A girl I work with lives in Blanchardstown, she drives daily to Summerhill in her car. Why t f?
What’s wrong with a modest hatch back?
She’s unmarried and no kids. What the f does she need it for?
no, i've had this debate on here (and elsewhere) outside the context of SUVs. if someone is getting the use of a car or other vehicle (say a saloon car) for private use, they should pay private tax rates on it. it's only fair - why do they get to use a car cheaper than everyone else? they're getting the same use out of the car the rest of us are, and are paying private rates for.
No, I'm not misunderstanding it. I've clearly accepted it's in place and said clearly accept the dual use of a commercially taxed vehicle.
we're not suggesting you buy a third car for private use
Some are and I'm also asking how that would work. If two parents (as an example) need a private car plus one needs a commercial; then dual use is the best solution. Otherwise, there would be a need for a third vehicle and all the costs that go with that. If I can combine trips using a commercial vehicle it's way more sensible than having to either rent and return commercial vehicles (there isn't even a fleet large enough to replace current usage) and/or return home and take the private vehicle to return from where I've just passed schools/shops/gyms/sports etc. etc. The reality and practicalities are farcical. If someone has a commercially taxed vehicle, they've justified it sufficiently; the personal element is secondary and inconsequential. This is precisely why it's not enforced to the strictest terms and why insurances companies cater for it; simply makes sense.
But again, this isn't about tax - this is about some peoples personal preferences and the wish to impose their choices on others. "It's an ugly car so they shouldn't have one" - I'll ask again; where does this end? Houses/food/utilities/
Sports cars - no need for them (even commercially) - Tax them out of existence and stop selling them - why not?
no, you're misunderstanding the argument. the law is clear - if you're using a 'second' vehicle for private use, it should be taxed at private rates. we're not suggesting you buy a third car for private use. just tax the ones you already have in your driveway for private use.
and pay BIK too where relevant, but that's another kettle of fish.
Yeah I'll accept there's dual use; no one is completely infallible but it's not the major issue; nor is one group solely infallible when it comes to tax/usage of their vehicle strictly within the rules. But it's what's being pushed here; it's not exclusively about tax, some just find them 'ugly' and cannot/do not want to accept the requirements of the lives of others.
It's been asked numerous times - what's the alternative? families would have to go from two cars and add a third? Some are harping on about the environment but wish to add more vehicles. The impracticalities aren't even being considered; with two parents generally working, both need to be able to do school runs/sports pick up/shop on the way home etc. The answer of 'just rent a commercial vehicle' is being repeatedly touted as a solution, but it quickly becomes unfeasible.
This isn't about tax and/or the environment - people just want to judgmentally enforce their lifestyle on others irrespective of reality.
Yes, as long as there is tax, insurance and test in place the only obstacle is a multi agency checkpoint
AGS pretty much ignore private use of commercial taxed vehicles.
i assume they would regard that as a revenue issue, not one for them to police.
Im not the poster in question but I do live rurally and there are Rangers and commerical pickups being used as family cars and runabouts regularily. All parked outside homes and not used in a commercial setting at all.
You have to provide the required paperwork to avail of commercial tax.
Once you fill out the form and supply the documentation you are good to go.
What you use the vehicle for after that is where it gets awkward.
You have signed the form saying you will only use the vehicle for commercial purposes.
It's almost impossible for a person who keeps the vehicle at home to comply fully with this requirement.
If you stop for some shopping or go to sports training on the way home from work you are technically in breach of the law.
The insurance companies recognise this and cover private use in their policies.
I don't take bets.
i would bet my bottom dollar that the vast majority of rangers and raptors you see on urban streets are not bought with 'families needs' in mind. if they're taxed commercially, they're bought with business needs in mind, or because the commercial tax is cheap.
if they're bought with families needs in mind and are taxed commercially, that's tax fraud, because families needs instantly implies private use.
they were strict on the paperwork to avail of it; has the use ever been policed?
bear in mind, according to the law, if you used it to run down the shops to get the paper on sunday morning - that vehicle now should be taxed at private rates.
Some are taxed cheaply. When I taxed a commercial 4x4 they were strict on the paperwork & justification to avail of commercial tax.
Are we going to tax everything out of existence just because peoples personal preferences? Why not add 'crass' sports cars; no need for people to own one, is there? Where does this end?
to explain to others who have not been bored to tears by this; it's worth teasing out the impact (pun intended) of weight.
