Diesel users to pay £20 to enter London
Discussion
FiF said:
Telegraph - Diesel drivers betrayed
They continue the premature deaths line.
They argue that car drivers have been actively encouraged by massive discounts which as far as I am concerned only applies re BIK for company cars. VED savings are marginal. There has been a price premium on diesel fuel via duty for decade or more. To me the argument that diesel drivers have had "massive tax breaks" is twaddle.
Well it *is* really massive for BIK and the difference in VED between say an M3 and a 335d is £355/year which is pretty hefty...They continue the premature deaths line.
They argue that car drivers have been actively encouraged by massive discounts which as far as I am concerned only applies re BIK for company cars. VED savings are marginal. There has been a price premium on diesel fuel via duty for decade or more. To me the argument that diesel drivers have had "massive tax breaks" is twaddle.
tFastdruid said:
Well it *is* really massive for BIK and the difference in VED between say an M3 and a 335d is £355/year which is pretty hefty...
... also arguably pretty irrelevant, as the 313 hp 335D is not really in the same game as the 431 hp M3 but is the direct rival to the 306 hp 335i. Also I guess you are looking at old E90 models. The current line-up is a very different picture.
335D X-Drive M Sport saloon(sadly the 335d is only available in 4wd and auto transmission)
143g/100km VED Band F, £145 a year
335i auto M Sport saloon
169g/100km VED Band H, £205 a year
An automatic M3 is only band J
194g/100km VED Band J, £265 a year
Lowtimer said:
Fastdruid said:
Well it *is* really massive for BIK and the difference in VED between say an M3 and a 335d is £355/year which is pretty hefty...
... also arguably pretty irrelevant, as the 313 hp 335D is not really in the same game as the 431 hp M3 but is the direct rival to the 306 hp 335i. Also I guess you are looking at old E90 models. The current line-up is a very different picture.
335D X-Drive M Sport saloon(sadly the 335d is only available in 4wd and auto transmission)
143g/100km VED Band F, £145 a year
335i auto M Sport saloon
169g/100km VED Band H, £205 a year
An automatic M3 is only band J
194g/100km VED Band J, £265 a year
In terms of ved it's marginal and then offset that with the more expensive fuel.
As before the BiK is a big incentive and as the ex company cars are a big influence on the used market.
My base grouch is that when the politicians want to encourage option B over option A they impose a monetary penalty on option A. They might wrap it up as oh look you get a discount and incentive to go for B but all it consists of is a lower penalty.
When as here they later go ooops that's given undesirable consequences and we now need to encourage option A, they don't rearrange the monetary aspect but simply leave the penalty on A where it was and ramp up the costs of B to make that now less desirable. Gits.
FiF said:
Telegraph - Diesel drivers betrayed
They continue the premature deaths line.
They argue that car drivers have been actively encouraged by massive discounts which as far as I am concerned only applies re BIK for company cars. VED savings are marginal. There has been a price premium on diesel fuel via duty for decade or more. To me the argument that diesel drivers have had "massive tax breaks" is twaddle.
However it does demonstrate the grasping nature of tax authorities and politicians. They arrange the rules to try and encourage behaviour based on whatever their current knowledge or plan is. When they find out they were wrong there is no ok we were wrong to penalise this we will reduce the premium, no they leave that premium in place and put extra duties on the other to make that now less attractive. More tax.
Anyone who is investing in electric vehicle should take advantage while they can because there will come a time when that no longer suits. E.g. oh we don't have enough generation capacity for all these electric vehicles so etc etc. Gits.
Very giod post and very true or what is going to happen in the future - As soon as enough people are uptaking the use of electric cars what do people think is going to happen? Cheap running costs for everyone, if you think that then you are the muppet fool they want you to be. They continue the premature deaths line.
They argue that car drivers have been actively encouraged by massive discounts which as far as I am concerned only applies re BIK for company cars. VED savings are marginal. There has been a price premium on diesel fuel via duty for decade or more. To me the argument that diesel drivers have had "massive tax breaks" is twaddle.
However it does demonstrate the grasping nature of tax authorities and politicians. They arrange the rules to try and encourage behaviour based on whatever their current knowledge or plan is. When they find out they were wrong there is no ok we were wrong to penalise this we will reduce the premium, no they leave that premium in place and put extra duties on the other to make that now less attractive. More tax.
Anyone who is investing in electric vehicle should take advantage while they can because there will come a time when that no longer suits. E.g. oh we don't have enough generation capacity for all these electric vehicles so etc etc. Gits.
Its very simple the way the gov works - they reel you in to think something is good and then once the popularity of the product/service is at a certain level then come the controlling laws of how it will be used. Electricity will go up, charges will go up to create an infrastructure to use electric cars and charge them etc etc
The best think to do is ................ Nothing. Buy the car you need or like - don't start swapping them to save 40 pence for the year.
I know there are a few people here who talk about doing 20k plus miles however they ARE A MINORITY not a majority that people think they are - most people do the average if not less than 10/12k a year and these fools go out buying a new car to save 200 pounds a year on VED or get an extra 5 mpg in fuel.
Use your bloody brain! do some calculations!
Lowtimer said:
Fastdruid said:
Well it *is* really massive for BIK and the difference in VED between say an M3 and a 335d is £355/year which is pretty hefty...
... also arguably pretty irrelevant, as the 313 hp 335D is not really in the same game as the 431 hp M3 but is the direct rival to the 306 hp 335i. Also I guess you are looking at old E90 models. The current line-up is a very different picture.
335D X-Drive M Sport saloon(sadly the 335d is only available in 4wd and auto transmission)
143g/100km VED Band F, £145 a year
335i auto M Sport saloon
169g/100km VED Band H, £205 a year
An automatic M3 is only band J
194g/100km VED Band J, £265 a year
So much misinformation in this thread. The health hazards relating to diesel emissions concerns fine particulate matter (particulates with a size of less than 10 microns - also known as PM10s, PM5s, PM2.5s etc) - NOT NOx.
Despite DPFs, very fine particulates are still emitted from diesel engines. These particles are basically very tiny pieces of soot, graphite etc. The problem is that these particles can sit very deep in the lungs and then act as catalysts for a number of other reactions, some of which lead to extremely carcinogenic compounds, which is the last thing you want in your lungs!
A peer-reviewed study published last year looked at data from over a third of a million people across 17 countries and collected over 4 million person-years of data. The authors concluded: "there is a significant association between risk for lung cancer and PM10/PM2.5. The results show no association between lung cancer and nitrogen oxides concentration" The summary of the study is here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23849838
Despite DPFs, very fine particulates are still emitted from diesel engines. These particles are basically very tiny pieces of soot, graphite etc. The problem is that these particles can sit very deep in the lungs and then act as catalysts for a number of other reactions, some of which lead to extremely carcinogenic compounds, which is the last thing you want in your lungs!
A peer-reviewed study published last year looked at data from over a third of a million people across 17 countries and collected over 4 million person-years of data. The authors concluded: "there is a significant association between risk for lung cancer and PM10/PM2.5. The results show no association between lung cancer and nitrogen oxides concentration" The summary of the study is here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23849838
Where is the "misinformation" Did anyone suggest there was a risk of cancer from NOx? I don't recall it.
The health hazard of NOx is well known, it is something that the EU has given a maximum acceptable amount of and there is a legal threat against the UK because of our high levels.
Particulates are a health hazard but they're not the reason for this threatened extra amount for Diesels.
The health hazard of NOx is well known, it is something that the EU has given a maximum acceptable amount of and there is a legal threat against the UK because of our high levels.
Particulates are a health hazard but they're not the reason for this threatened extra amount for Diesels.
Edited by Fastdruid on Sunday 3rd August 17:22
untakenname said:
Just heard about this on the radio http://www.lbc.co.uk/diesel-cars-could-have-to-pay...
I'm in two minds about this, on one hand it's getting out of hand the amount of pollution caused by diesel vehicles in London especially so in the heat were having atm, each day in rush hour as soon as I get to the top of Crystal Palace and then head towards London you can taste the pollution in the air (as well as see it).
On the other hand they want to apply the charge to pre 2006 petrols as well and I've got a 2005 RX8, I don't commute in but if I had to £20 per day for the privilege just for passing through on weekends then the charge would see me get a taxi in instead defeating the point of lowering the particulate emissions.
