mgs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Dangerous Precedent in the UK-Long Rant

To: Simon Matthews <simon_atwork@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Dangerous Precedent in the UK-Long Rant
From: David Hill <davhill@cwcom.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 23:31:20 +0100
Hi, Simon, 

This may be unprecedented but it's not the first scare story we've had. 
How about possesion tax? For other listers, this was a proposed tax on
any vehicle 
owned, regardless of whether it was roadworthy, in bits, off the public
road, etc. 
Then there was the Type Approval fiasco, which nearly killed off the kit
car industry. 
In the end, we got single vehicle type approval (SVA), which doesn't
need crash tests
and is complied with by all kits, even the 30s Roadster replicas. 

I'm not taking an ostrich attitude but there are so many ridiculous
proposals, most of 
which get kicked out as is right and proper. 

Currently in the UK, we face punitive taxes on fuel and for road use by
post '72 cars. Our leaded fuel is being taken away at the end of this
year and the 'official' Lead Replacement Fuel (potassium additives)
looks set to be both expensive and useless. Duty levied will make
imported additives more expensive and even the cost of conversion to
unleaded metallurgy attracts yet another tax-VAT a.k.a. value added tax. 

True, we have cheaper road tax for small-engined vehicles, although the
the Prime Minister's right hand man has two Jaguars. Joe Public,
however, is encouraged to use unreliable, dirty, costly public
transport.

And the results of all this? 
Truckers being forced off the road or at least filling up abroad to
avoid the tax on Diesel. 
Pre-unleaded spec. non-classics being abandoned and even the scrap
dealers won't take them without payment.
Cat-equipped cars being used on short journeys, polluting more heavily
and dangerously than any earlier vehicle. 
More expensive transit costs being passed on to consumers in all
sectors.

I freely admit that part of the reason I run classics is the tax
exemption and I see quite a number of others who are of the same mind.
The only taxable car I have, a 136,000 mile, '91 Vauxhall Carlton which
no one in their right mind would steal, may have to be fitted with an
immobiliser. However, if some of all this money we are spending was
diverted to the police, we might not need immobilisers to prevent our
cars being stolen by thieves who are highly unlikely to get a custodial
sentence anyway. But..the police are looking at zero tolerance on
speeding in 30, 50, 60 and 70mph zones and will be busy......

Ultimately, we'll do what we always do...wait and see. I doubt that the
powers that be would make construction and use laws retroactive simply
because such laws would be too costly to enforce. In any event, this
might give an insight into what being a motorist in the UK is like.

Regards, 

Dave Hill



  

Simon Matthews wrote:
> 
> Did any of those on the list and living in the UK notice a recent proposal
> to require older cars ('91-'94, I think) to fit immobilisers?
> 
> While this does not directly impact MGs, it is a very dangerous precedent.
> What if the next requirement were to require fitment of catalytic
> converters, etc to all cars?
> 
> Up to now, cars in the UK have only had to comply with requirements in force
> at the time of first registration. If this is no longer the case, the door
> is open for all kinds of requirements which coud make classic car ownership
> impractical.
> 
> Write to your MPs now!
> 
> Simon

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>