Should 4WD purchases be taxed at a higher rate?

Should 4WD purchases be taxed at a higher rate?

  • Yes (for environmental and road safety reasons)

    Votes: 60 67.4%
  • No (Leave 4WD owners alone)

    Votes: 29 32.6%

  • Total voters
    89

Remove this Banner Ad

Confirmed, a Hummer is more environmentally friendly than a Prius!

I'm still stick with my Diesel 4by. For you wanna be greenies, please read on:


Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage
By Chris Demorro

The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate ‘green car’ is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer.
Before we delve into the seedy underworld of hybrids, you must first understand how a hybrid works. For this, we will use the most popular hybrid on the market, the Toyota Prius.
The Prius is powered by not one, but two engines: a standard 76 horsepower, 1.5-liter gas engine found in most cars today and a battery- powered engine that deals out 67 horsepower and a whooping 295ft/lbs of torque, below 2000 revolutions per minute. Essentially, the Toyota Synergy Drive system, as it is so called, propels the car from a dead stop to up to 30mph. This is where the largest percent of gas is consumed. As any physics major can tell you, it takes more energy to get an object moving than to keep it moving. The battery is recharged through the braking system, as well as when the gasoline engine takes over anywhere north of 30mph. It seems like a great energy efficient and environmentally sound car, right?
You would be right if you went by the old government EPA estimates, which netted the Prius an incredible 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 miles per gallon on the highway. Unfortunately for Toyota, the government realized how unrealistic their EPA tests were, which consisted of highway speeds limited to 55mph and acceleration of only 3.3 mph per second. The new tests which affect all 2008 models give a much more realistic rating with highway speeds of 80mph and acceleration of 8mph per second. This has dropped the Prius’s EPA down by 25 percent to an average of 45mpg. This now puts the Toyota within spitting distance of cars like the Chevy Aveo, which costs less then half what the Prius costs.
However, if that was the only issue with the Prius, I wouldn’t be writing this article. It gets much worse.
Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.
The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.
“The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside,” said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.
All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?
Wait, I haven’t even got to the best part yet.
When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius’s arch nemesis.
Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.
So, if you are really an environmentalist - ditch the Prius. Instead, buy one of the most economical cars available - a Toyota Scion xB. The Scion only costs a paltry $0.48 per mile to put on the road. If you are still obsessed over gas mileage - buy a Chevy Aveo and fix that lead foot.

One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses.
 
Leave the 4WD bit out of it...

Make registration costs vary according to average petrol consumption.

The alternative ( increasing petrol taxes further ) doesn't work as well, because it punishes those who use their vehicles more and (probably ) have more need for a bigger vehicle.


If you are taxed up front (and then less ongoing via petrol) then you actually incentivise 4wd users to drive more not less.
 
Whilst I take on board what you say, I disagree with a key point.

If my 4WD spends 100% of its time in suburbia, so what, that's my perogative. I choose to do that and I don't need anyones rubber stamp of approval.

The fact of the matter is, that it spends 10% of its time getting to remote places, outside the city, to go camping & fishing, where non 4WD cannot get to. But I digress, I do not need a valid reason to have one.

Just like I don't meddle in others lives if they have a large swimming pool that consumes water, or a large 2 storey home with only 1 child, with aircons cranked all day everyday.

Just on a friendly note: Yes, there are many 4WDers (particularly women) that are horrid drivers. But there also many 20 yo's that are hoons. There are stupid people on the road (freeways & women) that are on 100 and texting, at night. It would be stupid and ignorant of me to say all women should be banned from driving.

I own a Diesel Forby but I don't agree with a couple of things 4WD are only taxed import wise at 5% normal cars 10%, this was a stupid National Party Clause for poor Farmers. I also got cheap rego because mine is 4 cylinder so I get a discount over a small six petrol engine. I think you should probably also do a test for a 4WD especially the big ones over 2t, you can't drive them like a corolla. I also advocate a special license for V 8's. CHoice is fine but with it comes responsibility

We can change a few things perhaps for instance in Paris they ban them in the city limits. Sydney is getting to that stage.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Whilst I take on board what you say, I disagree with a key point.

