CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Government backpedals on VED definition

(9 posts)

  1. Arellcat
    Moderator

    So the Transport Committee wants the DfT to make roads safer, and the BMA wants transport policy to be based on the health of the population. Meanwhile the UKG has decided that VED isn't actually anything to do with the environment, but is in fact a money-making exercise. And so the 'war on motorists' continues.

    "The Treasury argues that VED, unlike the Climate Change Levy which was created as an environmental tax, is a “pre-existing tax…made sensitive to environmental concerns”. As such, in the eyes of the Treasury, VED has never been a real environmental tax and the new definition of what is and what isn’t an environmental tax takes VED out of the picture."

    http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/bad-news-for-cyclists-as-government-backtracks-on-definition-of-ved-as-an-environmental-duty/

    We have motorists and non-motorists on this forum. Have the former sought to buy a vehicle primarily on the lower VED it attracts, as opposed to other factors such as carrying capability, fuel efficiency, noise and speed, or physical size?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  2. steveo
    Member

    I did downsize this year but purely because my older larger car was broken and mini seems to hold its value so if we get rid of it soonish we won't take a hit on resale.

    The lower band for VED was nice as the refund on the previous cars tax covered six months for the new one and the hugely increased efficiency is a nice bonus. On the other hand I can no longer load anything longer than a meter or so including my bikes which means I need a rack.

    In short VED has never been a consideration when choosing the car, colour probably comes higher up the list. Fuel efficiency isn't really much of a worry either since we only do about 6k miles per year.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  3. Smudge
    Member

    We got a largeish, older turbodiesel for the economy and because it's more practical for us. Ved is what, three fills of the tank or a pair of tyres? So not a major factor in the running costs... In fact I'd go so far as to say not a consideration.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  4. Instography
    Member

    We had an older, large car that had high VED and low fuel efficiency. When it failed its MOT we changed it for a bigger, more fuel efficient car with lower VED. Like Smudge, VED's irrelevant compared with getting 25% better mileage from a more efficient engine.

    And to be fair, VED was a pre-existing tax repurposed and given an environmental veneer to crank up what could be raised by it by targeting big and inefficient cars.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  5. Baldcyclist
    Member

    VED not really a consideration for me, nice to know how much it is before buying the car, but the cost wouldn't put me off - of course this doesn't stop me whinging about the cost when "road tad" time comes around again (sorry, it is just a phrase and doesn't really make anyone think they are entitled to more road, at least I don't think so).

    My only consideration when buying the Passat (even though it is a heap of ugliness), was, is my bike going to fit in the back without having to take the front wheel off twice a day, yes, sold.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  6. cb
    Member

    I have bought three cars and VED has only ever been a minor consideration.

    I'd give far more consideration to fuel efficiency, but then, fuel efficiency and VED go hand in hand.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  7. mgj
    Member

    Back when I bought the family tank (another Passat turbodiesel, an estate), fuel efficiency for a new car we were going to run into the ground (10 1/2 years so far) was more of a concern. For my car, I was just pissed off that it missed out on the free VED by either a day (manufacturing) or 5 months (first registration). It is less fuel efficient than the VW, but runs on smiles per gallon, much like me on the bike this morning. I love cycling in weather like this, much more than driving in it (could have done without a ped stepping out in front of my going down the Royal Mile though).

    Posted 12 years ago #

  8. Arellcat
    Moderator

    When I ran a car I was doing well to cover 3000 miles in a year, and most of it was motorway driving, and VED was a cross to bear rather than a factor. But at that pace, VED + insurance + servicing + MOTs became a significant element set against the cost of fuel, which I think averaged a tank a month at most. So I ditched the car and went motorbiking. I still don't cover 3000 miles a year.

    But now that VED has returned to its roots, albeit still in its graduated form (which surely seems tied to the lower-higher-emissions aspect), are we going to see more motorists claiming the 'right' to use the roads, possibly to the detriment of cyclists (but not sundry zero-rated vehicle drivers), because, as any fule kno, it's drivers who pay for the roads?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  9. steveo
    Member

    Honestly i doubt it'll make any appreciable difference. The majority of the public believe "road tax" isn't just its name but an appropriate moniker. Away from the internet most people don't know or care that its called ved and doesn't pay for the roads.

    It might make it a bit harder for "lobby" groups working with councillors and politicians etc but for your average person on a bike nothing will change.

    Posted 12 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin