Congestion charge exemption for EV's being removed
Discussion
KingGary said:
Where do you work, a bus depot?
It’s simple logic - adoption of EVs needs to be subsidised in a free market, otherwise, all things being equal, nobody would be driving them. Smoking ban cost the taxpayer nothing, EVs on the other hand need billions in subsidies to even exist in a global economy where the consumer has no money. No different to countries rowing back on net zero in spite of the evidence that it’s going to hurt us later on.
Not sure i agree, a free market is just that, if something cant survive without subsidies then it isnt an improvement. There were no petrol stations until people saw the need, same way eventually there will be charging points everywhere if they are needed and make a profit.It’s simple logic - adoption of EVs needs to be subsidised in a free market, otherwise, all things being equal, nobody would be driving them. Smoking ban cost the taxpayer nothing, EVs on the other hand need billions in subsidies to even exist in a global economy where the consumer has no money. No different to countries rowing back on net zero in spite of the evidence that it’s going to hurt us later on.
If i could charge from home then an ev would be a no brainier for me, but i cant, so it isnt.
Evs create as much congestion as any other car, and are arguable worse for the roads due to weight. so of course they should be taxed. The only fair ved is pay per mile , what ever fuel type, but thats not in line with the net zero, whether you are with the push to net zero is another matter.
In a free market the best product will sell,
The iphone is a good case in point, It sold by the bucket load because people wanted it, even tho it was expensive.
richhead said:
KingGary said:
Where do you work, a bus depot?
It’s simple logic - adoption of EVs needs to be subsidised in a free market, otherwise, all things being equal, nobody would be driving them. Smoking ban cost the taxpayer nothing, EVs on the other hand need billions in subsidies to even exist in a global economy where the consumer has no money. No different to countries rowing back on net zero in spite of the evidence that it’s going to hurt us later on.
Not sure i agree, a free market is just that, if something cant survive without subsidies then it isnt an improvement. There were no petrol stations until people saw the need, same way eventually there will be charging points everywhere if they are needed and make a profit.It’s simple logic - adoption of EVs needs to be subsidised in a free market, otherwise, all things being equal, nobody would be driving them. Smoking ban cost the taxpayer nothing, EVs on the other hand need billions in subsidies to even exist in a global economy where the consumer has no money. No different to countries rowing back on net zero in spite of the evidence that it’s going to hurt us later on.
If i could charge from home then an ev would be a no brainier for me, but i cant, so it isnt.
Evs create as much congestion as any other car, and are arguable worse for the roads due to weight. so of course they should be taxed. The only fair ved is pay per mile , what ever fuel type, but thats not in line with the net zero, whether you are with the push to net zero is another matter.
In a free market the best product will sell,
The iphone is a good case in point, It sold by the bucket load because people wanted it, even tho it was expensive.
Some improvements can't happen organically, the transition has to be supported by a plan and targets - in this case it's because the automotive industry have to know the rate at which the market will transition to EV. If they didn't have such a firm plan, they could not afford the speculative effort to make a range of EV's and 'see if they sell'.
So the plan in place, the global plan, has to feature targets and legislation and subsidies are used to drive the market to meet those targets as closely as possible.
richhead said:
Not sure i agree, a free market is just that, if something cant survive without subsidies then it isnt an improvement. There were no petrol stations until people saw the need, same way eventually there will be charging points everywhere if they are needed and make a profit.
If i could charge from home then an ev would be a no brainier for me, but i cant, so it isnt.
Evs create as much congestion as any other car, and are arguable worse for the roads due to weight. so of course they should be taxed. The only fair ved is pay per mile , what ever fuel type, but thats not in line with the net zero, whether you are with the push to net zero is another matter.
In a free market the best product will sell,
The iphone is a good case in point, It sold by the bucket load because people wanted it, even tho it was expensive.
You seem to ignore the relatively urgent need to decarbonise transport, both in this country, and elsewhere. If i could charge from home then an ev would be a no brainier for me, but i cant, so it isnt.