Wondering if it will apply to Taxi's and Busses and if it will just be the existing congestion charge zone or the LEZ M25 one.
Given that there is a slight 'attack' on diesel cars at the moment does anyone think 'some' petrol cars may appreciate in value? and i dont mean Ferrari's, Lamborgini's etc lolI'm in two minds about this, on one hand it's getting out of hand the amount of pollution caused by diesel vehicles in London especially so in the heat were having atm, each day in rush hour as soon as I get to the top of Crystal Palace and then head towards London you can taste the pollution in the air (as well as see it).
On the other hand they want to apply the charge to pre 2006 petrols as well and I've got a 2005 RX8, I don't commute in but if I had to £20 per day for the privilege just for passing through on weekends then the charge would see me get a taxi in instead defeating the point of lowering the particulate emissions.
Wondering if it will apply to Taxi's and Busses and if it will just be the existing congestion charge zone or the LEZ M25 one.
They won't appreciate, but new ones are already getting better residual values, which tells you where they will be come resale time.
I got some quotes for a Q3, the 2.0tdi was £1900 more than the 1.4tfsi, both 150bhp, but after 36 months the residuals were both set at the same rate, meaning the 1.4tfsi petrol was £240 a month and the diesel was £300 a month.
That was doing 12k miles a year.
I got some quotes for a Q3, the 2.0tdi was £1900 more than the 1.4tfsi, both 150bhp, but after 36 months the residuals were both set at the same rate, meaning the 1.4tfsi petrol was £240 a month and the diesel was £300 a month.
That was doing 12k miles a year.
Lunar Tick said:
So much misinformation in this thread. The health hazards relating to diesel emissions concerns fine particulate matter (particulates with a size of less than 10 microns - also known as PM10s, PM5s, PM2.5s etc) - NOT NOx.
Despite DPFs, very fine particulates are still emitted from diesel engines. These particles are basically very tiny pieces of soot, graphite etc. The problem is that these particles can sit very deep in the lungs and then act as catalysts for a number of other reactions, some of which lead to extremely carcinogenic compounds, which is the last thing you want in your lungs!
A peer-reviewed study published last year looked at data from over a third of a million people across 17 countries and collected over 4 million person-years of data. The authors concluded: "there is a significant association between risk for lung cancer and PM10/PM2.5. The results show no association between lung cancer and nitrogen oxides concentration" The summary of the study is here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23849838
Are petrols not worse in this regard? Petrols emit less particulate by weight but greater by number. They are finer, lighter and barely visible. Whereas diesel particulates fall to ground petrol particulates remain airborne far longer and penetrate the lungs more deeply and have the same effect.Despite DPFs, very fine particulates are still emitted from diesel engines. These particles are basically very tiny pieces of soot, graphite etc. The problem is that these particles can sit very deep in the lungs and then act as catalysts for a number of other reactions, some of which lead to extremely carcinogenic compounds, which is the last thing you want in your lungs!
A peer-reviewed study published last year looked at data from over a third of a million people across 17 countries and collected over 4 million person-years of data. The authors concluded: "there is a significant association between risk for lung cancer and PM10/PM2.5. The results show no association between lung cancer and nitrogen oxides concentration" The summary of the study is here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23849838
Re the Telegraph article - we've been here before, more than once. The first time I recall was one occasion when all newspapers carried the headlines 'Diesel kills 100k people per year'.
The stories came from research into air pollution in the US which simply monitored death rates in hospitals and air quality in six industrial cities, and concluded that people who were terminally ill were more likely to die on a day when air quality was worse.
These figures were used and extrapolated in the UK to paint diesel in a poor light, presumably to keep as many people as possible in vehicles with higher consumption.
PGNCerbera said:
I'm amazed black cabs don't get more sanctions. They are a polluting disgrace.
ISTR that black cabs were given a big fare rise a few years ago so they could afford to replace their old, polluting engines. Of course, there was no obligation placed on them to do so.
Black cabs should have to have heavy duty particle filters and regular emission testing as well as anti-tamper technology on the injector pump to prevent diesel volume being temporally turned down just to pass the test.
