Fuel and Rego

[Ext User(DAvid)]

How many in here would be in favour of dropping vehicle registration and
incorporating it into fuel costs? That way, "User Pays" would make much more
sense. If you use the roads, you pay for it. Would also probably encourage
more car pooling to get to and from work to help the emission problems.

DAVO

[Ext User(Trevor Wilson)]

"DAvid" <davideo@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:lZ0ei.16372$wH4.2561@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> How many in here would be in favour of dropping vehicle registration and
> incorporating it into fuel costs? That way, "User Pays" would make much
> more sense. If you use the roads, you pay for it. Would also probably
> encourage more car pooling to get to and from work to help the emission
> problems.

**No argument form me. The cost should be per Litre of fuel though. It would
encourage the switch to Diesel.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ext User(Just JT)]

"DAvid" <davideo@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> How many in here would be in favour of dropping vehicle registration and
> incorporating it into fuel costs?
~~~~~~~~~~~
If we drop vehicle registration how do we guarantee that all vehicles are
road worthy?

--
Roadworthiness.important.for.road.safety.

[Ext User(veritas)]

DAvid wrote:
> How many in here would be in favour of dropping vehicle registration and
> incorporating it into fuel costs? That way, "User Pays" would make much more
> sense. If you use the roads, you pay for it. Would also probably encourage
> more car pooling to get to and from work to help the emission problems.
>
> DAVO
>
>

YUP - I gas my tank every two, to three months - it'd sure iron out the
rego anomaly for me...

[Ext User(John_H)]

DAvid wrote:
>
>How many in here would be in favour of dropping vehicle registration and
>incorporating it into fuel costs? That way, "User Pays" would make much more
>sense. If you use the roads, you pay for it. Would also probably encourage
>more car pooling to get to and from work to help the emission problems.

Should do wonders for road transport costs... fuel for which currently
costs the operators around 19¢ per litre less than other road users.

If last hike in the price of bananas was inflationary, as the Hon
Treasurer claimed, then I guess we aint seen nuthin' yet! :)

--
John H

[Ext User(OzOne)]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 04:50:24 GMT, veritas <veritas@coldmail.con>
scribbled thusly:

>DAvid wrote:
>> How many in here would be in favour of dropping vehicle registration and
>> incorporating it into fuel costs? That way, "User Pays" would make much more
>> sense. If you use the roads, you pay for it. Would also probably encourage
>> more car pooling to get to and from work to help the emission problems.
>>
>> DAVO
>>
>>
>
>YUP - I gas my tank every two, to three months - it'd sure iron out the
>rego anomaly for me...

Wow, do you get great gas mileage....what was it on petrol?


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,
We've been expecting you.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Just JT" <Johnnythor@Hotmale.com> wrote in message
news:4678b05c$0$15112$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosti ng.com...

> If we drop vehicle registration how do we guarantee that all vehicles are
> road worthy?

We don't have annual roadworthy inspections in Victoria, and surprisingly
the number of "unroadworthy" vehicles, or crashes caused by them, is no
higher than those in states which do.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Atheist Chaplain)]

"veritas" <veritas@coldmail.con> wrote in message
news:km2ei.16420$wH4.15977@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> DAvid wrote:
>> How many in here would be in favour of dropping vehicle registration and
>> incorporating it into fuel costs? That way, "User Pays" would make much
>> more sense. If you use the roads, you pay for it. Would also probably
>> encourage more car pooling to get to and from work to help the emission
>> problems.
>>
>> DAVO
>
> YUP - I gas my tank every two, to three months - it'd sure iron out the
> rego anomaly for me...

so when I fill up my spare jerry can with fuel for my mower (Honda 4 stroke)
how many forms will I have to fill out to get an exemption ??
and what's to then stop me from having to "accidentally" use it because my
car was on "Empty" in the driveway ??

--
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Don Hirschberg

[Ext User(John_H)]

Just JT wrote:
>
>If we drop vehicle registration how do we guarantee that all vehicles are
>road worthy?

Registration doesn't guarantee roadworthiness now (for most states).

--
John H

[Ext User(RainbowWarrior)]

"Atheist Chaplain" <abuse@cia.gov> wrote in message
news:gN2ei.16429$wH4.9614@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "veritas" <veritas@coldmail.con> wrote in message
> news:km2ei.16420$wH4.15977@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> DAvid wrote:
>>> How many in here would be in favour of dropping vehicle registration and
>>> incorporating it into fuel costs? That way, "User Pays" would make much
>>> more sense. If you use the roads, you pay for it. Would also probably
>>> encourage more car pooling to get to and from work to help the emission
>>> problems.
>>>
>>> DAVO
>>
>> YUP - I gas my tank every two, to three months - it'd sure iron out the
>> rego anomaly for me...
>
> so when I fill up my spare jerry can with fuel for my mower (Honda 4
> stroke) how many forms will I have to fill out to get an exemption ??
> and what's to then stop me from having to "accidentally" use it because my
> car was on "Empty" in the driveway ??

None, but you are entiled to use your push mower on the road as long as it
complies with ADR's and has appropriate indicators & lighting.

[Ext User(JD)]

Atheist Chaplain wrote:

> "veritas" <veritas@coldmail.con> wrote in message
> news:km2ei.16420$wH4.15977@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> DAvid wrote:
>>> How many in here would be in favour of dropping vehicle registration and
>>> incorporating it into fuel costs? That way, "User Pays" would make much
>>> more sense. If you use the roads, you pay for it. Would also probably
>>> encourage more car pooling to get to and from work to help the emission
>>> problems.
>>>
>>> DAVO
>>
>> YUP - I gas my tank every two, to three months - it'd sure iron out the
>> rego anomaly for me...
>
> so when I fill up my spare jerry can with fuel for my mower (Honda 4
> stroke) how many forms will I have to fill out to get an exemption ??
> and what's to then stop me from having to "accidentally" use it because my
> car was on "Empty" in the driveway ??
>
You don't (get an exemption that is), any more than you do get an exemption
from existing taxes.
JD

[Ext User(Marco)]

On Jun 20, 1:15 pm, "DAvid" <davi...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> How many in here would be in favour of dropping vehicle registration and
> incorporating it into fuel costs? That way, "User Pays" would make much more
> sense. If you use the roads, you pay for it. Would also probably encourage
> more car pooling to get to and from work to help the emission problems.

Good idea. It would also mean that it would make more economic sense
to own a cheap, economical second car if your daily driver liked a bit
of a drink. At the moment it doesn't make sense when you've got to
overcome a $700pa handicap from the start.

If there were no rego costs, I'd go out tomorrow and buy a 3 cylinder
Charade again and use that for local trips rather than the SS.

Marco

[Ext User(Marco)]

On Jun 20, 3:19 pm, "Atheist Chaplain" <a...@cia.gov> wrote:
>
> so when I fill up my spare jerry can with fuel for my mower (Honda 4 stroke)
> how many forms will I have to fill out to get an exemption ??
> and what's to then stop me from having to "accidentally" use it because my
> car was on "Empty" in the driveway ??

Why would there need to be an exemption? I don't know about you, but
I buy fuel for my mower probably twice a year, 5 litres at a time. It
would hardly break the bank if the tax on that went up a little,
especially if my rego costs plummeted.

Marco

[Ext User(borrie)]

"DAvid" <davideo@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:lZ0ei.16372$wH4.2561@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> How many in here would be in favour of dropping vehicle registration and
> incorporating it into fuel costs? That way, "User Pays" would make much
> more sense. If you use the roads, you pay for it. Would also probably
> encourage more car pooling to get to and from work to help the emission
> problems.
>
> DAVO
>

User pays indeed, and don't stop there, apply it to the arts, sport and
recreation, the health system etc.

[Ext User(Daryl Walford)]

Marco wrote:
> On Jun 20, 1:15 pm, "DAvid" <davi...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> How many in here would be in favour of dropping vehicle registration and
>> incorporating it into fuel costs? That way, "User Pays" would make much more
>> sense. If you use the roads, you pay for it. Would also probably encourage
>> more car pooling to get to and from work to help the emission problems.
>
> Good idea. It would also mean that it would make more economic sense
> to own a cheap, economical second car if your daily driver liked a bit
> of a drink. At the moment it doesn't make sense when you've got to
> overcome a $700pa handicap from the start.
>
> If there were no rego costs, I'd go out tomorrow and buy a 3 cylinder
> Charade again and use that for local trips rather than the SS.

Thats an interesting side effect of dropping rego fees, it might
stimulate the car industry in that it won't cost a fortune to own more
than one car.
In Vic and I suspect in all other states the major cost isn't
registration but compulsory third party insurance so that would also
need to go.
While we are at it why not make it compulsory for all drivers to be
insured for property damage instead of needing each car to be insured
separately, cars would still need to be insured against fire and theft
but that would be at a reduced cost.
If all those changes were made I'd have a car for each purpose instead
of needing to compromise so much, I could have a small car for commuting
but still own the ute for when I needed to cart things.



Daryl

[Ext User(atec 77)]

borrie wrote:
> "DAvid" <davideo@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:lZ0ei.16372$wH4.2561@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> How many in here would be in favour of dropping vehicle registration and
>> incorporating it into fuel costs? That way, "User Pays" would make much
>> more sense. If you use the roads, you pay for it. Would also probably
>> encourage more car pooling to get to and from work to help the emission
>> problems.
>>
>> DAVO
>>
>
> User pays indeed, and don't stop there, apply it to the arts, sport and
> recreation, the health system etc.
>
>
I live in Qld ,
what health system ?
thanks petie

[Ext User(JD)]

Daryl Walford wrote:

> Marco wrote:
>> On Jun 20, 1:15 pm, "DAvid" <davi...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>> How many in here would be in favour of dropping vehicle registration and
>>> incorporating it into fuel costs? That way, "User Pays" would make much
>>> more sense. If you use the roads, you pay for it. Would also probably
>>> encourage more car pooling to get to and from work to help the emission
>>> problems.
>>
>> Good idea. It would also mean that it would make more economic sense
>> to own a cheap, economical second car if your daily driver liked a bit
>> of a drink. At the moment it doesn't make sense when you've got to
>> overcome a $700pa handicap from the start.
>>
>> If there were no rego costs, I'd go out tomorrow and buy a 3 cylinder
>> Charade again and use that for local trips rather than the SS.
>
> Thats an interesting side effect of dropping rego fees, it might
> stimulate the car industry in that it won't cost a fortune to own more
> than one car.
> In Vic and I suspect in all other states the major cost isn't
> registration but compulsory third party insurance so that would also
> need to go.
> While we are at it why not make it compulsory for all drivers to be
> insured for property damage instead of needing each car to be insured
> separately, cars would still need to be insured against fire and theft
> but that would be at a reduced cost.
> If all those changes were made I'd have a car for each purpose instead
> of needing to compromise so much, I could have a small car for commuting
> but still own the ute for when I needed to cart things.
>
>
>
> Daryl

I would agree - I have always seen the advantages, at least from my position
of transferring all the fixed costs of car ownership to the cost of use,
logically as a tax on fuel. This would include, as you say, insurance as
well as registration, but should also include stamp duty and other charges
incurred when buying or transferring a car.

The problem is that, assuming the change is revenue neutral, it would
transfer costs to those who use a lot of fuel, either through having a
thirsty car or doing more mileage, and away from the motorist who does
little driving and currently subsidises those who do a lot. Unfortunately I
suspect the distress of those facing fuel costs which outweigh the saving
on fixed costs would be rather more noisy than the approval of those facing
lower fixed costs outweighing increased fuel costs.

Think about who would be disadvantaged - commuters from outer suburbs
lacking in public transport, anyone living outside the capital cities -
that gets the Unions (and hence the ALP), and the Nationals, against it;
not much chance I am afraid!
JD

[Ext User(Daryl Walford)]

JD wrote:
> Daryl Walford wrote:
>
>> Marco wrote:
>>> On Jun 20, 1:15 pm, "DAvid" <davi...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>>> How many in here would be in favour of dropping vehicle registration and
>>>> incorporating it into fuel costs? That way, "User Pays" would make much
>>>> more sense. If you use the roads, you pay for it. Would also probably
>>>> encourage more car pooling to get to and from work to help the emission
>>>> problems.
>>> Good idea. It would also mean that it would make more economic sense
>>> to own a cheap, economical second car if your daily driver liked a bit
>>> of a drink. At the moment it doesn't make sense when you've got to
>>> overcome a $700pa handicap from the start.
>>>
>>> If there were no rego costs, I'd go out tomorrow and buy a 3 cylinder
>>> Charade again and use that for local trips rather than the SS.
>> Thats an interesting side effect of dropping rego fees, it might
>> stimulate the car industry in that it won't cost a fortune to own more
>> than one car.
>> In Vic and I suspect in all other states the major cost isn't
>> registration but compulsory third party insurance so that would also
>> need to go.
>> While we are at it why not make it compulsory for all drivers to be
>> insured for property damage instead of needing each car to be insured
>> separately, cars would still need to be insured against fire and theft
>> but that would be at a reduced cost.
>> If all those changes were made I'd have a car for each purpose instead
>> of needing to compromise so much, I could have a small car for commuting
>> but still own the ute for when I needed to cart things.
>>
>>
>>
>> Daryl
>
> I would agree - I have always seen the advantages, at least from my position
> of transferring all the fixed costs of car ownership to the cost of use,
> logically as a tax on fuel. This would include, as you say, insurance as
> well as registration, but should also include stamp duty and other charges
> incurred when buying or transferring a car.
>
> The problem is that, assuming the change is revenue neutral, it would
> transfer costs to those who use a lot of fuel, either through having a
> thirsty car or doing more mileage, and away from the motorist who does
> little driving and currently subsidises those who do a lot. Unfortunately I
> suspect the distress of those facing fuel costs which outweigh the saving
> on fixed costs would be rather more noisy than the approval of those facing
> lower fixed costs outweighing increased fuel costs.
>
> Think about who would be disadvantaged - commuters from outer suburbs
> lacking in public transport, anyone living outside the capital cities -
> that gets the Unions (and hence the ALP), and the Nationals, against it;
> not much chance I am afraid!

Maybe but my own case would be a good example, I currently use a V6
petrol Hilux for commuting the 60klm round trip to work, if the cost of
owning a small economical car was much lower then I would buy one and
cut my fuel bill in half but still be able to keep the Hilux for towing
etc.
That might only apply to people who can afford to own a couple of
vehicles but no one is forced to drive a large car and even those who
think they need a big car could always run it on LPG.



Daryl

[Ext User(the_dawggie)]

On Jun 20, 9:40 pm, Daryl Walford <dwalf...@internode.on.net> wrote:
> JD wrote:
> > Daryl Walford wrote:
>
> >> Marco wrote:
> >>> On Jun 20, 1:15 pm, "DAvid" <davi...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >>>> How many in here would be in favour of dropping vehicle registration and
> >>>> incorporating it into fuel costs? That way, "User Pays" would make much
> >>>> more sense. If you use the roads, you pay for it. Would also probably
> >>>> encourage more car pooling to get to and from work to help the emission
> >>>> problems.
> >>> Good idea. It would also mean that it would make more economic sense
> >>> to own a cheap, economical second car if your daily driver liked a bit
> >>> of a drink. At the moment it doesn't make sense when you've got to
> >>> overcome a $700pa handicap from the start.
>
> >>> If there were no rego costs, I'd go out tomorrow and buy a 3 cylinder
> >>> Charade again and use that for local trips rather than the SS.
> >> Thats an interesting side effect of dropping rego fees, it might
> >> stimulate the car industry in that it won't cost a fortune to own more
> >> than one car.
> >> In Vic and I suspect in all other states the major cost isn't
> >> registration but compulsory third party insurance so that would also
> >> need to go.
> >> While we are at it why not make it compulsory for all drivers to be
> >> insured for property damage instead of needing each car to be insured
> >> separately, cars would still need to be insured against fire and theft
> >> but that would be at a reduced cost.
> >> If all those changes were made I'd have a car for each purpose instead
> >> of needing to compromise so much, I could have a small car for commuting
> >> but still own the ute for when I needed to cart things.
>
> >> Daryl
>
> > I would agree - I have always seen the advantages, at least from my position
> > of transferring all the fixed costs of car ownership to the cost of use,
> > logically as a tax on fuel. This would include, as you say, insurance as
> > well as registration, but should also include stamp duty and other charges
> > incurred when buying or transferring a car.
>
> > The problem is that, assuming the change is revenue neutral, it would
> > transfer costs to those who use a lot of fuel, either through having a
> > thirsty car or doing more mileage, and away from the motorist who does
> > little driving and currently subsidises those who do a lot. Unfortunately I
> > suspect the distress of those facing fuel costs which outweigh the saving
> > on fixed costs would be rather more noisy than the approval of those facing
> > lower fixed costs outweighing increased fuel costs.
>
> > Think about who would be disadvantaged - commuters from outer suburbs
> > lacking in public transport, anyone living outside the capital cities -
> > that gets the Unions (and hence the ALP), and the Nationals, against it;
> > not much chance I am afraid!
>
> Maybe but my own case would be a good example, I currently use a V6
> petrol Hilux for commuting the 60klm round trip to work, if the cost of
> owning a small economical car was much lower then I would buy one and
> cut my fuel bill in half but still be able to keep the Hilux for towing
> etc.
> That might only apply to people who can afford to own a couple of
> vehicles but no one is forced to drive a large car and even those who
> think they need a big car could always run it on LPG.
>
> Daryl


You'r only mistake is it is not a turbo diesel :-)

[Ext User(Cyborg 0019)]

Just JT wrote:
> "DAvid" <davideo@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>> How many in here would be in favour of dropping vehicle registration
>> and incorporating it into fuel costs?
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~
> If we drop vehicle registration how do we guarantee that all vehicles
> are road worthy?
>
> --
> Roadworthiness.important.for.road.safety.
>

Roadworthiness has never been an issue here and there is no garrantee,my
car is as road illegal as they get,and it goes 140km a day for 2 years
without any issue untill some stupid iditic gov co ltd. sales rep. stuck
his nose in and said there was an oil leak out the ballance wheel
rushing me to fix it and if I did I would not go to jail.
Silly wacker.Apparently this guy was a mechanic,so he said,yeah a
mechanic with 3 days battery holder training experience.

Oh and what do you knwo next we is a full blown engine and a large
puddle of oil on the side of the road....lol

It was just slowly adopted more and more and makes things cost more for
the average road user,the cars that used to drive round here with rust
eating through the subframe were far safer than the new cars comming out
with crash protection.

Base on what grounds you ask? People drove them slow so they did not
fall apart...lol

90% of people actually maintain their cars and keep them safe,well once
the had too as the wheels used to fall off in the 50's and 60's.

Its 2 or 3 city people with brains for shit that make a need for an
inspection system.
I recall when they decided rust was a no no,not that long ago,and I
recall exactly why it became an issue,Not because it was unsafe.

Only have a roadworthy on first registration here and it works a.o.k