Hybrid cars to be exempt from QLD Rego

[Ext User(Kev)]

Announced this week that people who buy Hybrid cars in QLD will not have
to pay normal Car Registration(CTP and other charges still apply) saving
of about $240/yr


Kev

[Ext User(Scotty)]

"Kev" <kevcat@optunet.com.au> wrote in message
news:462a3b52$0$16553$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> Announced this week that people who buy Hybrid cars in QLD will not have
> to pay normal Car Registration(CTP and other charges still apply) saving
> of about $240/yr
>
>
> Kev
Hmmm, saving "$240 a year/looking like a twat in a car thats way to small
for anyone over 60kgs"

[Ext User(Ron)]

Kev <kevcat@optunet.com.au> wrote in news:462a3b52$0$16553$afc38c87
@news.optusnet.com.au:

> Announced this week that people who buy Hybrid cars in QLD will not have
> to pay normal Car Registration(CTP and other charges still apply) saving
> of about $240/yr
>
>
> Kev

Toyota must have bribed beattie the clown...

[Ext User(Michael C)]

"Scotty" <scoter1@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:462a7601$0$9771$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>> Kev
> Hmmm, saving "$240 a year/looking like a twat in a car thats way to small
> for anyone over 60kgs"

And comes at such a price premium as to not actually save you any money.

>
>

[Ext User(Ron)]

"Michael C" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:462af1f7$0$11385$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u:

> "Scotty" <scoter1@warmmail.com> wrote in message
> news:462a7601$0$9771$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>>> Kev
>> Hmmm, saving "$240 a year/looking like a twat in a car thats way to
>> small for anyone over 60kgs"
>
> And comes at such a price premium as to not actually save you any
> money.

Unless it is a taxi :-)

[Ext User(Just JT)]

"Scotty" <scoter1@warmmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Kev" <kevcat@optunet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:462a3b52$0$16553$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>> Announced this week that people who buy Hybrid cars in QLD will not have
>> to pay normal Car Registration(CTP and other charges still apply) saving
>> of about $240/yr
>>
>>
>> Kev
> Hmmm, saving "$240 a year/looking like a twat in a car thats way to small
> for anyone over 60kgs"
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Uhm, the Lexus 400h, a hybrid SUV, is pretty roomy.

LPGas-electric and Diesel-electric hybrids for the future, perhaps?

--
Hybrid.ain't.just.small.cars.

[Ext User(Albm&ctd)]

In article <462a3b52$0$16553$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
kevcat@optunet.com.au says...
> Announced this week that people who buy Hybrid cars in QLD will not have
> to pay normal Car Registration(CTP and other charges still apply) saving
> of about $240/yr
>
>
> Kev
>
What about all-electric scooters motorbikes and cars?

Al
--
I don't take sides.
It's more fun to insult everyone.
http://kwakakid.cjb.net/insult.html

[Ext User(Albm&ctd)]

In article <462b30ce$0$6497$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
JohnnyThor@Hotmale.com says...
>
> "Scotty" <scoter1@warmmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Kev" <kevcat@optunet.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:462a3b52$0$16553$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> >> Announced this week that people who buy Hybrid cars in QLD will not have
> >> to pay normal Car Registration(CTP and other charges still apply) saving
> >> of about $240/yr
> >>
> >>
> >> Kev
> > Hmmm, saving "$240 a year/looking like a twat in a car thats way to small
> > for anyone over 60kgs"
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Uhm, the Lexus 400h, a hybrid SUV, is pretty roomy.
>
> LPGas-electric and Diesel-electric hybrids for the future, perhaps?
>
> --
> Hybrid.ain't.just.small.cars.
>
There's even a Hummer diesel electric.

Al
--
I don't take sides.
It's more fun to insult everyone.
http://kwakakid.cjb.net/insult.html

[Ext User(Athol)]

Albm&ctd <alb_mandctdNOWMD@connexus.net.au> wrote:

> There's even a Hummer diesel electric.

Diesel Electric?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro-diesel_locomotive

:-)

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[Ext User(Marco)]

On Apr 22, 2:27 am, Kev <kev...@optunet.com.au> wrote:
> Announced this week that people who buy Hybrid cars in QLD will not have
> to pay normal Car Registration(CTP and other charges still apply) saving
> of about $240/yr
>
> Kev

Do hybrids do less damage to the roads they travel on than regular
cars now? Do they require fewer road signs to be put up, fewer lane
markings painted, fewer roads to be built?

