No more Zero vehicle band tax on electric cars

@mert are car assemblies designed with repairability in mind as well as ease of initial assembly? Or just the latter? Does this really vary by manufacturer as it appears to us DIYers?

I agree with Mert / I think you’re saying what I was trying to say, but more eloquently. – yes, automotive is designed down to a price, weight, service life, no maintenance and size.

They are designed for the expected life of the vehicle and can be designed small enough, light enough and cheap enough whilst still not requiring maintenance for the life of the car.

One of those design requirements is no service, so they’re designed to not require any. If a failure happens (not expected wear out) then it’s a replacement job which usually means disassembling the gearbox and motor casing.

Hence why there are no grease ports and they’re not serviceable (which was the point where tangents off on to bearings in the first place.)

Industrial is a whole different ball game – loads and service life typically on a different order of magnitude, so the bearing can’t often realistically be designed for life of the product hence is designed to be easy to service and replace if neccesary.

Not all industrial bearings require careful start up type behaviour – but again that’s application specific and you would design the bearings to the required speec (for example we make industrial generators – the same basic set can do either a standby duty cycle whilst requires going from switched off to 4,000 ish BHP in a handful of seconds and also continous cycles where 60,000 hours life is expected before bearing overhaul.

“ are car assemblies designed with repairability in mind as well as ease of initial assembly? Or just the latter? Does this really vary by manufacturer as it appears to us DIYers?”

A bit of both. It depends on the system. For example an engine or an EV motor for that matter is intended to be fit for life so if it’s a pig to get out then the manufacturer will prioritise ease and speed of assembly, cost and packaging over easy servicing.

Changing brake pads and discs – designed for easy access.

Over the years are cars have become more reliable and do tend to die from old age body rot and things like cam shafts and con rod bearings do last the life of the car it’s tending more and more towards ease of assembly. Take liquid gasket rather than proper ones for sumps and rocker coverw for example.

Yes, it varies by manufacturer although most are trending towards cheap to assemble in order to stay competitive.

@mert are car assemblies designed with repairability in mind as well as ease of initial assembly?

It depends. Is the manufacturer interested in End Of Life extension i.e. do they want to keep their cars on the road for as long as possible. And how much extra cost/weight will they allow to enable this. (thinner, lighter, cheaper housings are crap for pressing new bearings in, but the assemblies can be cheaper, a trade off, and the machines the supplier will use are designed for the job, but adding split bearing housings costs a fortune).

Do we want customers fiddling with those bits? (Some DIYers really shouldn’t be allowed to pick up a set of spanners, and oxy torch or a sledge hammer.)

Then we have the legislation, some markets have bits we aren’t allowed to let customers fiddle with, and some have bits we legally have to let them fiddle with (EU Diagnostics stuff for example and some right to repair legislation).

So, yeah, it varies massively, both by manufacturer and component area.

there’s no world in which paying for parking is a “tax”

its income to the government (local) which can be used to pay for things, so offsets any costs from that local goverment (looking after roads) that they may incur. It reduces any “subsidy” that may exist (but doesn’t)

Interesting.

Is the manufacturer interested in End Of Life extension i.e. do they want to keep their cars on the road for as long as possible

I do wonder if longevity is important to certain brands. I see a lot of older Mercedes driving around, perhaps these are important as advetising; but it’s probably quite an expensive thing for a manufacturer to cultivate and must be hard to quantify a return on that investment. Looking at how things are made on the Merc Vs the Nissan we had I get the feeling the Germans do things because they think that’s the way things should be done, not for a calculated economic reason.

I do wonder if longevity is important to certain brands. I see a lot of older Mercedes driving around, perhaps these are important as advetising; but it’s probably quite an expensive thing for a manufacturer to cultivate and must be hard to quantify a return on that investment. Looking at how things are made on the Merc Vs the Nissan we had I get the feeling the Germans do things because they think that’s the way things should be done, not for a calculated economic reason.

I think its far simpler than that – expensive cars take longer to reach the point at which they’re no longer economical to repair. This is easy to spot if you look at certain cars – there’s far more (as a percentage of new) 80s ferraris and lamboghinis (which had truely terrible build quality) on the road than there are w126 merc S classes (which were built like battleships). the mercs were simply run into the ground at 15 years old, whereas someone stuck the ferrari in a shed and paid for any repairs to keep it tip-top

You’re right,  but Merc aren’t repairing a lot of these old cars so why do they care if it’s easy to replace stuff?

Brand image, residuals, JDPower type stuff.

If stuff is “extra” durable, it doesn’t fail early, and if it’s easy/possible to repair customers tend not to complain so loudly, so reliability surveys improve by more than the actual reliability does. Second hand value improves, lease cost drops sales improve. See lots of really old cars on the road, you’re more likely to buy a second hand one, as it’ll last…

One large german manufacturer did this in the 90’s/00’s, let lots of stuff that usually wouldn’t have been covered by warranty slide. So their actual reliability was somewhere middle of the road, but customer complaints were far lower than would be expected. Cost them a lot of cash (but they had a lot of cash at the time), they still have a reputation for  excellent reliability. Even though the numbers show that they aren’t anything special (maybe top 3rd of the market? Haven’t looked for a while.)

there’s no world in which paying for parking is a “tax”

its income to the government (local) which can be used to pay for things

Do you think paying to get into the council swimming pool is also a “tax”? Give over

Tony: what do you think are the actual costs, then? I’m challenging you to provide actual numbers.

I haven’t a clue which is why I asked. TJ thinks he does though but is being shy to provide them bless.

I provided figures for one aspect, listed others, put up an article with a list of costs to be considered,

I have been asked to give up on this debate, you car lovers are not actually interested in debate nor do you want to hear any rebuttal of your car centric propaganda you like to believe so I shut up

Nowt I say will get you to open your closed minds

The true cost of motoring if borne by the motorist would be 2 or 3 times what you pay now

You talk about having a debate and then make the claim above. I’ve asked you how you came to this conclusion as frankly it seems an astonishing claim. You can’t so it’s probably best you step away from debates where your limited knowledge disrupts conversation and debate. Peace Out.

Tony: what do you think are the actual costs, then?

I haven’t a clue

frankly it seems an astonishing claim. You can’t so it’s probably best you step away from debates where your limited knowledge disrupts conversation

Come on, Tony, which is it? You have no clue about what the true cost of motoring is or you know enough that you’re astonished by other views? People with limited knowledge (like TJ) shouldn’t be allowed to discuss this topic but people that don’t have a clue (like you) should? 😃

I’m not the one making claims on the number though. TJ says he does know the numbers.

I’m sure others can form an opinion (and some have voiced) without your unwavering support of TJ’s every pronouncement.

Council tax revenue is around £48bn of which around 8% is for the roads, so ~£4bn.

Fuel duty was ~£26bn last year,

VED brings in around £7bn.

So £37bn in revenue from Duty, VED and CT in 2023.

The government and local authorities spent around £11.5bn on the roads in 2023,

they also spent an additional £2bn on  infrastructure to support electrification,

so £13.5bn spent.

They’ve also said an additional £8bn will be spent on fixing the roads, but still.

Now there will be additional costs for policing, etc that are specific to the roads and there will be costs for things like gritting, that might not be covered in this, but to me, it seems that cars and drivers are actually paying to support other things, not the other way around.

daffy – 15 billion for deaths and injuries on the roads – detailed above with links

Plus cost of

Road policing

Costs of deaths illhealth and disability from roads pollution

Damage to buildings

Diseases of inactivity.

Lost value of the land used for parking

etc etc

Read the Monbiot article linked to above

You cannot count council trax revenue as that does not only come from car drivers

so 33 billion directly raised by motoring taxes, 11 billion spent on roads, 15 billion cost of direct deaths leaving 7 billion to cover allthe other costs.

I have been asked to give up on this debate, you car lovers are not actually interested in debate nor do you want to hear any rebuttal of your car centric propaganda you like to believe so I shut up

Have you owned a car in the past? Maybe before you retired…? I have a car but I wouldn’t class myself as a car lover, I just deem it a necessity in my life currently. I don’t live in a city, I travel to/from work and sometimes to other locations (e.g. data centres and customer sites). Sure, there are alternatives but none are as practical and reliable as having my own car and sometimes they’re just not a viable option.

Have you owned a car in the past?

No – well a few weeks when 17

A few more takes on costs

As well as the loss of life, serious injury and distress these casualty figures also have an economic value. The cost to the British economy is estimated to be in the region of £36 billion a year. The table below shows the average value of prevention by casualty/ collision type.

https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/roads-policing-review-future-methods-to-improve-safety-and-reduce-causalities/roads-policing-review-call-for-evidence

So greater than the taxes raised on motoring just for the economic losses from all the deaths and disability caused from road accidents.  that 36 billion does NOT include the 15 billion direct costs of the deaths and disability ( tho there seems to be some overlap ie loss of wages may be in both)

If deaths and injuries cost the economy £15 Bn per year then the 99.99% (my estimate) of folk who aren’t killed or injured each year on the roads must be contributing £150,000 Bn to the economy annually.

the 15 billion is the direct costs not the total economic loss.  total economic loss is 36 billion – governments own stats

Ah. Update my motoring benefit to £360,000 Bn then.

you car lovers are not actually interested in debate nor do you want to hear any rebuttal of your car centric propaganda you like to believe

That’s really needlessly inflammatory. Just because we might be questioning your figures, doesn’t mean we are car lovers who want to see the whole country tarmaced.  Don’t be so polarised – this is a major problem with internet society, don’t be part of that particular problem!

Nowt I say will get you to open your closed minds

Again, we don’t have closed minds, we just might not agree with you on this topic. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable stance!

TJ – what would be the cost to the economy of going back to horse & cart?

I rode a horse once when I was 17.

the 15 billion is the direct costs not the total economic loss. total economic loss is 36 billion – governments own stats

if the loss was that big (and its only mentioned in one document, not backed up by other figures, so I suspect that one document, unlike all the other government stats that align is incorrect) a very large chunk of it is is met by motor insurance (if I crash into you causing you economic loss, this is met by my insurance), which is paid for by.. me.

in fact we forgot the vat on car insurance as another form of income. The motor insurance industry is worth £20bn a year, of which VAT is 12% – so another £2.4bn in income to the government there.

I refer the right honorable member to the answer I gave before 🙂

daffy – 15 billion for deaths and injuries on the roads – detailed above with links

Plus cost of

Road policing

Costs of deaths illhealth and disability from roads pollution

Damage to buildings

Diseases of inactivity.

Lost value of the land used for parking

etc etc

Read the Monbiot article linked to above

You cannot count council trax revenue as that does not only come from car drivers

so 33 billion directly raised by motoring taxes, 11 billion spent on roads, 15 billion cost of direct deaths leaving 7 billion to cover allthe other costs.

I’m sorry but almost all of that is bad science and provides no comparison to benefits.  Property damage was included in your £15bn costs as was policing, etc,  so you can’t double account.

The human costs associated with it are plainly rubbish as they can’t be compared to people who were injured whilst walking to work (breaking an ankle)  or cycling to work (breaking a collar bone) which would also lead to a loss of productivity.

The Monbiot thing isn’t available, but the article is almost 25 years old…

as for land and Ill health, the former provides revenue, the latter, EVs will remove that pollution from urban areas, vastly improving air quality, and the infrastructure for this improvement is already covered in the money spent.

