact ratings: 3/5
Pedestrian protection: 0/4
Assessment: ?Protection was dire and scored no points. Suzuki said it will do more in future to protect pedestrians.?
Thankfully, the European Commission has won key commitments from the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) to do more to protect pedestrians. These changes are welcome, and most notably phase out the sale of bull bars by manufacturers, which are often deadly fashion accessories. However, this still allows private owners to buy second hand bull bars and install them - a further loophole which the EC needs to close.
The other new rules include:
The industry will ensure that the parts of new cars forward of the windscreen meet the technical test requirements recommended by the JRC (to apply to new models from I July 2005; 80% of all new registrations from I July 2010, 90% in 2011 and all new registrations by 2012).
Manufacturers will introduce anti-lock braking systems (ABS) in 2003 and daytime running lamps in 2002 on all new vehicles.
Manufacturers will not fit rigid bull bars on new vehicles from 2002.
They will also comply with the EEVC-WG17 (The European Enhanced Vehicle safety Committee - Working Group 17 report) targets for pedestrian safety (to apply to new models in 2010; and all new registrations progressively from 2012, but not later than the end of 2014) through application of the EEVC-WG17 technical requirements or other measures which provide equal protective effect.
The European Commission has now published a proposal for a Directive to protect pedestrians and other vulnerable road users in the event of a collision.
Most manufacturers have strong views on bull bars. Land Rover, one of the leading 4x4 manufacturers, for example, no longer sells bull bars, although they do offer ?exterior protection parts? as accessories. This includes ?a frame protection bar? retailing at £372.48, which is an additional bumper fitted between the headlights.
(2) Environmental impact
Consumption
Fuel consumption on some 4x4s is poor. On diesel versions, 4x4 consumption is around 30mpg, falling to 25mpg on slower journeys. For petrol versions it is around 20 mpg. Some of course are much worse. The notorious ?Hummer?, a specially adapted US military vehicle weighs 8,600 lbs, is seven feet high and is made of aluminium. It costs £55,000 and does just 12.4 miles per gallon (Oakland Tribune Online Review, March 2003).
Emissions
4x4s in the UK are subject to the same emissions tests as other cars, and are generally poor performers when it comes to emissions. This does not sit well with our commitments to tackle climate change under the Kyoto Protocol. According to the House of Commons Library, the larger 4x4s consumer more petrol and produce more carbon dioxide emissions than the larger saloon cars.? The table below shows this to be the case across a range of specific examples. All emissions given are measured in grams per kilometre (g/km).
Model
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions
Nitrous Oxide (NOX) Emissions
Volvo XC90 (4x4)
242
0.48
Volvo S/V 40 (saloon)
184
0.061
Toyota Land Cruiser (4x4)
277
0.52
Corolla WT-I 1.4 (saloon)
159
0.02
BMW X5 (4x4)
259
0.637
BMW 320d (saloon)
206
0.392
Mitsubishi Shogun (4x4)
251
0.583
Mitsubishi Carisma (saloon)
174
0.018
But manufacturers are trying to shake off the polluting image of 4x4s. The SMMT point out that showrooms are encouraged to display environmental impact signs produced by the Vehicle Certification Agency on their vehicles. However, it is far from clear how widespread the usage of these signs is.
The impact of 4x4s on their surrounding environment can also be extensive. They take up more space on the roads, and in car parks, and are clogging up many historic town centres. They are particularly problematic to historic towns because there are sometimes impossible to pass in narrow streets and often cause traffic snarl-ups. Top Gear recently ran a report on the impact a Hummer would have on towns in the Cotswolds and found that many of the roads were simply inaccessible to the large American SUV. There is clearly a need to reduce reliance on these vehicles in towns where they are simply not practical.
