Why are people buying electric cars?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 68495
  • Start date Start date
jerry12953 said:
It was a rhetorical question really, but you have given us a lot of detail about your journey without mentioning carbon emissions. Aren't they the background to the question posed in this thread?
Click to expand...
They may be part of the background but there are other criteria, which are more important to a majority of car users.

One is: why has the government not increased vehicle excise duty on electric cars to ensure that the users of such electric cars pay their fair share of road building and maintenance costs?
 
jerry12953 said:
It was a rhetorical question really, but you have given us a lot of detail about your journey without mentioning carbon emissions. Aren't they the background to the question posed in this thread?
Click to expand...

To an extent I was joining in with the conversation about recently made longer journeys, providing an additional and alternative example. In terms of specifics about carbon emissions, I turned 21.6 gallons of diesel fuel into CO2. The channel tunnel was used, so the site of carbon emissions was at a power station, rather than a motor vehicle or boat.
 
jerry12953 said:
And your carbon emissions were?
Click to expand...

Apparently, charging at public chargers due to the mix of energy used from the grid is about 30% of the carbon footprint from a petrol or diesel car, with rapid chargers sometimes being an even higher footprint. I believe that those that claim to source from 100% renewable energy aren't really doing so directly because they are using offsetting measures.

Also, whilst not necessarily always the case, this abstract indicated:

"It is found that better fuel economy is strongly associated with lower emissions of CO and HC and that the effect gets stronger as vehicles age."

Taking into account all of the above, I think it would be fair to say that Toni's comparative footprint for that single event was pretty damn decent if he was getting 59.6mpg.
 
Clive K said:
The underlying issue is that we have become accustomed to being able to do 500 miles without refueling and having a widespread refuelling network.
Click to expand...
Our ability to learn hasn't been taken away, though.

No reason why we can't learn something else.
 
Clive K said:
There are too many variables to take into account that could undermine your opinion.

The underlying issue is that we have become accustomed to being able to do 500 miles without refueling and having a widespread refuelling network. With an ev all that has to be re-considered. You would have to factor in recharging stops at more frequent intervals. As Toni said; adding two hours to an overly long journey is at best unwelcome and may cause the journey that was feasible in a diesel car in one day to entail an overnight stop.
Click to expand...
Not really - for many journeys they just fit into natural breaks. Ok, when I went to Gatwick I needed to stop there and charge which did add 20 mins or so to the journey down - in ICE I could have gone there, parked for 2 weeks and come back with no stops. Same when I go to Heathrow in Oct.

But these are minor exceptions. I have a car with great performance and fun to drive. No having to worry that Tesco is out of fuel as seems to be the case a number of times, or having to queue and fill up every fortnight.
 
LeeRatters said:
In the grand scheme of things, they aren't that important.
Click to expand...

Aye, you've gotta love the fun of racing through a big drink at the cinema before the paper straw dissolves, meanwhile a blind eye is fully turned when it comes to the huge pollution created from the latest military conflict.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
They may be part of the background but there are other criteria, which are more important to a majority of car users.

One is: why has the government not increased vehicle excise duty on electric cars to ensure that the users of such electric cars pay their fair share of road building and maintenance costs?
Click to expand...
No it is important to you. Plenty of examples of how our taxing system is unfair (but in normally means it is unfair to "me")

Surprisingly when I was away at the weekend with a load of petrolheads the unfairness of vehicle exercise licences and EV's never came up. We did talk about the silly amount one lad has to pay on his 6 litre (from a Winnebago) Land Rover though.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
They may be part of the background but there are other criteria, which are more important to a majority of car users.

One is: why has the government not increased vehicle excise duty on electric cars to ensure that the users of such electric cars pay their fair share of road building and maintenance costs?
Click to expand...

Because VED is based on emissions (or was) - so that those that create the most CO2 pay more. EVs dont, hence why cheaper. Or are you suggesting one flat rate like £500 per car, regardless if its a Tesla, Picanto or Aston Martin? Why are small car drivers not paying their fair share? Why is someone driving a car from pre 1984 not paying tax? Why are the disabled not paying tax? Why are diplomats not paying their fair share?

And it is also not used for roads!
 
ancient_mariner said:
Drove back from France on Saturday. Left at about 09:10 French time, stopped for a couple of 5min comfort breaks plus about 25min for lunch, got an early crossing through the tunnel, stopped to pick up some food and was home by about 17:50 UK time. That's 9hr 40min for 505 miles with an actual driving time of 8hr 22min. For the entire trip (out and back plus local trips) we averaged 59.6mpg over 1294 miles. We were tired by the time we got home, but less so than if we'd taken an extra couple of hours.
Click to expand...

I have driven 9 hours (Highlands to Peterborough) non stop before but it's not something I'd like to do often (or again). I much prefer the more sedate EV experience :)
 
Steep said:
I have driven 9 hours (Highlands to Peterborough) non stop before but it's not something I'd like to do often (or again). I much prefer the more sedate EV experience :)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want to drive without stopping, but really appreciated just being to get straight back in and go again after a bio-break and a walk.
 
munch said:
No it is important to you.
Click to expand...
And inevitably, to others.

There are only so many use cases to go around and there are lots of people, so there must be a great deal of commonality.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
And inevitably, to others.

There are only so many use cases to go around and there are lots of people, so there must be a great deal of commonality.
Click to expand...
Commonality only created by the ICE. Your behaviour has been driven by the ICE, before you could drive 500 miles on a tank, you didn't.
 
The following could happen to any car, not just EV's, but it is an area of concern, given the numbers of Chinese EV's being imported by the UK. On February 17th, Poland banned Chinese made vehicles from entering sensitive military facilities. There are reports of large numbers of Porches in Russia, developing mystery electrical/computer faults, making it impossible to start them, without the help of friendly hackers.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywSgoz5ld4Y
 
My ford diesel has OTA updates, they could cock it up ( and have had issues in the past), the idea we should worry about Chinese cars is over blown in my opinion, Trump could just as easily force ford to kill all UK cars in some childish spat.
 
Last edited:
Delphin said:
My ford diesel has OTA updates, they could cock it up ( and have has issues in the past), the idea we should worry about Chinese cars is over blown in my opinion, Trump could just as easily force ford to kill all UK cars in some childish spat.
Click to expand...

For all Trumps faults, that is not the same league as China. The government there could do anything they want - not the case in countries like America.
 
They have already had a dress rehearsal when hundreds of driverless cars came to a standstill. It will definitely be used to disrupt traffic for ulteria motives. Just like in the Italian Job :D
 
That's (usually) Waymo driverless taxis and bored students! They (Waymo) aren't good at puddles, either although the iPace is.
 
Clive K said:
It will definitely be used to disrupt traffic for ulteria motives. Just like in the Italian Job :D
Click to expand...
I think you may well be correct.

It seems to go against common sense to have robotic vehicles, which can be given instructions by radio, on the public roads. It's something of an open invitation to the mad and the bad: "Here we are, lads and lasses, just log in and reprogramme these mobile battering rams!"
 
Don't worry about Chinese cars, worry about American cars.

"A federal law is about to increase the amount of data your car can gather about you. It will soon require American car companies to install infrared biometric cameras and other systems to scan your body language, track your eyes or other aspects of your behavoiur to detect whether you're too drunk or tired to drive. But it will also open up a whole new trove of data about your health and your habits. There are no rules limiting what the car companies can do with that information. "


www.bbc.co.uk

Trillions of miles of data: Your car is spying on you, and it's only just the beginning

From your weight and facial expressions to your destination, cars collect a startling amount of data about you. Some of it may even raise your insurance costs.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
Last edited:
Delphin said:
Don't worry about Chinese cars, worry about American cars.

"A federal law is about to increase the amount of data your car can gather about you. It will soon require American car companies to install infrared biometric cameras and other systems to scan your body language, track your eyes or other aspects of your behavoiur to detect whether you're too drunk or tired to drive. But it will also open up a whole new trove of data about your health and your habits. There are no rules limiting what the car companies can do with that information. "


www.bbc.co.uk

Trillions of miles of data: Your car is spying on you, and it's only just the beginning

From your weight and facial expressions to your destination, cars collect a startling amount of data about you. Some of it may even raise your insurance costs.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

Fortunate most of us don't drive American cars, although if this were applied to Ford then it might kill them in the European market.

TBH we should all be concerned about what our cars collect and transmit.
 
Delphin said:
Don't worry about Chinese cars, worry about American cars.

"A federal law is about to increase the amount of data your car can gather about you. It will soon require American car companies to install infrared biometric cameras and other systems to scan your body language, track your eyes or other aspects of your behavoiur to detect whether you're too drunk or tired to drive. But it will also open up a whole new trove of data about your health and your habits. There are no rules limiting what the car companies can do with that information. "


www.bbc.co.uk

Trillions of miles of data: Your car is spying on you, and it's only just the beginning

From your weight and facial expressions to your destination, cars collect a startling amount of data about you. Some of it may even raise your insurance costs.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

ancient_mariner said:
Fortunate most of us don't drive American cars, although if this were applied to Ford then it might kill them in the European market.

TBH we should all be concerned about what our cars collect and transmit.
Click to expand...

From what I gather, it is Ford that are pushing this/have the patent/or whatever.

I wonder how many of the very initial AI/tech fans still think the same with how things are going (in general)? I remember right at the beginning of it all saying that it's only there (invented!) to be used against us - there are obviously some good benefits of it - and I try to use as little of it as possible tbh.
 
I wonder how it would work with bikers who have dark tinted and chameleon visors?
 
Delphin said:
Don't worry about Chinese cars, worry about American cars.

