The Mégane II Owners' Club

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25223631

Well not really, perhaps added onto something else but I dont like the idea of paying monthly by direct debit.

I am under no illusion that motorists will be "better off" from this, in fact the money will be going to a big pot as usual and perhaps not being spent on roads. I think the potholes will still continue to be part of motoring.

Well Wanda... hows things these days?

AKA the road fund license!!

I had read similar, though I was under the impression Osbourn had said it was simply the paper disk that was going.

I'll maybe have another gander at the link.

But your quite correct, it will not benefit the man behind the wheel, that is for sure.

Fully agree Wanda, as I've said for a long time they should do away with it and put it on to the cost of fuel; that way the more miles you do the more you pay to use the roads and for their upkeep / development etc.

Strange how we still say road tax instead of car tax. Read somewhere that most of the money spent on roads and repairs etc comes from general taxation that we all pay. Car tax just gives it a bit extra.

It's actually a vehicle licence fee disc, if it were actually called a car or road tax disc the proceeds from it would have to be spent on the cars or roads which would make it harder for successive governments to filter it off to spend on other things ... don't get me started on the state of our roads or, for that matter the state of some of the cars on them.

It gets called a tax disc as historically that's what it has been known as.

Stranger wrote:Fully agree Wanda, as I've said for a long time they should do away with it and put it on to the cost of fuel; that way the more miles you do the more you pay to use the roads and for their upkeep / development etc.

The problem is that its ok to give money in the name of the road but its another thing for the state to spend the money collected on roads, this is my only gripe

Stranger wrote:Fully agree Wanda, as I've said for a long time they should do away with it and put it on to the cost of fuel; that way the more miles you do the more you pay to use the roads and for their upkeep / development etc.

If only it were that simple. With moves to different motive power (hybrids etc) then people who run an electric car would get to use the road for free. There's always going to be a fixed cost component. If anything I expect the variable cost component to lessen which will make it more expensive for the granny who only drives to bingo once a week and church on a sunday.
The fact with road surfacing is that a standard family car does sweet fa damage to the pavement so the argument that those who use the road more should pay more isn't a strong one. But as the weight of the vehicle increases, the damage done goes up exponentially.

roganp wrote:

Stranger wrote:Fully agree Wanda, as I've said for a long time they should do away with it and put it on to the cost of fuel; that way the more miles you do the more you pay to use the roads and for their upkeep / development etc.

If only it were that simple. With moves to different motive power (hybrids etc) then people who run an electric car would get to use the road for free. There's always going to be a fixed cost component. If anything I expect the variable cost component to lessen which will make it more expensive for the granny who only drives to bingo once a week and church on a sunday.
The fact with road surfacing is that a standard family car does sweet fa damage to the pavement so the argument that those who use the road more should pay more isn't a strong one. But as the weight of the vehicle increases, the damage done goes up exponentially.

Good point, a sliding scale incorporating weight of vehicle and miles traveled perhaps then. Maybe something to recover money to be put towards the damage done via battery production and disposal could be built in too. I also believe that cyclists should have to make some contribution by means of rfl and, for that matter, they should need to have insurance.

Here's an interesting thing on car insurance. It's not compulsory over here. Yet about 93% of NZ owners have car insurance (approx 75% have comprehensive).
UK estimates about 94% of car owners have insurance.

Uk has a lower accident per capita, less deaths per capita, yet your insurance premiums and excesses are about 3 times higher. Go figure

roganp wrote:Here's an interesting thing on car insurance. It's not compulsory over here. Yet about 93% of NZ owners have car insurance (approx 75% have comprehensive).
UK estimates about 94% of car owners have insurance.

Uk has a lower accident per capita, less deaths per capita, yet your insurance premiums and excesses are about 3 times higher. Go figure

Rip off Britain at its best

Here's another pearler, insurance companies in the UK announced yesterday that household insurance would be rising due to the amount of flood damage claims of recent times.

Don't get me started on household insurance. After Christchurch fell to bits in the earthquakes, the insurance companies have had their ratings downgraded meaning we can no longer guess our rebuild cost and insure accordingly. So once your house is worth over about GBP400,000 then you need to get a QS in to set the rebuild cost (at a price of approx GBP1,000. Our rebuild cost is more than we bought the house for 2 years ago, and subsequently our house insurance has doubled. Now I'm just waiting for Council to realise that improvements are worth more and yay our council rates will double as well.

I'm not anywhere near a faultline so earthquakes aren't going to happen. No chance of flooding as we're well above sea level and close to the beach. Only issue is volcanoes, and if one of those goes up then I'm going to be discovering the truth about religion.

We've gone a bit off topic here so apologies to Wanda for that but I think this is a really good discussion so onward .......... At least I can take some solitude in the fact that it's not only Britain that rips off it's inhabitants.

I spoke to my car insurance company earlier this week chasing my renewal letter, they said it was on it's way (I've just received it this morning) but told me the details over the phone. My renewal premium is £460.00 which is £50 more than it was last year even though my car is 1 year older and therefore worth less, I'm one year older therefore 1 year more experienced, I've not had any claims and to top it all I'm now covering less miles annually than I was last year.

They've also told me that they could put me on better cover with another company for £440, it just so happens that it's the same company that I have got a direct quote from for better cover at £318.00, I despair. I'm prepared to pay a tad more to have someone do the leg work for me but not £122.00 and, if I hadn't chased the letter they'd just be after me going with the more expensive company