If my 4WD spends 100% of its time in suburbia, so what, that's my perogative. I choose to do that and I don't need anyones rubber stamp of approval.

You only don't need the stamp of approval because no one's had the guts to take on 4WDs the way they should. If you have a 4WD that spends 100% of it's time in suburbia then you are an unqualified idiot. Apart from wasting your money on running costs (and you are), you're making life difficult for everyone else on the road everytime you take your giant shitbox out for a drive - you cut everyone else's vision, you take up too much parking space and in the event of an accident you're much more dangerous to everyone else on the road.

The fact of the matter is, that it spends 10% of its time getting to remote places, outside the city, to go camping & fishing, where non 4WD cannot get to. But I digress, I do not need a valid reason to have one.

Not being required to have a valid reason doesn't make you any less of a prat. If you owned the 4WD exclusively for 4WDing, then I don't think too many people would have a problem. But if you buy it because you occasionally take it out of the city, but the rest of the time you're just a nuisance on the road, then I don't have any real time for you.

Just like I don't meddle in others lives if they have a large swimming pool that consumes water, or a large 2 storey home with only 1 child, with aircons cranked all day everyday.

All of which are also exceptionally bad things. Start up a thread condemning those, and I'll support you on it. Just because other people have things that are wrong doesn't absolve you of the idiocy of owning a 4WD. I don't have an air-conditioner, a two story house, nor a swimming pool (or indeed space to put one). If that's your argument, I'll condemn 4WDs quite happily.

Just on a friendly note: Yes, there are many 4WDers (particularly women) that are horrid drivers. But there also many 20 yo's that are hoons. There are stupid people on the road (freeways & women) that are on 100 and texting, at night. It would be stupid and ignorant of me to say all women should be banned from driving.

Ah, that last one defines you nicely. You are aware aren't you that women are actually less dangerous on the roads than men? That's why they get preferential treatment from insurance companies. Of course, given you drive a 4WD around, you're probably serenely indifferent to actual traffic issues. I'd guess you probably speed and tailgate as well if you get caught behind someone doing the speed limit....
 
While I don't like 4WD's in the city per say, I was recently in a work situation which made me think twice about blanket sweeping taxation and registration increases for 4WD owners.

Before I start nothing much pisses me off more then seeing "soccer mom" dropping the kids off at school in a 4WD. It's just plain stupid and dangerous for others. I lived around the corner from Ivanhoe Grammar, and used to walk down the train station along the north boundary. This road is so slim I struggle to get down their in my Astra when there are cars parked. And this is at 8:30 when there is pre-school kids everywhere. Every second car is a 4WD. I read in the leader that a young girl was killed a while ago and it's not the first time it's happened. Of course it was a 4WD. All you have to do is look at the joint to know how stupid it is.

On the other hand though. I have worked in a job where I needed a 4WD every day. And I would travel from Melbourne to Traralgon one day and Melbourne to Ballarat the next. Even though it was a work car and I didn't pay for it there are plenty of people who legitimately need them (and who live in the city) and it's hardly fair to force them to pay this extra money simply to have a job.

If I had my way I'd have a 20% tax on all 4WD sales to those cars to be garaged in a Metro area and x2 rego every year unless there is a legitimate reason for driving one. They being if you are in a 4WD club and go more then 3 times a year or work.
 
While I don't like 4WD's in the city per say, I was recently in a work situation which made me think twice about blanket sweeping taxation and registration increases for 4WD owners.

Before I start nothing much pisses me off more then seeing "soccer mom" dropping the kids off at school in a 4WD. It's just plain stupid and dangerous for others. I lived around the corner from Ivanhoe Grammar, and used to walk down the train station along the north boundary. This road is so slim I struggle to get down their in my Astra when there are cars parked. And this is at 8:30 when there is pre-school kids everywhere. Every second car is a 4WD. I read in the leader that a young girl was killed a while ago and it's not the first time it's happened. Of course it was a 4WD. All you have to do is look at the joint to know how stupid it is.