Buses are also really polluting. There may not be black smoke but you only have to follow on a bike or convertible and to can smell 'smoke' mixed with some sort of chlorine smelling additive which I assume masks the blackness.
Dammit - I sound like a member of the green party when all I want to do is breathe without taxis poisoning me because they are too mean to maintain their vehicles.
Geoffrey Lean getting a bit of a beasting in the Telegraph comments.
Moaning about politicians pushing for one thing then altering the rules. Being a bit smug about it really.
Moaning about politicians pushing for one thing then altering the rules. Being a bit smug about it really.
bob_wrigglesworth said:
And who advised "successive governments" over the past 20 years, eh? Pseudo-scientists like you, Lean, that's who!
nyt said:
Buses are also really polluting. There may not be black smoke but you only have to follow on a bike or convertible and to can smell 'smoke' mixed with some sort of chlorine smelling additive which I assume masks the blackness.
Dammit - I sound like a member of the green party when all I want to do is breathe without taxis poisoning me because they are too mean to maintain their vehicles.
I don't understand why buses don't have the exhausts routed out the top. The particulates are doing their worst at ground level and when they are directly inhaled by cyclists and pedestrians. If you have ever tried to cycle behind an accelerating bus you would know it is not pleasant, even though in winter it is nice and warm. Dammit - I sound like a member of the green party when all I want to do is breathe without taxis poisoning me because they are too mean to maintain their vehicles.
Then problem with buses (and trains for that matter) is they are operated in the most inefficient polluting way possible, stopping and starting every few hundred metres to drop off / pick up passengers. generally they are heavy vehicles which have significant mass (and therefore require significant energy input) to get them up to speed, only to have it thrown away again a short distance later. Also a for a lot of the time the bl**dy things are running around virtually (if not completely) empty.
Don't let any one fall for the myth that public transport is environmentally friendly. It is NOT. Like many forms of transport, getting our selves around could is just a necessary evil for the way WE choose to live.
Don't let any one fall for the myth that public transport is environmentally friendly. It is NOT. Like many forms of transport, getting our selves around could is just a necessary evil for the way WE choose to live.
Pan Pan said:
Then problem with buses (and trains for that matter) is they are operated in the most inefficient polluting way possible, stopping and starting every few hundred metres to drop off / pick up passengers. generally they are heavy vehicles which have significant mass (and therefore require significant energy input) to get them up to speed, only to have it thrown away again a short distance later. Also a for a lot of the time the bl**dy things are running around virtually (if not completely) empty.
Don't let any one fall for the myth that public transport is environmentally friendly. It is NOT. Like many forms of transport, getting our selves around could is just a necessary evil for the way WE choose to live.
It is if it's used. It's obviously not if it's empty. How many buses and trains in London are empty? Trains, especially, can be enormously efficient in a "passenger miles per unit energy" type sense. Don't let any one fall for the myth that public transport is environmentally friendly. It is NOT. Like many forms of transport, getting our selves around could is just a necessary evil for the way WE choose to live.
There are about 8,000 London buses on TfL contracts. Between them they do 6.5 million passenger journeys a day. Each bus on average provides more than 800 passenger journeys every day.
The total number of bus passenger journeys is nearly twice what the London Underground manages (about 3.5 million passenger journeys a day.)
They are not running around empty all day.
The total number of bus passenger journeys is nearly twice what the London Underground manages (about 3.5 million passenger journeys a day.)
They are not running around empty all day.
Lowtimer said:
There are about 8,000 London buses on TfL contracts. Between them they do 6.5 million passenger journeys a day. Each bus on average provides more than 800 passenger journeys every day.
The total number of bus passenger journeys is nearly twice what the London Underground manages (about 3.5 million passenger journeys a day.)
They are not running around empty all day.
Interesting statistic, but I bet the actual difference (as regards pollution) between those journeys taking place by bus and by the alternatives (walk, cycle, drive, train) would be pretty small.The total number of bus passenger journeys is nearly twice what the London Underground manages (about 3.5 million passenger journeys a day.)
They are not running around empty all day.
I expect that you could have a lot of car journeys without equalling the pollution produced by a bus in a day. Perhaps hundreds.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff