two-wheeled scum murdering pedestrians again

On 13/04/2011 12:04, Front Mech wrote:
On Apr 13, 11:05 am, Matt wrote:
On 12/04/2011 19:40, Front Mech wrote:
On 12 apr, 18:07, Matt wrote:

Precisely, it [VED] is by band, not be emissions. The bands are set, not on
how much you emit, but by the theoretical potential of your engine /to/
emit - a rating.

Just got this from

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring...ToTaxYourVehic...

The cost of vehicle tax for cars, motorcycles, light goods vehicles
and trade licences

Tax classes include:

private/light goods vehicles, motorcycles and tricycles
cars registered on or after 1 March 2001 based on CO2 emissions
and fuel type
cars registered before 23 March 2006 based on CO2 emissions over
225g/km and fuel type

Am I misreading it in some way? It does appear to indicate that VED is
based on CO2 emissions.

Let me give you an example.

Imagine a couple with some children who have, say, a Ford Galaxy that
they use to ferry the kids around and for weekends, and a Prius that the
main breadwinner uses for commuting.

The Galaxy is band L (GBP 445 VED), and emits 235 g/km CO2 and the Prius
is band A (GBP Zero VED) and emits 92 g/km CO2. The Galaxy covers 7000
miles per year, the Prius 35000.

The Galaxy emits a total of 2647 kg of CO2, the Prius a whopping 5182 kg
of CO2.

Now explain how, given that the Prius in the example above emits twice
as much CO2 as the Galaxy, that the VED paid is in any way based on CO2
emissions.

The figures are based on emissions (grammes per kilometre) of each car
type. That is in black and white on the DVLA's website.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum.../dg_067081.pdf

So _not_ on emissions then, but on the potential to emit.

"Cars registered on or after 1 March 2001
based on CO2 emissions and fuel type"

No-one apart from you is suggesting that VED is based on the emissions
emitted by one particular and it's owner's usage. So, in short, as the
Governent itself says, VED is based on CO2 emissions.

That is misleading way of putting it as VED is levied even if the car
has no emissions at all, and as we've seen, those emitting less may well
pay more than those who emit more.

It's like saying that bus ticket prices are based on mileage, then
charging the same for any journey whether it's 1 mile or 100 miles long.

--
Matt B

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:37:13 +0100
Matt B wrote:

Fuel duty /is/ proportional to emissions, VED, being flat-rate
(regardless of amount emitted) is not.

I think anyone who wanted to get your point has already, and anyone
who doesn't want to isn't going to budge, although Tom is just
broadening the scope a bit rather than being thick or stubborn. As for
the others ...

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:37:13 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

On 13/04/2011 11:54, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:25:11 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

On 13/04/2011 10:50, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:05:09 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

On 12/04/2011 19:40, Front Mech wrote:
On 12 apr, 18:07, Matt wrote:

Precisely, it [VED] is by band, not be emissions. The bands are set, not on
how much you emit, but by the theoretical potential of your engine /to/
emit - a rating.

Just got this from

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring...cle/DG_4022118

The cost of vehicle tax for cars, motorcycles, light goods vehicles
and trade licences

Tax classes include:

private/light goods vehicles, motorcycles and tricycles
cars registered on or after 1 March 2001 based on CO2 emissions
and fuel type
cars registered before 23 March 2006 based on CO2 emissions over
225g/km and fuel type

Am I misreading it in some way? It does appear to indicate that VED is
based on CO2 emissions.

Let me give you an example.

Imagine a couple with some children who have, say, a Ford Galaxy that
they use to ferry the kids around and for weekends, and a Prius that the
main breadwinner uses for commuting.

The Galaxy is band L (GBP 445 VED), and emits 235 g/km CO2 and the Prius
is band A (GBP Zero VED) and emits 92 g/km CO2. The Galaxy covers 7000
miles per year, the Prius 35000.

The Galaxy emits a total of 2647 kg of CO2, the Prius a whopping 5182 kg
of CO2.

Now explain how, given that the Prius in the example above emits twice
as much CO2 as the Galaxy, that the VED paid is in any way based on CO2
emissions.