On the other hand though. I have worked in a job where I needed a 4WD every day. And I would travel from Melbourne to Traralgon one day and Melbourne to Ballarat the next. Even though it was a work car and I didn't pay for it there are plenty of people who legitimately need them (and who live in the city) and it's hardly fair to force them to pay this extra money simply to have a job.

If I had my way I'd have a 20% tax on all 4WD sales to those cars to be garaged in a Metro area and x2 rego every year unless there is a legitimate reason for driving one. They being if you are in a 4WD club and go more then 3 times a year or work.

It would be easy if you only allowed the work version manual of the Heavy 4wd and tax the rest, no soccer mum going to put up with that
 
It would be easy if you only allowed the work version manual of the Heavy 4wd and tax the rest, no soccer mum going to put up with that

True. I did drive the Hilux manual with acceleration of 0 - 100 in 5.4 minutes. It could drive over a mini bus though. Man I loved that car. Still dangerous as hell to drive in the city. If it was wet on the highway you'd need at least 100m between you and the next car cos if they put on the breaks you weren't stoping in time. Even when it rained on local roads, I needed to put it in 4WD to stop it spinning out going round sharp corners in slow 2nd gear. I can't see the appeal to a socer mum of that beast.
 
You only don't need the stamp of approval because no one's had the guts to take on 4WDs the way they should. If you have a 4WD that spends 100% of it's time in suburbia then you are an unqualified idiot. Apart from wasting your money on running costs (and you are), you're making life difficult for everyone else on the road everytime you take your giant shitbox out for a drive - you cut everyone else's vision, you take up too much parking space and in the event of an accident you're much more dangerous to everyone else on the road.

Should we also ban or heavily tax other vehicles which have high running costs, obscure vision and take up too much parking space. Lets just apply extra charges to everything larger than a mid sized car.
 
Apart from wasting your money on running costs (and you are), you're making life difficult for everyone else on the road everytime you take your giant shitbox out for a drive - you cut everyone else's vision, you take up too much parking space and in the event of an accident you're much more dangerous to everyone else on the road.
Running costs such as servicing, yes > than a Commodore.

Fuel consumption: no, my diesel 4WD > Commodore. Mine uses 9.6L / 100km in the city, driven hard. Commodore 6cyl in the city is much, much greater than that.

Accident: Agree, I am much better off. But its all realative and an invalid arguement. A Comomodore is much better off than a corolla. A Corolla is much better of than a 70's car. A 70's car is much better of than a Motorbike. Truck is much better of than me.

Parking space: Invalid arguement.

Commodore: 4894L 1899W 1476H
Prado: 4850L 1875W 1905H

Prado takes a lesser footprint than Commodore, its very marginal.

The differencce is the height.

Can't see around me: Valid point but so what. Are you proposing that we also ban the tradies workvans? Posties vans etc... A sportscar can't see above a normal sedan. Therefore ban the humble family Sedan? Therefore, I propose you don't hang right on my a$$ and you should be able to see around me, oops I forgot, I raised my vehicle by 65mm with an aftermarket lift kit... which is legal.

Stop being a nancy, and grow up... Sook, sook sook, "Oh Didums, I can't see around the 4WD, my life is ruined".
 
I think there are many poor excuses behind the usage of a large 4WD. Only a few would have genuine arguments. It's funny to see someone mentioned opposers to 4WDs as being envious. Well, believe me I wouldn't be caught dead in a 4WD- just outside of one. Not only are they a menace on the roads, they also look ridiculous.

I'm a pedestrian, bike rider and public transport user, so I don't own/use a car, before you go asking.

My backyard is our backyard. Let's work together to keep it as healthy as we possibly can.

wow we are sooooo alike ..I drive a 4x4 Hilux that i use to barge tracks through the bush on my way to cutting down trees for firewood ..and shooting native animals for the table .
My 4 wheel drive won't hurt you unless you turn in front of me without signalling .
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Running costs such as servicing, yes > than a Commodore.