Evs create as much congestion as any other car, and are arguable worse for the roads due to weight. so of course they should be taxed. The only fair ved is pay per mile , what ever fuel type, but thats not in line with the net zero, whether you are with the push to net zero is another matter.
In a free market the best product will sell,
The iphone is a good case in point, It sold by the bucket load because people wanted it, even tho it was expensive.
Yes, in an ideal world, where time was not a factor, we could just let the EV market develop (or fail) on its own.
However, we don't have the luxury of time, hence the need for government subsidies to enable the faster take up of EVs.
richhead said:
KingGary said:
Where do you work, a bus depot?
It’s simple logic - adoption of EVs needs to be subsidised in a free market, otherwise, all things being equal, nobody would be driving them. Smoking ban cost the taxpayer nothing, EVs on the other hand need billions in subsidies to even exist in a global economy where the consumer has no money. No different to countries rowing back on net zero in spite of the evidence that it’s going to hurt us later on.
Not sure i agree, a free market is just that, if something cant survive without subsidies then it isnt an improvement. There were no petrol stations until people saw the need, same way eventually there will be charging points everywhere if they are needed and make a profit.It’s simple logic - adoption of EVs needs to be subsidised in a free market, otherwise, all things being equal, nobody would be driving them. Smoking ban cost the taxpayer nothing, EVs on the other hand need billions in subsidies to even exist in a global economy where the consumer has no money. No different to countries rowing back on net zero in spite of the evidence that it’s going to hurt us later on.
If i could charge from home then an ev would be a no brainier for me, but i cant, so it isnt.
Evs create as much congestion as any other car, and are arguable worse for the roads due to weight. so of course they should be taxed. The only fair ved is pay per mile , what ever fuel type, but thats not in line with the net zero, whether you are with the push to net zero is another matter.
In a free market the best product will sell,
The iphone is a good case in point, It sold by the bucket load because people wanted it, even tho it was expensive.
raspy said:
You seem to ignore the relatively urgent need to decarbonise transport, both in this country, and elsewhere.
Yes, in an ideal world, where time was not a factor, we could just let the EV market develop (or fail) on its own.
However, we don't have the luxury of time, hence the need for government subsidies to enable the faster take up of EVs.
Then why start with EVs? If you want to save the planet, ban livestock that’s bred for food. It produces the most CO2. Or make the people who’ve cut down rain forests to plant palm oil plantations, reverse them and plant trees instead?Yes, in an ideal world, where time was not a factor, we could just let the EV market develop (or fail) on its own.
However, we don't have the luxury of time, hence the need for government subsidies to enable the faster take up of EVs.
What about coal power stations that are still used extensively in the countries we but all our plastic consumer tat from?
Edited by KingGary on Thursday 4th July 14:54
TheDeuce said:
That's basic thinking.
Some improvements can't happen organically, the transition has to be supported by a plan and targets - in this case it's because the automotive industry have to know the rate at which the market will transition to EV. If they didn't have such a firm plan, they could not afford the speculative effort to make a range of EV's and 'see if they sell'.
So the plan in place, the global plan, has to feature targets and legislation and subsidies are used to drive the market to meet those targets as closely as possible.
That’ll be the plan that nobody can afford or agree upon? Forget, is it 2030, 35 or never? Today’s the election, how many people have voted to improve their standard of living instead of saving the planet? Wonder how the Greens will do?Some improvements can't happen organically, the transition has to be supported by a plan and targets - in this case it's because the automotive industry have to know the rate at which the market will transition to EV. If they didn't have such a firm plan, they could not afford the speculative effort to make a range of EV's and 'see if they sell'.
So the plan in place, the global plan, has to feature targets and legislation and subsidies are used to drive the market to meet those targets as closely as possible.
KingGary said:
raspy said:
You seem to ignore the relatively urgent need to decarbonise transport, both in this country, and elsewhere.
Yes, in an ideal world, where time was not a factor, we could just let the EV market develop (or fail) on its own.