(3) Tax
From 1 May 2003 vehicle excise duty became based on CO2 emissions with alternative fuel engines qualifying for discounts. This is a worthy policy and the table below sets out the differing categories set by the Vehicle Certification Agency:
Vehicles registered on or
after 1st March 2001
Diesel Car
TC 49
Petrol Car
TC 48
Alternative Fuel Car
TC 59
Bands
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emission
Figure (g/km) *
12
months
rate £
12
months
rate £
12
months
rate £
Band AAA
Up to 100
75.00
65.00
55.00
Band AA
101 to 120
85.00
75.00
65.00
Band A
121 - 150
115.00
105.00
95.00
Band B
151 - 165
135.00
125.00
115.00
Band C
166 - 185
155.00
145.00
135.00
Band D
Over 185
165.00
160.00
155.00
The difference of only £90 per annum between the lowest and the highest vehicle excise duty rate is small in comparison with the purchase and insurance costs of a new vehicle. Therefore the incentive effect towards slower and lighter vehicles is less than it could be.
The new car tax system has failed to halt the sales of 4x4s despite the obvious financial benefit of buying and running a smaller, alternative fuel car, partly because of the relatively low and wide upper band. There is a pressing need to introduce new upper bands to tax the worst polluters. I suggest a band D for CO2 emissions between 185 - 210 g/km, a Band E for emissions between 210 - 250 g/km and a Band F for emissions over 250 g/km.
Furthermore, the national accountancy firm Hacker Young believe 4x4s will continue to grow on our roads because employers are snapping up off-roaders which do not qualify for the full rate of company car tax (as reported on Accountancy Web 27/6/3). Larger 4x4s qualify as ?vans? under current regulations and a nominal £500 a year company car tax, which is paid by the user. However, as vehicle value declines with age then so does the tax amount. Thus some larger 4x4 drivers pay just a few hundred pounds company car tax a year. This loophole clearly needs to be plugged.
Conclusion
The proliferation of 4x4s is having a detrimental impact on communities and the environment. Concerted marketing campaigns have drawn more and more people into buying a 4x4 to `battle through the urban jungle' or to impress friends and neighbours. But it is not all despair. New regulations are coming in which raise standards for the testing of these vehicles and some new tax rules are already in place. These are welcome, but more should be done. Closing tax loopholes, improving safety standards and taxing the worst polluters is a good start. This is reflected in the recommendations of this paper. But what is really needed is a sea change in culture. It should be socially unacceptable to use a 22-gallon, two-and-a-half tonne vehicle solely for activities such as the school run, or to pick up some shopping from the local supermarket. Only when it is seen as naff, rather than smart to use 4x4s for this purpose will they cease to be status symbols and revert back to their original purpose as utility vehicles.
|
|
ND - do you realise that your last post bears an alarming resemblance to those of our former BR colleague BogusH. :)
|
|
|
|
Well if that's true why aren't there all sorts of sad people demonstrating outside the Houses of Parliament about those who have:
different/bigger/better houses, careers, investments, hobbies etc. etc.
I think all this stuff about the supposedly widespread hatred/envy of 4x4's is much overstated. There'll always be a few cranks including those who think we should all go back to living on the land.
|
Yes it's overstated, making it the view of a vocal minority. Sadly vocal minorities often carry the day.
How long before the policymakers turn their eyes on estate cars, or MPVs?
|
|
Look, it's taken our glorious leaders aeons to even get a ban on fox hunting so I don't really think there's much chance of that happening in our lifetime. I think your wife's business is safe ND - just lie back and wait for her name to change to Mrs Loadsa Money :)
|
i dont even listen to the lib dems anymore.
nothing but an oppourtunist fringe party.
will be a sad day for politics if they ever become the second main party.
btw, isnt funy how my current local lib dem councillor has a 4x4 - naemly a vauxhall frontera - some people have no taste!
And the head of the council drives a 3.0 v6 omega (also lib dem) - wonder how much mpg its doing around town.
Sorry, but typical politicians and very typical lib dems, HYPOCRITE OPPOURTUNISTS!
If you think you know best for me and that sharing a sweaty old bus, crowded and full of smoke is what is best - then join me and we will both wallow in your folly!
|
|
|
|
|
|