Fuel consumption: no, my diesel 4WD > Commodore. Mine uses 9.6L / 100km in the city, driven hard. Commodore 6cyl in the city is much, much greater than that.

Accident: Agree, I am much better off. But its all realative and an invalid arguement. A Comomodore is much better off than a corolla. A Corolla is much better of than a 70's car. A 70's car is much better of than a Motorbike. Truck is much better of than me.

Parking space: Invalid arguement.

Commodore: 4894L 1899W 1476H
Prado: 4850L 1875W 1905H

Prado takes a lesser footprint than Commodore, its very marginal.

The differencce is the height.

Can't see around me: Valid point but so what. Are you proposing that we also ban the tradies workvans? Posties vans etc... A sportscar can't see above a normal sedan. Therefore ban the humble family Sedan? Therefore, I propose you don't hang right on my a$$ and you should be able to see around me, oops I forgot, I raised my vehicle by 65mm with an aftermarket lift kit... which is legal.

Stop being a nancy, and grow up... Sook, sook sook, "Oh Didums, I can't see around the 4WD, my life is ruined".

I'm not talking about a Commodore even. In my opinion, 4WD owners are a bunch of self centered gits - usually backed up by the ****ing ordinary way they drive as if they own the road. Also backed up by the attitude you display above - reducing the vision of other cars and taking up more parking space is OK. I liked QSaint's suggestion: Four wheel drive vehicles should be banned on urban roads; there's enough ********s out there without giving them vehicles they feel invincible in.

As for your argument that trucks are more dangerous - well sure, but they're nowhere near as ubiquitous as 4WDs on the road, and they're driven by people who have qualified to drive that class of vehicle. As for not being able to see around you - what about when you're the ****knuckle sitting on my car's arse. I can't even see what's coming to change lanes because you're an invulnerable tosser. Sorry, 4WDs are the **** of the road.
 
I'm not talking about a Commodore even. In my opinion, 4WD owners are a bunch of self centered gits - usually backed up by the ****ing ordinary way they drive as if they own the road. Also backed up by the attitude you display above - reducing the vision of other cars and taking up more parking space is OK. I liked QSaint's suggestion: Four wheel drive vehicles should be banned on urban roads; there's enough ********s out there without giving them vehicles they feel invincible in.

As for your argument that trucks are more dangerous - well sure, but they're nowhere near as ubiquitous as 4WDs on the road, and they're driven by people who have qualified to drive that class of vehicle. As for not being able to see around you - what about when you're the ****knuckle sitting on my car's arse. I can't even see what's coming to change lanes because you're an invulnerable tosser. Sorry, 4WDs are the **** of the road.
Calm down mate, take a chill pill.

The commodore comparison is valid. You are talking about how 4WD's are taking up so much parking space. I then compared it to the average family sedan, a Commodore. I then compared the footprint size, (Width & Length) and demonstrated that a Commodore is larger. Do you dispute this? And if banning 4WD's from public parking bays, you then need to ban Commodores, Falcons, Magnas, Camry / Aurion as well.

Vision is a pi$$ poor arguement, unless every vehicle is made of a standard height (incl sportscars). What are the tradies going to be driving? If you ban 4WD's on height, you will need to ban the Tradies staple vehicles such as the Econovan sized vehicles, as well as Posties Red machines. While we are it, bus are banned as well? And the people movers: Voyager, Torago, Carnival? I mean, they block your view on the road right?

Just out of curiousty, what percentage of accidents are 4WD's involved in? And what percentage are involved if you exclude < 24yo?

You are going on pi$$ poor journalists emotive arguements with zero substance to back you up:

- I just don't want them on the road
- I can't see past them
- They take up too much room
- They are invincible

I shall repeat again, all selfish and personal reasons to ban them, with no shred of evidence to back yourself up against anything.

Cheers.

Edit: Love my 4WD, just to get away from the city, and fish all day on the beach and leave tossers like yourself behind in the big smoke, whining about nothing better.
 