However, we don't have the luxury of time, hence the need for government subsidies to enable the faster take up of EVs.
Then why start with EVs? If you want to save the planet, ban livestock that’s bred for food. It produces the most CO2. Or make the people who’ve cut down rain forests to plant palm oil plantations, reverse them and plant trees instead?Yes, in an ideal world, where time was not a factor, we could just let the EV market develop (or fail) on its own.
However, we don't have the luxury of time, hence the need for government subsidies to enable the faster take up of EVs.
What about coal power stations that are still used extensively in the countries we but all our plastic consumer tat from?
Edited by KingGary on Thursday 4th July 14:54
You are aware that the transition to EV is sped up the development of dynamic grid balancing tech, and that those solutions are now being sold overseas in order to help other countries rely less heavily on coal.
EV is not everything and cars may not be a huge part of the overall problem. But cars are relatively simple thing to vastly improve, so why not?
Also note that cars are a HUGE part of localised air quality problems in towns and cities. There are millions of people in the UK right now that WILL have their life and quality of life reduced to an extent because of breathing near constant exhaust fumes.
KingGary said:
Then why start with EVs? If you want to save the planet, ban livestock that’s bred for food. It produces the most CO2. Or make the people who’ve cut down rain forests to plant palm oil plantations, reverse them and plant trees instead?
What about coal power stations that are still used extensively in the countries we but all our plastic consumer tat from?
You might wish to get your facts straight - the biggest emissions of CO2 come from the burning of fossil fuels i.e. Electricity generation and heat production (34%), second at 24% is Industry. Third at 22% is Agriculture but note that livestock is only a portion of this 22%. Forestry and land use such as cultivation of crops produce CO2. Transport accounts for 15% and is a sector that can easily be reduced by guess what switching to EVs powered from renewables.What about coal power stations that are still used extensively in the countries we but all our plastic consumer tat from?
Edited by KingGary on Thursday 4th July 14:54
GT9 said:
KingGary said:
Why buy something that’s newer that runs on electricity, but in every other way is inferior?.... Cannot argue with facts.
Calling a clearly obvious opinion fact is poor form, even for you.Putting cost to one side, from a consumer’s perspective, they do nothing better than an ICE and in many ways, they are inferior. You can talk about efficiency all you like, but most consumers don’t care.
KingGary said:
GT9 said:
KingGary said:
Why buy something that’s newer that runs on electricity, but in every other way is inferior?.... Cannot argue with facts.
Calling a clearly obvious opinion fact is poor form, even for you.Putting cost to one side, from a consumer’s perspective, they do nothing better than an ICE and in many ways, they are inferior. You can talk about efficiency all you like, but most consumers don’t care.
ICE is stupidly crude, you only accept such a crude solution to making a car move because you're used to it. An electric motor is far superior in terms of turning wheels and making a car go along the road.
I assume at some point there will be no incentives as such, but I couldn't go back to ICE full time now, it would feel like I had taken a step back.
TheDeuce said:
They do so much better than ICE can ever do.
ICE is stupidly crude, you only accept such a crude solution to making a car move because you're used to it. An electric motor is far superior in terms of turning wheels and making a car go along the road.
I assume at some point there will be no incentives as such, but I couldn't go back to ICE full time now, it would feel like I had taken a step back.
Better at what though for your consumer who’s considering changing? Easier to refuel (home charging accepted)? No. Can travel as far on a single charge? No. Cheaper? No. Cheaper servicing? Yes. But garages employ people as technicians so that’s not great either if they have nothing to fix or service. ICE is stupidly crude, you only accept such a crude solution to making a car move because you're used to it. An electric motor is far superior in terms of turning wheels and making a car go along the road.
I assume at some point there will be no incentives as such, but I couldn't go back to ICE full time now, it would feel like I had taken a step back.
Who honestly cares that an electric motor is more efficient when petrol or diesel means it doesn’t matter?
Address these points and they become equal or maybe superior for the masses. Sure the technology has a long way to go, so some sort of intervention is required, but at what point do governments stop the support?
KingGary said:
It is fact - on this and other threads, it’s been established that people choose them because a) they can get them through salary sacrifice or b) they can charge them at home and therefore avoid paying fuel duty/enjoy lower running costs. Both at the cost to the exchequer.
Putting cost to one side, from a consumer’s perspective, they do nothing better than an ICE and in many ways, they are inferior. You can talk about efficiency all you like, but most consumers don’t care.
I was referring to the opinions of some users that EVs are quieter, smoother, faster accelerating and are typically less expensive to drive hard when the occasion arises. They are also relatively spacious for a given footprint in most configurations and exhibit excellent front crash protection characteristics due to there being no engine trying to make its way into the passenger compartment. Some of that is of course linked to efficiency.Putting cost to one side, from a consumer’s perspective, they do nothing better than an ICE and in many ways, they are inferior. You can talk about efficiency all you like, but most consumers don’t care.
And yes, they typically have inferior range, for now anyway. Whether or not charging is more or less convenient than filling stations, is subjective, and depends on each users circumstances.
KingGary said:
Putting cost to one side, from a consumer’s perspective, they do nothing better than an ICE
This is simply not true. The disadvantages may outweigh the advantages for your use-case, but for us:1) Plugging the car in in the garage once a week is less effort than having to go to a petrol station every other week.
2) Silence is better than engine noise when leaving a suburban home early in the morning.
3) No tail-pipe emissions is better for our local air quality than burning fossil fuels.
4) The ability to pre-heat the cabin in the garage is certainly better than not being able to.
5) Given the choice, I'd rather have a drive-train which doesn't require servicing than one which does.
Those things may be outweighed by negatives for some people, maybe even for most people, but to say EVs do NOTHING better than ICE is just factually wrong. We're about to switch our family car from petrol to EV and whilst obviously the lower running costs are appealing, they're certainly not the only factor; for us an EV will simply be better.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 4th July 15:49
Tindersticks said:
Gary has long confused his opinion with fact.
It’s odd that a man who tells everyone about his old Range Rover daily and who has no intention of ever buying an EV spends his time hanging around in an EV forums.
There have been many like Gary that post opinion as fact. They gradually fall by the wayside as their opinions are shown up to be flawed and oft based on prejudice with no evidence to support it. It’s odd that a man who tells everyone about his old Range Rover daily and who has no intention of ever buying an EV spends his time hanging around in an EV forums.
I expect we will have another few years of naysaying before they realise the inevitability of EVs for personal transportation.
I suspect Gary is not young so can carry on in his Range Rover for the rest of his days bemoaning how much expensive his fuel is becoming.
Edited by Nomme de Plum on Thursday 4th July 19:42
Edited by Nomme de Plum on Thursday 4th July 19:54
Tindersticks said:
Gary has long confused his opinion with fact.
It’s odd that a man who tells everyone about his old Range Rover daily and who has no intention of ever buying an EV spends his time hanging around in an EV forums.
Even weirder you follow me around the internet to tell me how wrong I am. I used my old car (one of 5 btw and not my daily) to illustrate how silly the current ULEZ rules are and you, as usual miss the point completely. Haven't you got a wicker chair somewhere to unravel? It’s odd that a man who tells everyone about his old Range Rover daily and who has no intention of ever buying an EV spends his time hanging around in an EV forums.
Nomme de Plum said:
There have been many like Gary that post opinion as fact. They gradually fall by the wayside as their opinions are shown up to be flawed and oft based on prejudice with no evidence to support it.
I expect we will have another few years of naysaying before they realise the inevitability of EVs for personal transportation.
I suspect Gary is not young so can carry on in his Range Rover for the rest of his days bemoaning how much expensive his fuel is becoming.
What have I said that isn’t factually correct? Specific examples please. I expect we will have another few years of naysaying before they realise the inevitability of EVs for personal transportation.
I suspect Gary is not young so can carry on in his Range Rover for the rest of his days bemoaning how much expensive his fuel is becoming.