You may prefer to consider the duty paid on fuel as well as the
vehicle excise duty.

Yes, indeed. Although the particular discussion I was addressing was
whether VED was based on emissions. Which as we can see, it isn't.

Clearly there is an substantial element of VED which is based on
emissions.

Oh - and in my calculations which you snipped above, I forgot to add
in VAT on fuel.

With that you get:
Galaxy - 42p per Kg of CO2
Prius - 38p per Kg of CO2

So, you can now see how it could be argued that VED is used to bring
down the cost per Kg of CO2 emissions for the least polluting cars -
even with your example.

Tom, I think you are confusing (or conflating) VED and fuel duty. Fuel
duty /is/ proportional to emissions, VED, being flat-rate (regardless of
amount emitted) is not.

VED is not a flat rate.

VED is in broad bands according to certain criteria, including age of
vehicle and average CO2 emissions per unit of distance.

On 13/04/2011 14:38, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:37:13 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

On 13/04/2011 11:54, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:25:11 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

On 13/04/2011 10:50, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:05:09 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

On 12/04/2011 19:40, Front Mech wrote:
On 12 apr, 18:07, Matt wrote:

Precisely, it [VED] is by band, not be emissions. The bands are set, not on
how much you emit, but by the theoretical potential of your engine /to/
emit - a rating.

Just got this from

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring...cle/DG_4022118

The cost of vehicle tax for cars, motorcycles, light goods vehicles
and trade licences

Tax classes include:

private/light goods vehicles, motorcycles and tricycles
cars registered on or after 1 March 2001 based on CO2 emissions
and fuel type
cars registered before 23 March 2006 based on CO2 emissions over
225g/km and fuel type

Am I misreading it in some way? It does appear to indicate that VED is
based on CO2 emissions.

Let me give you an example.

Imagine a couple with some children who have, say, a Ford Galaxy that
they use to ferry the kids around and for weekends, and a Prius that the
main breadwinner uses for commuting.

The Galaxy is band L (GBP 445 VED), and emits 235 g/km CO2 and the Prius
is band A (GBP Zero VED) and emits 92 g/km CO2. The Galaxy covers 7000
miles per year, the Prius 35000.

The Galaxy emits a total of 2647 kg of CO2, the Prius a whopping 5182 kg
of CO2.

Now explain how, given that the Prius in the example above emits twice
as much CO2 as the Galaxy, that the VED paid is in any way based on CO2
emissions.

You may prefer to consider the duty paid on fuel as well as the
vehicle excise duty.

Yes, indeed. Although the particular discussion I was addressing was
whether VED was based on emissions. Which as we can see, it isn't.

Clearly there is an substantial element of VED which is based on
emissions.

Oh - and in my calculations which you snipped above, I forgot to add
in VAT on fuel.

With that you get:
Galaxy - 42p per Kg of CO2
Prius - 38p per Kg of CO2

So, you can now see how it could be argued that VED is used to bring
down the cost per Kg of CO2 emissions for the least polluting cars -
even with your example.

Tom, I think you are confusing (or conflating) VED and fuel duty. Fuel
duty /is/ proportional to emissions, VED, being flat-rate (regardless of
amount emitted) is not.

VED is not a flat rate.

Sorry: flat-rate per band.

VED is in broad bands according to certain criteria, including age of
vehicle and average CO2 emissions per unit of distance.

Exactly.

--
Matt B

On 13/04/2011 14:38, Tom Crispin wrote:

[ ... ]

VED is not a flat rate.

sigh

So how does it scale for me (or for anyone)?

My road tax is due in a couple of months. My car will be five years old. What
(other than Budget increases) might cause the renewal price to change?

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:41:37 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 13/04/2011 14:38, Tom Crispin wrote:

[ ... ]

VED is not a flat rate.

sigh

So how does it scale for me (or for anyone)?

My road tax is due in a couple of months. My car will be five years old. What
(other than Budget increases) might cause the renewal price to change?

- get someone to cripple you;
- sell it to HMG for use as a ministerial car;
- convince Prince William that he doesn't want to marry Kate Middleton
and enter into a civil partnership with him, then hand the car over as
a 'crown vehicle'

#1 might be the easiest option. I'd be happy to offer whatever
assistance I may.

On 13/04/2011 16:17, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:41:37 +0100,
wrote:

On 13/04/2011 14:38, Tom Crispin wrote:

[ ... ]

VED is not a flat rate.

sigh

So how does it scale for me (or for anyone)?

My road tax is due in a couple of months. My car will be five years old. What
(other than Budget increases) might cause the renewal price to change?

- get someone to cripple you;
- sell it to HMG for use as a ministerial car;
- convince Prince William that he doesn't want to marry Kate Middleton
and enter into a civil partnership with him, then hand the car over as
a 'crown vehicle'

#1 might be the easiest option. I'd be happy to offer whatever
assistance I may.

Anything at all rather than admit that road tax is a flat rate tax, eh?

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:48:12 -0700 (PDT), Front Mech wrote:

snip



Your pleading with him to give a reason is unfortunate. The reason you
repeatedly attribute to him on this forum is thus a lie - you have
produced no quote. The rest of your abuse is a shameful attempt to
disguise that fact.



I must admit I cannot remember actually "attributing" the words " just because the limits do not
apply to cyclists." to him - could you remind me where I did so please.

It was a conclusion I had come to - as he has never explained his reason, and seemed to be the only
reasonable conclusion as he stressed that the limit did not apply to him.

It seems to me to be the only logical conclusion. - I will of course be happy to correct my error
as soon as he tells us exactly why he insists on cycling in the quoted 20mph zone at 25mph.


(Has he asked you to try and help him with this little problem - or did you just feel sorry for him
digging deeper and deeper?)
--
Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20mph limits just because the limits do not apply to cyclists.
A total disreagrd for the well-being of vulnerable road users.

On 13/04/2011 12:04, Front Mech wrote:


No-one apart from you is suggesting that VED is based on the emissions
emitted by one particular and it's owner's usage. So, in short, as the
Governent itself says, VED is based on CO2 emissions.


And the Guvmint would never lie to us in order to put up taxes would they?

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Apr 13, 8:05*pm, Judith wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:48:12 -0700 (PDT), Front Mech wrote:

snip



Your pleading with him to give a reason is unfortunate. The reason you
repeatedly attribute to him on this forum is thus a lie - you have
produced no quote. The rest of your abuse is a shameful attempt to
disguise that fact.

I must admit I cannot remember *actually "attributing" *the words *" just because the limits do not
apply to cyclists." to him *- could you remind me where I did so please..
By repeating the unsupportable conclusion to which you have come about
the reason for his behavior you are, by defininition, attributing that
very reason to him. This is all the more incorrect when he, himself,
has given a more than plausible explanation for his speed. You cannot
possibly know his reasoning: nor is he under any obligation to explain
himself to someone who repeatedly abuses him on public fora.
It was a conclusion I had come to - as he has never explained his reason, and seemed to be the only
reasonable conclusion as he stressed that the limit did not apply to him.

It seems *to me to be the only logical conclusion. *- I will of course be happy to correct my error
as soon as he tells us exactly why he insists on cycling *in the quoted 20mph zone at 25mph.
This is a complete reversal of all rules of public debate - the moral
onus of supporting an assertion is upon the maker of that assertion.
It is absolutely not incumbent upon the victim of your assertion to
have to disprove it.

So basically you are repeatedly posting that Simon has acted within
the law.
You have reached an unsupportable conclusion about his choice of
speed.
With no knowledge of any facts you then post as a fact that he had a
total disregard for other vulnerable road users. The law does not
support your assumtion about this: a 5 mph breach of a spped limit
(which does not apply to bicycles) is insufficient to fall into this
category. Again you are reaching falsehoods as a result of your
dislike of a poster.
(Has he asked you to try and help him with this little problem - or did you just feel sorry for him
digging deeper and deeper?)

I have no idea to what you are referring: I would like it to remain
so.
-- * * *
Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20mph limits just because the limits do not apply to cyclists.
A total disreagrd for the *well-being of vulnerable road users.