"A federal law is about to increase the amount of data your car can gather about you. It will soon require American car companies to install infrared biometric cameras and other systems to scan your body language, track your eyes or other aspects of your behavoiur to detect whether you're too drunk or tired to drive. But it will also open up a whole new trove of data about your health and your habits. There are no rules limiting what the car companies can do with that information. "


www.bbc.co.uk

Trillions of miles of data: Your car is spying on you, and it's only just the beginning

From your weight and facial expressions to your destination, cars collect a startling amount of data about you. Some of it may even raise your insurance costs.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

So in theory, if all cars tomorrow had tech that could stop you driving if drunk, what is wrong with that?
 
cambsno said:
Neither is thinking Trump will block our cars!!
Click to expand...

Trump, possibly not, although he has ordered Microsoft to block access by an ICC judge to his email etc. A hostile foreign power, certainly, and the US could easily become that, or the system might be hacked and then someone else entirely.
 
I suspect insurance companies would love the data it provides.
 
ancient_mariner said:
A hostile foreign power, certainly, and the US could easily become that, or the system might be hacked and then someone else entirely.
Click to expand...
There have been crackers (not "hackers") since long before the internet, quite possibly since the second computer was attached to a Public Switched Telephone Network.

Something like a car, which can easily put people in danger, is a pot full of honey to the crackers. :(
 
Delphin said:
Private health companies too, as it records people doing tiny trips instead of walking (which people do)
Click to expand...

Good point. I'm guilty of that. I'm trying to get back into cycling, but long faded give-way road paint and bloody awful road surfaces make it a fairly lethal experience.
 
cambsno said:
Because VED is based on emissions (or was) - so that those that create the most CO2 pay more. EVs dont, hence why cheaper. Or are you suggesting one flat rate like £500 per car, regardless if its a Tesla, Picanto or Aston Martin? Why are small car drivers not paying their fair share? Why is someone driving a car from pre 1984 not paying tax? Why are the disabled not paying tax? Why are diplomats not paying their fair share?

And it is also not used for roads!
Click to expand...
I’d be happy with £500 RFL, that’s about 60% of my current cost, the same vehicle has a further two cheaper tax bands age dependent yet emissions are the same, government changed bands, there may be more in the same boat.
 
I think I pay £425 for a basic 170bhp petrol engine which is the pre-cheating/rule bending era so it gets absolutely hammered which is a bit annoying given it emits very little CO2 in reality since it rarely moves these days but just something I have to live with.
 
Vehicle tax should never have been based on emissions, because it's only one part of the equation when it comes to pollution. It's the same with resident parking permits that are starting to be based on emissions. Without "distance driven" being factored in, then it's clearly just an income generator and little to do with the environment.

There could be an argument that the fuel dut and VAT on fuel could be the "distance" element of the equation as it would directly reflect distance driven, but if you factor in that a car with high emissions would in general be less fuel efficient (there will be exceptions but emissions and efficiency are directly linked), then the Government would already get their extra tax to save the environment through VAT and fuel duty.

Perhaps vehicle tax could just be a small annual amount that can go to the local authority to help pay for pothole repairs etc. For example, there are 239k cars registered to Glasgow postcodes. A fixed £250 annual vehicle tax would bring in almost £60 million each year. The council spent over £36 million repairing potholes, over five years. Just think what eight times that amount could do for the roads.

I do wonder if a shift away from this "big pot" that the treasury has and perhaps look into ringfencing revenue would be seen as a fairer system.
 
Last edited:
The problem with ring fencing too much is when an unexpected large disaster happens.

If every pot is ring fenced you'd probably have to pay much more tax. If you can't move the money around you'd need the pot for bridges to be enough for a unexpected collapse, the pot for building to have enough to cover a huge fire, the roads pot large enough to cover any unexpected landslide or sink holes, and so on.
 
Last edited:
gman said:
Vehicle tax should never have been based on emissions, because it's only one part of the equation when it comes to pollution. It's the same with resident parking permits that are starting to be based on emissions. Without "distance driven" being factored in, then it's clearly just an income generator and little to do with the environment.

There could be an argument that the fuel dut and VAT on fuel could be the "distance" element of the equation as it would directly reflect distance driven, but if you factor in that a car with high emissions would in general be less fuel efficient (there will be exceptions but emissions and efficiency are directly linked), then the Government would already get their extra tax to save the environment through VAT and fuel duty.

Perhaps vehicle tax could just be a small annual amount that can go to the local authority to help pay for pothole repairs etc. For example, there are 239k cars registered to Glasgow postcodes. A fixed £250 annual vehicle tax would bring in almost £60 million each year. The council spent over £36 million repairing potholes, over five years. Just think what eight times that amount could do for the roads.

I do wonder if a shift away from this "big pot" that the treasury has and perhaps look into ringfencing revenue would be seen as a fairer system.
Click to expand...

I just dont understand why we need car tax AND a tax on use (i.e. fuel). Do away with road tax and put the difference on the price of petrol (or the EV mileage charge) - so it goes from £300 tax & 1.70 per L (or 3p per mile) to say 1.74 per L and 5p per mile or however the maths works! One tax rather than 2, so less admin. And unless you have your own refinery/cooking oil/red diesel, you cant cheat the system and just not pay road tax!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top