I’m a cyclist – I’ll have ridding 180km to work and back this week by the time I get home tonight.  I still pay car tax, council tax, VED and duty, but only do around 2000 miles a year.  People like me are subsidising the rest of the network, but on balance taxes and duties from vehicles, pay for the use of vehicles and provide a MASSIVE MASSIVE impulse into the economy.

Hypothetical – Ban cars, right now.  What would be the financial consequence of it?  Would we be better off as a country or worse?

Environmentally or societally, there’s no argument that cars (in their current guise) are bad, but financially, which is the angle you’re approaching this from, you can’t argue it.  Well, YOU can, but you can’t win, no matter how much you massage the figures and add the ancillaries.

so there it is.  the closed mind with the absolute refusal to accept the governments own figures that are robust and valid.

You can argue that the subsidy from general taxation is good value and worth spending.  You cannot argue it does not exist as the governments own robust figures clearly show that the costs to the country of motoring vastly exceed the taxation raised on motoring

Property damage was included in your £15bn costs as was policing, etc, so you can’t double account.

Property damage directly caused was – I am talking about the indirect property damage.  Same with policing – the cost of policing the accidents was – not the general cost of roads policing

the closed mind with the absolute refusal to accept the governments own figures that are robust and valid.

Robust and valid in your opinion.  Since when do you have so much faith in government figures?

I don’t call it subsidising motorists, I call it investing in the economy – just like other forms of transport like rail and air. Now – I don’t think road is a good investment, as I’ve said – but that’s what it is. Calling it a subsidy for motorists suggests they are indulging frivolous private transport for pleasure – ignoring that the economy runs on roads too – goods and people moving for business purposes.  My mind is not closed, in fact it’s a lot more open than yours since I am considering all the options and looking at it from other angles – even from points of view that I don’t share. Your mind is closed to any other point of view here an you are pushing the same line you have been for what, 20 years?

I’m a cyclist – I’ll have ridding 180km to work and back this week by the time I get home tonight.  I still pay car tax, council tax, VED and duty, but only do around 2000 miles a year.

Just to be clear, this is someone you are accusing of being a car lover.

What subsidy? The vast proportion of your additional 15bn costs are human costs and loss of economic productivity.  Neither of these are an actual cost.  They’re an assumed cost based on some old research and assumed values.  You want to accept the result and thus take it as gospel, but refuse to accept that there’s significant contributions to the economy that you’re wilfully ignoring as it suits your agenda and lifestyle.

Total DIRECT revenue from vehicles is £37bn+ (closer to £45bn once sales, insurance and other things are accounted for) and yes, you can count Council Tax as the roads would still need to be maintained even if personal vehicles were banned and more than 45% of current households have a car and more than 80% of households have owned a car over their lifetime and so have used the roads with a car.  Even with your creative accounting and even assuming NO economic benefit from car use, your figures are still below the direct revenue and far below the total indirect revenue.

In equating economic loss, you’ve got to balance it against economic benefit.  You aren’t.

In equating human loss, you should also account for human benefit such as families kept in contact, care home visits, etc.  You aren’t.

You’re arguments are based on STATS19 reports which are designed to show why we should invest in better technology, more policing, better standards – It’s a business case FOR roads policing.

Car insurers pay out £10bn in claims a year, so of the £15bn in accident “costs” only 5 are met by the general population, and most of that is losses to motorists (as they’re the ones most involved in accidents) not tax revenue.

Road policing is £100m a year. Almost nothing.

Even if everyone cycled and walked we’d still need roads. And far more mass transit which would also take some of that road money, possibly much more.  So it’s complicated.

Please don’t forget to include the net benefits of road transportation as well as the costs.

The whole of society is based around it – take it away and pretty much everything closes. No hospitals, food, medicine, internet etc.

Pretty much all of these benefits are taxed on some way – so the road transport system is treated as part of the overall cost of having a functioning country and is taxed and funded as such.

Trying to seperate out the tax input from cars and comparing against the overall costs to society is a fools errand.