Trade vehicles, trucks etc do block driving vision on the road but that is because it is necessary that they are large. Suburban 4WDs are large because the idiots buying them want to see over the top of everyone else.
 
Obviously the question was put forward somewhat 'sluggishly', but we all get the idea of the question - should 'Toorak Tractor' owners be penalised/deterred in some way, in order to combat the many problems that arise with the increase of these things on the road, and pay for some of those problems as well.

My answer - Yes.

My parents used to have a 4WD because

a) It kept the family 'safer', and
b) It made towing the caravan easier for the three-four times the family goes camping every year.

They now have a Kia Rio and are very happy they made the change. So am I. The family and the rest of the country is safer without them in a 4WD, and they now use the Falcon to tow the caravan. Believe it or not, the Rio can actually tow a trailer as well (with the bbq and other things). Problems solved. Far more economical and more comfortable and easy to drive.

No-one disputes that there are those in the bush that genuinely need a big 4WD, and few would try to take that away from them. But we have all seen the carparks outside schools at 3.30 full of Landcruisers, Pajeros and more lately Territorys (be they 4WD or 2WD). How many of these are genuinely necessary?

On the same topic, has everyone seen the Ford ads for the territory where the mum is driving past all of the other mothers standing outside their (apparently inferior) 4WD's of other makes? This is a perfect example of what is wrong with the current mass-mentality towards buying and running a big 4WD.
 
Edit: Love my 4WD, just to get away from the city, and fish all day on the beach and leave tossers like yourself behind in the big smoke, whining about nothing better.

Let me give you a quick hint - my little Pulsar is quite capable of driving on the open road... Sure, it can't go along 4WD tracks, but hey, I'm not compensating for something by having an oversized car I don't need. If I need a 4WD to go 4WDing, I'll hire one.
 
On a side note, vehicle rego should be based on the weight of the vehicle and the fuel consumption of the vehicle. If the vehicle is genuinely needed for business purposes, then a percentage of this cost can be claimed back on tax.
 
Let me give you a quick hint - my little Pulsar is quite capable of driving on the open road... Sure, it can't go along 4WD tracks, but hey, I'm not compensating for something by having an oversized car I don't need. If I need a 4WD to go 4WDing, I'll hire one.

I bet you look like a little sweetie driving along in your yellow Pulsar , drying your nails out of the window.....I think we should ban any male from the footpath who has muscles or tattoos ..as they could hurt us if we ran into them .
 
I bet you look like a little sweetie driving along in your yellow Pulsar , drying your nails out of the window.....I think we should ban any male from the footpath who has muscles or tattoos ..as they could hurt us if we ran into them .

It's red - and I don't have any insecurities because I drive a smaller car.

Still, you're the nut that reckons guns aren't a problem, so I think I'll just dismiss your opinion and move on.
 
But we have all seen the carparks outside schools at 3.30 full of Landcruisers, Pajeros and more lately Territorys (be they 4WD or 2WD). How many of these are genuinely necessary?
Clue me in, I must be dumb...

And this is a problem because...?


And don't give me the rubbish about how they take up more space and I can't see around them and they use more fuel.

Focus and let your anger out... why is it bad?
 
Clue me in, I must be dumb...

And this is a problem because...?


And don't give me the rubbish about how they take up more space and I can't see around them and they use more fuel.

Focus and let your anger out... why is it bad?

There is a distinct lack of visibility for any small children around the car. We had a case in WA where a small child was reversed over and killed by a large 4WD in a school carpark. I would expect that every larger 4wd should at least have reversing sensors as standard.
 
Clue me in, I must be dumb...

And this is a problem because...?


And don't give me the rubbish about how they take up more space and I can't see around them and they use more fuel.

Focus and let your anger out... why is it bad?

Well as i said before, my main problem with 4WD's is that they are more likely to kill me if I was involved in an accident with one.

Infact I was rear ended by a 4WD, and he said it was because he couldn't stop in time, wrote off both cars.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Should 4WD purchases be taxed at a higher rate?

Back
Top