Edited by Nomme de Plum on Thursday 4th July 19:42
Edited by Nomme de Plum on Thursday 4th July 19:54
KingGary said:
Even weirder you follow me around the internet to tell me how wrong I am. I used my old car (one of 5 btw and not my daily) to illustrate how silly the current ULEZ rules are and you, as usual miss the point completely. Haven't you got a wicker chair somewhere to unravel?
"Follow you around the internet"Dude you live on these threads. Get a grip of your head.
KingGary said:
It is fact - on this and other threads, it’s been established that people choose them because a) they can get them through salary sacrifice or b) they can charge them at home and therefore avoid paying fuel duty/enjoy lower running costs. Both at the cost to the exchequer.
Putting cost to one side, from a consumer’s perspective, they do nothing better than an ICE and in many ways, they are inferior. You can talk about efficiency all you like, but most consumers don’t care.
So according to KingGary's beliefs, "most" consumers don't care about EVs, and have no interest in switching to a vehicle that doesn't emit anything at the tailpipe, as EVs are inferior, and do nothing better than an ICE, right? And if they have switched to EVs, it's got nothing to do with the environment, and simply about lower costs/taxes, right?Putting cost to one side, from a consumer’s perspective, they do nothing better than an ICE and in many ways, they are inferior. You can talk about efficiency all you like, but most consumers don’t care.
Let's see how multiple surveys of UK consumers seem to contradict the findings of KingGary's own UK survey of consumers (aka his/her perception of what consumers* across the UK want)
- n=1
"85% of the public are in favour of owning an electric vehicle in the next five years but almost two-thirds (62%) say high costs remain the main barrier to switching."
https://company.ovo.com/85-of-public-want-to-buy-a...
despite-delayed-fossil-fuel-car-ban/
Yougov survey - UK and other countries published May 2024
"imagine there are two otherwise identical versions available - one that is manufactured or provided with environmental sustainability in mind and a regular version.
Up to how much more would you be willing to pay for the sustainable version of the product or service compared to the regular one?"
58% willing to pay up to 10% more
26% willing to pay up to 26% more
10% willing to pay up to 50% more
https://business.yougov.com/content/49364-the-gree...
Yougov attitudes towards used EVs - published Nov 2023
"Polling data shows that, while a majority of Brits are unlikely to consider purchasing an EV (54%), a fifth of respondents (20%) are open to the idea.
Notably, younger consumers are far likelier to consider purchasing second-hand EVs. For instance, 18-24-year-olds exhibit the highest inclination (34%) toward considering a second-hand EV, closely followed by 25-34-year-olds (30%). While inclination levels among those aged 45-54 are low (17%), they are still twice as likely as those aged over 55 (9%) to make this purchase consideration.
among potential buyers, the most prevalent motivator is the lower purchase price compared to new EVs (65%).
A desire to contribute to a greener environment ranks high, with 61% selecting reduced environmental impact as a motivator.
Additionally, 57% of consumers find the prospect of lower operating and maintenance costs compelling enough to consider a second-hand EV."
https://business.yougov.com/content/47836-consumer...
Survey on behalf of GWM - published Dec 2023
"When asked about driving habits, only 19% of those surveyed said that they travelled more than 10,000 miles annually in their main car and 43% admitted that they only make a 200 mile trip ‘a few times a year’."
https://gwmora.co.uk/consumer-research-affirms-str...
PwC UK research on car subscriptions for cars
"Nearly half of UK consumers (49%) would be more likely to choose an alternative subscription model rather than traditional purchasing and financing routes when buying a car, according to new data from PwC.
The research found that age was a key indicator of interest: For premium and luxury brands, 85% of subscription demand is expected to come from customers between 18-44 years old"
https://www.pwc.co.uk/press-room/press-releases/re...
Yes, KingGary, you have beliefs, opinions, and views, like each of us, but they do not reflect the shift in consumer preferences, needs and wants in this country, especially with younger consumers.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff