Lower VRT on larger cars???

Revelation Joe

Hi all,
Caught a bit of The Last Word repeat yesterday and the discussion was about VRT, specifically that it should be reduced on cars that have safety features susch as ABS, Traction Control, Brake Assist, multiple airbags etc, the theory being that people will buy cars with these features, thus making the roads safer.
The 'larger cars' bit came about because it was pointed out that it is the top-end cars that are more likely yo have these features.

Shouldn't we be worrying about driver training? I've been driving for thirteen years, I've not had any cars with *any* of these safety features, not even an airbag and I've only had two accidents, once I got rear-ended when the car died and I got hit before I had a chance to put the hazards on and the second was a low-speed bump in a car-park.

So what do we need to make Irish roads safer? Better driver training, make cars cheaper if they're classed as safe or both or neither?

Del

Seth Brundle

I don't think VRT being cheaper on bigger cars will ever materialise as the govt will soon have to properly encourage smaller engine sizes due to the pending fuel crisis.
However, whilst I subscribe to the idea that people are dying because of a lack of safety equipment in cars, the flip side of the argument is that he more safety gadgets in a car, the more drivers will be more likely to take chances as they feel more safe. The best safety device would be a big spike sticking out of the steering wheel!

junkyard

Whatever about reducing VRT they should reduce the road tax on large diesel cars considering they are not as fast as a similar sized petrol and the diesel car can be converted to run on other fuels so effectively they are environmentally friendly

maidhc

junkyard wrote:

Whatever about reducing VRT they should reduce the road tax on large diesel cars considering they are not as fast as a similar sized petrol and the diesel car can be converted to run on other fuels so effectively they are environmentally friendly

Are the BMW 320d or IS220d that much slower than their petrol siblings? There are clear ecological benefits though!

I would also have my doubts about the viability of the VRT on safety equipment argument for the same reasons as kbannon and the OP. Safety equipment is not really going to help if a HGV lands on top of you.

tigerbalm

maidhc wrote:

Safety equipment is not really going to help if a HGV lands on top of you.

Wont it ?

http://forums.swedespeed.com/zerothread?id=52372

junkyard

Compared to a 530d, a 320d is a very poor relation, the power is only adequate. The new 535d twin turbo is nearly as fast as an M5 and its really only a 3 litre diesel, tuned with two turbo chargers. My X5 is the same basic engine which is turbo charged and considering its pulling nearly 2 tons its a flyer to go even with an auto box too. The Lexus 220d is only fair tbh and sounds very noisy for such a so called refined car its really no better than an Avensis with a few extras that you pay dearly for.

maidhc

junkyard wrote:

Compared to a 530d, a 320d is a very poor relation, the power is only adequate. The new 535d twin turbo is nearly as fast as an M5 and its really only a 3 litre diesel, tuned with two turbo chargers. My X5 is the same basic engine which is turbo charged and considering its pulling nearly 2 tons its a flyer to go even with an auto box too. The Lexus 220d is only fair tbh and sounds very noisy for such a so called refined car its really no better than an Avensis with a few extras that you pay dearly for.

Someone in another thread said your tastes are more cheese and wine than beer and crisps.

How true.

junkyard

"What you never had you never miss" and I've had nearly everything so I suppose I've got a lot of cars out of my system. There were cars I always looked up to and aspired to owning turned out to be big let downs others I just traded in and found them to be great cars, so at this stage in the game I've weeded out the bluffers with the flash image and am inclined to go with quality.

Ice_Box

Saying safety devices cause accidents is like saying umbrellas cause rain.

If me and my kids are sitting in a car and another car slips on oil I would rather have 8 airbags instead of 2. The extra airbags should not be taxed as a luxury.

maidhc

Ice_Box wrote:

Saying safety devices cause accidents is like saying umbrellas cause rain.

If me and my kids are sitting in a car and another car slips on oil I would rather have 8 airbags instead of 2. The extra airbags should not be taxed as a luxury.

All true, but the chances are people will be that bit more reckless when they have a car loaded with three letter acronyms!

In a serious accident over 40mph or with a tree, then an airbag or 20 are probably going to be of little assitance. Your goose shall be cooked either way.

People probably have a better chance of avoiding an accident if they have good rubber at the right pressure, rather than having traction control and abs. Unfortuantely there are many people who spout the benefits of electronic driving aids and then drive off with balding soft tyres!

prospect

I think the point they were making on The Last Word was that, safety features on a car should not be subjext to taxation.
Because our VRT is so high, many car manufacturers remove alot of the safety extras in order to bring the cost of the vehicle down. However, if these features were not taxed, it could mean that more cars have more safety features as standard, and this would not increase the cost by much.

bennyc

mate drives a Volvos80 he has had two tips in 3 years. Once rearended and another a car pulled out into the side of him. Basically the first time no damage at all (not even paint work) the other a small scrape on his alloy. Both times the other cars one a micra and other a fiesta wrote off. SO if there are a lot more big cars on the road you will be sound in the big car but I wouldnt fancy meeting one head on.

maidhc

bennyc wrote:

mate drives a Volvos80 he has had two tips in 3 years. Once rearended and another a car pulled out into the side of him. Basically the first time no damage at all (not even paint work) the other a small scrape on his alloy. Both times the other cars one a micra and other a fiesta wrote off. SO if there are a lot more big cars on the road you will be sound in the big car but I wouldnt fancy meeting one head on.

If you hit a tree or wall in a big car though the extra momentum tends to cancel out the extra body strength to a greater or lesser degree... this is what makes some of the older designed SUVs pure death traps (remember the Chinese Frontera!).

Big Balls

Revelation Joe wrote:

Hi all,
ABS, Traction Control, Brake Assist, multiple airbags etc,
Del

A 1.4 Golf has all of the above. It doesn't remove the fact that the 1.4 engine is not adequate to overtake safely and quickly.

It's a bit like the health service announcing this morning that they're rewarding the 'good' hospitals with more doctors when what they need is beds but hey, it's Ireland, so whatever.

MrPudding

maidhc wrote:

All true, but the chances are people will be that bit more reckless when they have a car loaded with three letter acronyms!

Not "people," "some people." Most people will not drive more recklessly. I do not drive more recklessly or break later because I have ABS.

I don't think VRT should be reduced on large cars. VAT and VRT should not be charged on safety devices. This bring the cost down and should allow safety features only seen on larger cars to be installed on smaller ones.

We don't neccessarily weant everyone buying bigger cars, beside, alot of people don't want a big car. Stop treating safety features as a luxury item and habe them on more cars.

MrP

maidhc

Big Balls wrote:

A 1.4 Golf has all of the above. It doesn't remove the fact that the 1.4 engine is not adequate to overtake safely and quickly.

I agree fully. Driving a car with a decent engine makes makes the affair a lot less tiring too.

I don't have any particular objection to the idea that things like ABS, airbags and so on should be exempted from VRT. Manufacturers may not like this though.... e.g. would manufacturer A not be upset if it was known it spent €y less than manufacturer B on safety equipment, but istead provided a more stable chassis for which it got no kudos?

galah

Stop treating safety features as a luxury item and habe them on more cars.

exactly!

If you compare cars sold in Ireland with cars sold, say, in Germany, it's very very obvious - German cars of the same make and year have a lot of the safety features as a standard, whereas in Ireland, these features are considered "extras", and you pay extra for them as well. It's madness!

And just because you have ABS or an airbag does not mean you drive like a maniac...but it could save your life on day...

Tipsy Mac

All cars sold anywhere in the EU must come with ABS and driver and passenger air bags as standard as this is EU law so neither of these can be listed as "options" or "extras".