Marco

[Ext User(atec77')]

Marco wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2:27 am, Kev <kev...@optunet.com.au> wrote:
>> Announced this week that people who buy Hybrid cars in QLD will not have
>> to pay normal Car Registration(CTP and other charges still apply) saving
>> of about $240/yr
>>
>> Kev
>
> Do hybrids do less damage to the roads they travel on than regular
> cars now?

No idea but they do aussalt the sensis with a huge ugly factor

Do they require fewer road signs to be put up, fewer lane
> markings painted, fewer roads to be built?

no but there are so few it hardly matters , I saw a prious last week
south of calamvale , the first I recall EVER seen(by me).
>
> Marco
>

[Ext User(John_H)]

Marco wrote:
>On Apr 22, 2:27 am, Kev <kev...@optunet.com.au> wrote:
>> Announced this week that people who buy Hybrid cars in QLD will not have
>> to pay normal Car Registration(CTP and other charges still apply) saving
>> of about $240/yr
>>
>> Kev
>
>Do hybrids do less damage to the roads they travel on than regular
>cars now? Do they require fewer road signs to be put up, fewer lane
>markings painted, fewer roads to be built?
>
>Marco

Do rego fees pay for any of those?

--
John H

[Ext User(Just JT)]

"Marco" <ignition.vess@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Do hybrids do less damage to the roads they travel on than regular
> cars now? Do they require fewer road signs to be put up, fewer lane
> markings painted, fewer roads to be built?
~~~~~~~~~
I think it's no different with schoolies and seniors paying less for a
haircut when the effort is about the same as for the full-paying general
population.

--
I'm.no.big.fan.of.subsidies.myself

[Ext User(Marco)]

> Do rego fees pay for any of those?

I thought that was at least part of the idea of rego fees varying by
weight...

Marco

[Ext User(John_H)]

Marco wrote:

>> Do rego fees pay for any of those?
>
>I thought that was at least part of the idea of rego fees varying by
>weight...

Without wading through the appropriate GovCo budgets to verify the
fact, they're nothing more than administration fees (and absorbed as
such). They only vary the amounts to make it sound fair (in a vague
sort of way)... charging by the number of cylinders (as they all do)
certainly isn't. No one pays by weight AFAIK. :)

Some of our fuel taxes, and only some, are used to pay for the items
you've mentioned. Nor are they the only source of funding... which is
a combination of federal, state and local government sources.

The more complicated they make it the harder it is for Joe Public to
know. ;-)

--
John H

[Ext User(Athol)]

John_H <john4721@inbox.com> wrote:

> Without wading through the appropriate GovCo budgets to verify the
> fact, they're nothing more than administration fees (and absorbed as
> such). They only vary the amounts to make it sound fair (in a vague
> sort of way)... charging by the number of cylinders (as they all do)
> certainly isn't.

In NSW, the number of cylinders is not even shown on the rego papers.
It might be on the computer system but I doubt it. I think that they
only record the engine by capacity and number and possibly make.

> No one pays by weight AFAIK. :)

In NSW, light vehicles (under 4500kg GVM) have a rego component based
on tare mass. As best as I can figure, it's a stepped ramp - every
500kg there is a step but between the steps it goes up linearly.

All vehicles over 4500kg GVM are charged using a national system that
is based on number of axles, GVM under or over a threshold and what
type of trailer configuration it is registered to tow. The GVM
threshold only applies to trucks not registered to tow trailers with
an ATM over 4500kg.

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[Ext User(Marco)]

John_H wrote:
>
> Without wading through the appropriate GovCo budgets to verify the
> fact, they're nothing more than administration fees (and absorbed as
> such). They only vary the amounts to make it sound fair (in a vague
> sort of way)... charging by the number of cylinders (as they all do)
> certainly isn't. No one pays by weight AFAIK. :)

I do:
http://www.rego.act.gov.au/registrations/regofee.htm

And I did when I lived in NSW too, so there are at least two
jurisdictions doing it :)

> The more complicated they make it the harder it is for Joe Public to
> know. ;-)

True enough. I sometimes wonder whether it would make more sense to
have high licence costs and a nominal rego fee, rather than the other
way around. That way, it would actually make financial sense for
people who own big, heavy cars that use more fuel to also own a small
runaround for when they don't need a big car. At the moment, when
each car you register costs $5-600, the numbers on that don't add
up.

Marco

[Ext User(John_H)]

Athol wrote:
>John_H <john4721@inbox.com> wrote:
>
>> Without wading through the appropriate GovCo budgets to verify the
>> fact, they're nothing more than administration fees (and absorbed as
>> such). They only vary the amounts to make it sound fair (in a vague
>> sort of way)... charging by the number of cylinders (as they all do)
>> certainly isn't.
>
>In NSW, the number of cylinders is not even shown on the rego papers.
>It might be on the computer system but I doubt it. I think that they
>only record the engine by capacity and number and possibly make.
>
>> No one pays by weight AFAIK. :)
>
>In NSW, light vehicles (under 4500kg GVM) have a rego component based
>on tare mass. As best as I can figure, it's a stepped ramp - every
>500kg there is a step but between the steps it goes up linearly.

OK. I'm only completely familiar with Q, which charges passenger cars
and light commercials solely on the number of cylinders, albeit at
different rates for each. When my mum last had a car SA they also
charged by the number of cylinders (for cars at least), so I assumed
all states had adopted the same approach (which is inherently unfair).

Until sometime in the 1980's SA still charged by the old PW system,
based on RAC horsepower plus kerb weight in cwt, which was widely used
throughout those countries using imperial measurement. It was also
inherently fairer even though RAC ratings were well and truly
outdated. AFAIK it was universal throughout Oz prior to metrication.

Displacement isn't particularly fair either, although it's a tad
fairer than the number of cylinders.

>
>All vehicles over 4500kg GVM are charged using a national system that
>is based on number of axles, GVM under or over a threshold and what
>type of trailer configuration it is registered to tow. The GVM
>threshold only applies to trucks not registered to tow trailers with
>an ATM over 4500kg.

Yeah, I wasn't thinking trucks, which is a separate issue. Theirs
oughta be called road tax... but isn't.

Q also has a hire licence in addition to rego... to catch all those
who charge to carry freight.

--
John H

[Ext User(John_H)]

Marco wrote:
>John_H wrote:
>>
>> Without wading through the appropriate GovCo budgets to verify the
>> fact, they're nothing more than administration fees (and absorbed as
>> such). They only vary the amounts to make it sound fair (in a vague
>> sort of way)... charging by the number of cylinders (as they all do)
>> certainly isn't. No one pays by weight AFAIK. :)
>
>I do:
>http://www.rego.act.gov.au/registrations/regofee.htm
>
>And I did when I lived in NSW too, so there are at least two
>jurisdictions doing it :)

'Tis a wonder to behold! Apart from the high fees, which don't
include CTP, there's even some semblance of fairness.

>
>> The more complicated they make it the harder it is for Joe Public to
>> know. ;-)
>
>True enough. I sometimes wonder whether it would make more sense to
>have high licence costs and a nominal rego fee, rather than the other
>way around. That way, it would actually make financial sense for
>people who own big, heavy cars that use more fuel to also own a small
>runaround for when they don't need a big car. At the moment, when
>each car you register costs $5-600, the numbers on that don't add
>up.

What might be fairer would be to shift the CTP premium (which is the
larger part of most registration costs) over to licenses... on the
basis that you can only drive one at a time irrespective of how many
you own. In any case CTP covers the driver's liability most of the
time... the exception being when the car isn't being driven. The
responsible person (as now appears on the rego papers), or person in
charge at the time, should cover most of the exceptions... which is
how it works now for some fines (eg speed camera violations).

Plus a nominal rego fee to cover administration costs and fuel tax to
cover infrastructure costs (and nothing else). Which is probably very
close to how the present system started out... or at least a lot
closer than we've got now.

--
John H

[Ext User(Marco)]

John_H wrote:
>
> 'Tis a wonder to behold! Apart from the high fees, which don't
> include CTP, there's even some semblance of fairness.

The ACT fees do include CTP - there's no choice of insurer though,
it's the NRMA by default. I'm not sure if this is a good or a bad
thing, seeing as the reforms to green slips in NSW didn't exactly
result in the consumer being better off in the end IIRC.

> What might be fairer would be to shift the CTP premium (which is the
> larger part of most registration costs) over to licenses... on the
> basis that you can only drive one at a time irrespective of how many
> you own. In any case CTP covers the driver's liability most of the
> time... the exception being when the car isn't being driven. The
> responsible person (as now appears on the rego papers), or person in
> charge at the time, should cover most of the exceptions... which is
> how it works now for some fines (eg speed camera violations).
>
> Plus a nominal rego fee to cover administration costs and fuel tax to
> cover infrastructure costs (and nothing else). Which is probably very
> close to how the present system started out... or at least a lot
> closer than we've got now.

Yeah, something like that would make a lot of sense. As you say, you
can only drive one at a time so when my car's parked in the garage not
going anywhere, it doesn't really need to be covered by CTP
insurance. It might even encourage greater use of smaller cars which
would otherwise not be the case as an owner might only be able to
afford one car, and decides that they really need that to be a big
one.

The downside would be for households like mine with two licences and
one car, though - we'd pay double what we pay now.

Marco



>
> --
> John H