Yeah Right stated:
The most common SUV in Ireland is the Hyundai Tucson, which weighs 1,470kg off the production line. The lowest spec Skoda Octavia in Ireland has a weight of 1,870 kg. At 30 km/h, the impact force of the Tucson is 122kN (Kilonewtons). Under the same conditions, the Octavia has an impact force of 155kN. The Tucson is 27% safer than the Octavia. At 50 km/h, those figures jump to 204 kN and 259 kN respectively. At this speed, the Tucson is 26.9% safer than the Octavia. QED
At 50 km/h, those figures jump to 204 kN and 259 kN respectively. At this speed, the Tucson is 26.9% safer than the Octavia. QED
i bet my bottom dollar s/he calculated the force imparted by a 1.47 ton vehicle in an impact covering 1m (the probable default distance in the calculator); this assumes the vehicle goes from 30km/h to 0km/h in that meter.
i.e. it's calculating the force based on the impact with a pedestrian (that was the context, anyway) where the impact is enough to bring the car to a near instantaneous stop. we're talking 'driving into a huge concrete block' territory here.
this is cartoon physics. a pedestrian being hit by a car will barely make a dent (pun intended) in the speed of the car.
all other things being equal - a 1.5 ton car travelling at 30km/h has a momentum of 12500kgm/s. a 75kg pedestrian, if thrown by the car at 30km/h, has a maximum momentum of 625kgm/s - i.e. leaving the car with 11875kgm/s - which would equate to a speed of 28.5km/h. to someone standing at the side of the road, that's a small enough difference as to not be noticeable.
and that's my point - the discrepancy between pedestrian mass and vehicle mass is so great that the pedestrian is going to endure pretty much the same acceleration due to impact, whether the car is 1.5t or 2.5t.
or to go reductio ad absurdum with the cartoon argument above - if you were struck by a cargo ship at 30km/h, it'd **** hurt, but the method of impact calculation above would tell you the impact on you would be 6.9 million kN, or over 400,000 times worse than a car hitting you.
Maybe, maybe not. If it was enforced, some might decide it's worth the extra cost / more cost effective to tax it privately, rather than run a second car.
Again, it comes down to meeting individual families needs.
absolutely, you could tax the ranger privately. but that's the point - these rangers are popular because they're being taxed cheaply commercially; but then used privately. if we actually enforced the tax law, many or most people using them (in cities, anyway) would probably change their minds about wanting one.
in short, they're popular because the law is not enforced.
In that estate the family SUV is far more likely to run over somebody as they don't reverse park.
good god man, i'd tell you to stop moving the goalposts, but you're actually moving the wrong goalposts. you're having an argument with me about a discussion you didn't even read. the discussion i was having with gumbo was about how efficient a micro car would be, range wise. that a micro car being one third the weight would have significant effect on its range.
you lectured me about understanding physics, but you don't understand how to use that calculator. did you calculate the force imparted by a 1.5 ton vehicle from 30km/h in 1m?
"minus passengers, that's greater than a factor of three in terms of weight."
You were comparing the weights of the two cars. I asked you to do the same with two different cars. Note, also, you're proving my point from earlier about the weight of saloon cars.
No, I'm saying that your statement about weight at the beginning of the previous post is wrong, according to physics.
"I don't think weight has much bearing on pedestrian safety" is a ridiculous statement to come out with. Getting hit by a shopping trolley travelling at 15m/h is a lot more survivable than getting hit by Ford Transit travelling the same speed, all other things being equal. Are you seriously suggesting that having an extra half tonne of weight behind you doesn't make a difference? You think getting hit by a 1kg bag of sand is comparable to getting hit by a 501kg bag of sand? Really?
I calculated it using an online impact force calculator.
I know a deer hunter who has a Ranger as a company vehicle, and uses it for hunting at the weekend. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't fancy putting a dead, bleeding deer in the boot of a Corolla hatchback.
Apologies, link fixed.
We're getting bogged down in semantics, however. The point stands. All the hand-wringing about heavier cars ignores the fact that saloons are quite often as heavy as, if not heavier than, plenty of SUVs. 5-series, A4/A6, even a new Leaf are all in the same ballpark as them. Ignoring this fact while they lambast others for their personal choices is intellectually dishonest.
You can tax it that ranger privately.
Clearly it upsets some people to see that not being swept under the carpet for a change
No, that's not what's getting people's backs up. It's your insistence on sullying the memory of a dead child so you can pretend you're better than everyone else that did it. You're essentially trying to shut others down by using him as a pawn. Parading dead kids around so you can feel smug is the real ghoulish carry on.
You're also ignoring valid criticism of that article via an appeal to authority, another logical fallacy pitfall. I never challenged the study. I challenged the article. The headline in that article is wrong. The interpretation of that study in the article is also wrong. Your refusal to engage with the, again, valid criticisms is disappointing yet unsurprising.
That's me. Making it up 😂😂🫣yea, nobody really has one of these, they're just illusions
I don't own a commercial vehicle, so why should I know this? I drive a micra.
Anyway, bringing up tax is just a deflection. From a quick google, it is possible to tax a "commercial" vehicle privately.
So then, answer this question at least (because I know you can't answer the other one) - what would be preferable?
One dual-purpose vehicle per family, or two separate vehicles?
That's incorrect, they can be used once declared but it also dodges the salient points raised nicely.
The motor tax office will ask for further details if it's to be taxed as commercial, otherwise for dual use it's based on private.
You can't use a commercial vehicle for personal use. You should know this.
are you saying that if a car weighing twice as much hits you at 30km/h, the force imparted on your body is twice as much?
also, before you say physics disagrees with me, how did you calculate that force?
Physics disagrees with you. Nobody ever claimed it was twice as bad. I provided calculations earlier in the thread, getting hit by a heavier car is much, much worse for you. The fact that anyone is refusing to accept this is outrageous.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbd35c43580ff62b54e9919958f2a898.svg)
