Why are people buying electric cars?

[Suvv]

We got ours 11 years ago, it was 4 months old with 8 miles on the clock. Ex lease car that never got leased so a large saving. They even delivered it on the back of a transporter!

 

[andya700]

Nobody cares. Seriously, I know the subject can get emotive but the thread is about why people 'do' buy EVs not why they don't.

This typifies the attitude of EV owners, you don't want a debate about the subject.

 

[Clive K]

My previously diesel toting neighbours have bought two EVs in the last 2 months. They've suddenly realised they can get straight into a warm car not have to leave it idling on the drive for ages in the cold weather.

As far as the many reasons there are for buying an ev over diesel that has got to be up there with the flimsiest.

 

[taxboy]

As far as the many reasons there are for buying an ev over diesel that has got to be up there with the flimsiest.

I don't think it's a primary reason for purchasing an EV and I didn't read it as such. However having driven an EV it's a nice feature. As a car I like the smooth drive and the instant torque that my car offers.
Are there reasons why EVs aren't for everyone... absolutely and you need to make a choice based on your personal circumstances. For me I'm glad I made the switch

 

[Clive K]

I don't think it's a primary reason for purchasing an EV and I didn't read it as such. However having driven an EV it's a nice feature. As a car I like the smooth drive and the instant torque that my car offers.
Are there reasons why EVs aren't for everyone... absolutely and you need to make a choice based on your personal circumstances. For me I'm glad I made the switch

For years there has been the facility to remotely start your car and de-frost it using heated windows, mirrors and the air-con in reverse whilst it is locked and on your driveway. Whether it is the engine of an ice or an electric heater of an ev that is running is irrelevant imo. They are both doing the same thing and costing you money.

 

[gman]

It's pretty disgraceful that the luxury car tax, which started in 2017, has remained static instead of being adjusted each year to allow for rising car prices. For all intents and purposes, it could be viewed as another area of fiscal drag that the public are being screwed over with.

 

[Nod]

For years there has been the facility to remotely start your car and de-frost it using heated windows, mirrors and the air-con in reverse whilst it is locked and on your driveway. Whether it is the engine of an ice or an electric heater of an ev that is running is irrelevant imo. They are both doing the same thing and costing you money.

Not the best way to keep your neighbours happy, especially if you set off to work at 06:30.

When an EV is warming up, it's close to silent and pumping out no nasty gasses (at point of use); not the same for an ICE vehicle. I can't lock mine (2013) while the engine's running and I'm not in it anyway but it does have a heated windscreen which speeds things up!

 

[Clive K]

Not the best way to keep your neighbours happy, especially if you set off to work at 06:30.

We had a 2006 Merc' based motorhome that you couldn't hear running more than five yards away. Same with my old Honda CR-V.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

It's pretty disgraceful that the luxury car tax, which started in 2017, has remained static instead of being adjusted each year to allow for rising car prices. For all intents and purposes, it could be viewed as another area of fiscal drag that the public are being screwed over with.

It has been adjusted for battery electric vehicles to £50,000 (annoying as I did everything I could to keep my recent purchase under £40K (a few weeks before budget) as any option took it over the £40K price, so the privacy tints have been added later!!!

I don't think it's a primary reason for purchasing an EV and I didn't read it as such. However having driven an EV it's a nice feature. As a car I like the smooth drive and the instant torque that my car offers.
Are there reasons why EVs aren't for everyone... absolutely and you need to make a choice based on your personal circumstances. For me I'm glad I made the switch

And also with astute programming you can charge the car whilst de-icing so that effectively the battery drain is zero

Having now got an EV in the household, I am converted, 6 weeks and 1200 miles in, its a very pleasant experience. I've found driving it a very calming experience, and I'm certainly less stressed behind the wheel, They are not for everyone though, and if you can't charge at home or require significantly larger charges than a single night off-peak, then it may not make economical sense.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Not the best way to keep your neighbours happy, especially if you set off to work at 06:30.

If your neighbours don't like it but it's necessary for you earning your living, then both of you will just have cope with it.

In any case, it's only necessary when it's cold outside. so you might reasonably assume that their bedroom windows would be closed, especially if the street looks like this...

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

... if you can't charge at home or require significantly larger charges than a single night off-peak, then it may not make economical sense.

Unfortunately, that means poorer citizens are subsidising wealthier citizens, which doesn't strike me as the right thing to be happening in a supposedly egalitarian society.

Surely the fix is to put a much higher Vehicle Excise Duty on electric cars to even things up?

 

[Mr Perceptive]

Unfortunately, that means poorer citizens are subsidising wealthier citizens, which doesn't strike me as the right thing to be happening in a supposedly egalitarian society.

Surely the fix is to put a much higher Vehicle Excise Duty on electric cars to even things up?

I don't actually disagree, something needs to be done, as effectively the whole government/local government policy on pushing electric vehicles. ULEZ zones, etc is effectively a tax on the less well off (and benefits those who can afford it and have the opportunity to home charge etc).

 

[taxboy]

Unfortunately, that means poorer citizens are subsidising wealthier citizens, which doesn't strike me as the right thing to be happening in a supposedly egalitarian society.

Surely the fix is to put a much higher Vehicle Excise Duty on electric cars to even things up?

Applying that logic VED should be increased on all vehicles say up to 3 years old both ICE and EV ??

 

[Mr Bump]

I don't actually disagree, something needs to be done, as effectively the whole government/local government policy on pushing electric vehicles. ULEZ zones, etc is effectively a tax on the less well off (and benefits those who can afford it and have the opportunity to home charge etc).

but its not its a tax on pollution we cannot continue with ICE year after year as we are doing now.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Applying that logic VED should be increased on all vehicles say up to 3 years old both ICE and EV ??

No, because all I am advocating is that the fuel duty, which is not paid by the owners of electric cars, could be redeemed via an increase of the Vehicle Excise Duty.

Alternatively, a simple matching excercise, between the car registration database and the electricity company records, could allow the equivalent of the missing fuel duty to be made up by a surcharge on households with electric vehicles.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

but its not its a tax on pollution

Nor is any other tax, no matter what it may be called.

...we cannot continue with ICE year after year as we are doing now.

We can.

Some people have latched on to that claim but many, many other people have long since become fed up with it.

 

[taxboy]

No, because all I am advocating is that the fuel duty, which is not paid by the owners of electric cars, could be redeemed via an increase of the Vehicle Excise Duty.

Alternatively, a simple matching excercise, between the car registration database and the electricity company records, could allow the equivalent of the missing fuel duty to be made up by a surcharge on households with electric vehicles.

But your original post mentioned less well off subsidising wealthier individuals. I fully recognise that you are anti EV. However the Government of the day are promoting the use of EV and one of the benefits to the end user is not paying fuel duty. Pretty much all governments of whatever party offer an incentive to drive behaviour to their ideas

I think most EV users appreciated at some time if the policy of getting more EVs on the road was successful this loss of revenue would be compensated by increased taxes. EVs now pay VED and a pay per mile charge will be implemented.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

EVs now pay VED and a pay per mile charge will be implemented.

Indeed..

However, before wasting a great deal of tax money on subsidies, which could only benefit a wealthy minority, they should have stood well back and (in effect) said: "if this is such a good idea, let businesses promote it, without any susbsidy whatsoever".

As events are proving, even with subsidies, not that many people want the things at the moment and when all subsidies are dropped, as they will be, sales may well slide even further.

 

[gman]

It has been adjusted for battery electric vehicles to £50,000 (annoying as I did everything I could to keep my recent purchase under £40K (a few weeks before budget) as any option took it over the £40K price, so the privacy tints have been added later!!!

Oh I'd forgotten about that. It's still pitiful though.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

Oh I'd forgotten about that. It's still pitiful though.

I know, a single option on the car we bought (Volvo EX30 SMER Plus) took it over £40K, I had to explain to my wife in the showroom that ordering privacy glass at £441 would cost over £2.5K!!! Made the buying process easier though, we'll have one of those with no options!!!! Then she only had to select the exterior/interior colour combination.................

 

[taxboy]

Indeed..

However, before wasting a great deal of tax money on subsidies, which could only benefit a wealthy minority, they should have stood well back and (in effect) said: "if this is such a good idea, let businesses promote it, without any susbsidy whatsoever".

As events are proving, even with subsidies, not that many people want the things at the moment and when all subsidies are dropped, as they will be, sales may well slide even further.

I just had a look on the SMMT site and BEV registrations formed 22% this year up from 18% so I think quite a few people want an EV.

I do recall when low energy bulbs became mandatory. There was much wailing and hand wringing. I accept the early iterations were not spectacular however with increasing demand the technology improved. Does anyone still want incandescent bulbs ??

 

[gman]

I just had a look on the SMMT site and BEV registrations formed 22% this year up from 18% so I think quite a few people want an EV.

I do recall when low energy bulbs became mandatory. There was much wailing and hand wringing. I accept the early iterations were not spectacular however with increasing demand the technology improved. Does anyone still want incandescent bulbs ??

Aye, for my Himalayan salt lamp lol

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I just had a look on the SMMT site and BEV registrations formed 22% this year up from 18% so I think quite a few people want an EV.

What it tells us, rather, is that a fifth of purchasers who can afford a new car, are choosing to buy electric but four fifths of people who can afford to buy a new car are choosing to buy internal combustion.

Given that those who choose internal combustion engines are foregoing the government bribe, this suggests that without the discount, far fewer people would buy electric. At the same time, we don't know how many would choose electric, if the government applies a correction to the current loss of fuel duty, where people charge off untaxed supplies.

I do recall when low energy bulbs became mandatory. There was much wailing and hand wringing. I accept the early iterations were not spectacular however with increasing demand the technology improved. Does anyone still want incandescent bulbs ??

Unless my memory is faulty, there was no bribe involved in the change to low energy bulbs. In fact, they were originally more expensive than incandescent.

However, without any government financial support (so far as I am aware) they were inherently cheaper to run, so it made sense to choose them.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Aye, for my Himalayan salt lamp lol

Indeed.

My wife still has and uses a "lava lamp" but the bulbs are hard to find and not cheap. Still, it keeps her happy...

 

[taxboy]

What it tells us, rather, is that a fifth of purchasers who can afford a new car, are choosing to buy electric but four fifths of people who can afford to buy a new car are choosing to buy internal combustion.

Given that those who choose internal combustion engines are foregoing the government bribe, this suggests that without the discount, far fewer people would buy electric. At the same time, we don't know how many would choose electric, if the government applies a correction to the current loss of fuel duty, where people charge off untaxed supplies.

Unless my memory is faulty, there was no bribe involved in the change to low energy bulbs. In fact, they were originally more expensive than incandescent.

However, without any government financial support (so far as I am aware) they were inherently cheaper to run, so it made sense to choose them.

Incandescent bulbs were actually banned from sale rather than being a consumer choice.

A Simple Guide To The Incandescent Light Bulb from Universal Lighting

Britain has signed up to a proposal that will see all traditional light bulbs phased out by 2016. There are alternatives - Here's the options

www.universal-lighting.co.uk

My point was that close to a quarter of sales are now EV so whilst still in the minority it's not an insignificant amount

 

[Steep]

This typifies the attitude of EV owners, you don't want a debate about the subject.

With all due respect could you point me towards the bit of mj4456's post that adds anything to the 'debate' ?

 

[Mr Bump]

What it tells us, rather, is that a fifth of purchasers who can afford a new car, are choosing to buy electric but four fifths of people who can afford to buy a new car are choosing to buy internal combustion.

Given that those who choose internal combustion engines are foregoing the government bribe, this suggests that without the discount, far fewer people would buy electric. At the same time, we don't know how many would choose electric, if the government applies a correction to the current loss of fuel duty, where people charge off untaxed supplies.

Unless my memory is faulty, there was no bribe involved in the change to low energy bulbs. In fact, they were originally more expensive than incandescent.

However, without any government financial support (so far as I am aware) they were inherently cheaper to run, so it made sense to choose them.

no you are wrong...

 

[Clive K]

but its not its a tax on pollution we cannot continue with ICE year after year as we are doing now.

How about a ban on unnecessary holiday flights to cut down pollution?

When the ULEZ scheme was extended it immediately taxed those with pre 2016 vehicles. Those who needed vehicles for work, school runs, to visit sick or isolated family, etc were suddenly plunged into a financial black hole. Pre 2016 vehicles had to be sold or the owners would face expense every time they used the vehicle. The Mayor of London didn't say that they couldn't use the older cars. But if they did, they would have to pay a lot of money. A pollution tax. So basically you can pollute all you want if you can pay for the ULEZ charges, or maybe a return flight to the Canaries.

 

[Mr Bump]

How about a ban on unnecessary holiday flights to cut down pollution?

When the ULEZ scheme was extended it immediately taxed those with pre 2016 vehicles. Those who needed vehicles for work, school runs, to visit sick or isolated family, etc were suddenly plunged into a financial black hole. Pre 2016 vehicles had to be sold or the owners would face expense every time they used the vehicle. The Mayor of London didn't say that they couldn't use the older cars. But if they did, they would have to pay a lot of money. A pollution tax. So basically you can pollute all you want if you can pay for the ULEZ charges, or maybe a return flight to the Canaries.

how about we ban the French causing huge amounts of pollution heating vineyards with petrol when it gets a but chilly

Yes, French winemakers burn paraffin "crop candles," hay, or oil drums in their vineyards to protect vines from damaging spring frosts by creating heat and a smoke blanket that insulates the young buds, a common but drastic measure against climate extremes impacting harvests. This practice, often seen in regions like Burgundy and the Rhone Valley, uses fires to prevent freezing air from settling and to block the rapid warming by the sun, but it creates striking visuals of burning hillsides

touche MF

 

[Clive K]

how about we ban the French causing huge amounts of pollution heating vineyards with petrol when it gets a but chilly

Yes, French winemakers burn paraffin "crop candles," hay, or oil drums in their vineyards to protect vines from damaging spring frosts by creating heat and a smoke blanket that insulates the young buds, a common but drastic measure against climate extremes impacting harvests. This practice, often seen in regions like Burgundy and the Rhone Valley, uses fires to prevent freezing air from settling and to block the rapid warming by the sun, but it creates striking visuals of burning hillsides

touche MF

What has that to do with me?

I find your hypocrisy quite amusing. Continually banging the drum about ice cars causing pollution. No compassion for the poor people trapped in the quagmire of ill thought out policies, whilst flying out to the Canaries several times a year. If you were serious about reducing pollution you could consider the tourist trade; flights & cruise ships. Make personal sacrifices. Not berate somebody who needs a car for work / school run / medical appointments, and cannot afford an ev or have the means to charge one at home.

 

[Steep]

What has that to do with me?

I find your hypocrisy quite amusing. Continually banging the drum about ice cars causing pollution. No compassion for the poor people trapped in the quagmire of ill thought out policies, whilst flying out to the Canaries several times a year. If you were serious about reducing pollution you could consider the tourist trade; flights & cruise ships. Make personal sacrifices. Not berate somebody who needs a car for work / school run / medical appointments, and cannot afford an ev or have the means to charge one at home.

Nobody is berating anyone.
EVs are getting cheaper by the day and charging solutions are already being found. Petrol can only get more expensive as it gets harder to find the oil.
To counter your 'flying around' statements, the Aviation industry has made huge strides to cutting emissions already and continues to innovate.
Knock yourself out with some info you could have found for yourself but didn't make the effort.

https://www.google.com/search?clien...ut+emissions&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

 

[Clive K]

Just because low emission aviation fuel is available doesn't mean that every airline uses it. And holiday flights are not strictly necessary unlike car journeys to work, school runs and medical appointments in some cases. Khan's policy of making people with pre 2016 cars pay per day is a taxation on pollution and unfair on those who can't afford an ev or cannot charge one cheaply. Despite what Mr Bump claims.

 

[JonathanRyan]

Just back from a lovely few days in Cologne. (For obvious reasons we got the train). I have to say I'm eyeing up an electric cargo bike. For many people they are ideal.

Apparently very very popular for commercial use in New York.

 

[Steep]

Just because low emission aviation fuel is available doesn't mean that every airline uses it. And holiday flights are not strictly necessary unlike car journeys to work, school runs and medical appointments in some cases. Khan's policy of making people with pre 2016 cars pay per day is a taxation on pollution and unfair on those who can't afford an ev or cannot charge one cheaply. Despite what Mr Bump claims.

"Just because low emission aviation fuel is available doesn't mean that every airline uses it." - not yet, but they will, or some variant like Hydrogen..
"Khan's policy of making people with pre 2016 cars pay per day is a taxation on pollution" - as it was intended to be...
"and unfair on those who can't afford" - but still necessary. At some point driving a 10 year old gas guzzler must become uneconomical as well as undesirable and despite your emotive claims the number of people who are seriously affected by the rule is relatively small and there are alternatives for most.

 

[Clive K]

"Just because low emission aviation fuel is available doesn't mean that every airline uses it." - not yet, but they will, or some variant like Hydrogen..
"Khan's policy of making people with pre 2016 cars pay per day is a taxation on pollution" - as it was intended to be...
"and unfair on those who can't afford" - but still necessary. At some point driving a 10 year old gas guzzler must become uneconomical as well as undesirable and despite your emotive claims the number of people who are seriously affected by the rule is relatively small and there are alternatives for most.

The CEO of Toyota stated that he did not think that ev ownership would rise above 30% in the next ten years (statement made about 4 years ago I think) because of the number of people who cannot charge them at home and won't want the inconveniance and cost of charging elsewhere.

Also, when you think of how little the green measures in the western world have compared to the negative ecological policies of China, India, Brazil, etc. we are just whistling in the wind whilst destroying companies, putting people out of work and sleepwalking into being economically hostage to China.

 

[Nod]

Just back from a lovely few days in Cologne. (For obvious reasons we got the train). I have to say I'm eyeing up an electric cargo bike. For many people they are ideal.

Apparently very very popular for commercial use in New York.

I've thought about one of them but they're stupid expensive - a motorbike is cheaper! Getting the cargo bike through the house would be impossible too because the path through the front door isn't a long enough straight to get through.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

At some point driving a 10 year old gas guzzler must become uneconomical as well as undesirable...

My highlight.

My petrol car is now nearly ten years old and good for at least another ten years. Like many people who have retired I don't drive anything like as much as I used to. However, the electric car lobby would like to force my car, and the 34 million other internal combustion engined cars, off the roads of Britain to satisfy their fantasies.

 

[Steep]

The CEO of Toyota stated that he did not think that ev ownership would rise above 30% in the next ten years (statement made about 4 years ago I think) because of the number of people who cannot charge them at home and won't want the inconveniance and cost of charging elsewhere.

Also, when you think of how little the green measures in the western world have compared to the negative ecological policies of China, India, Brazil, etc. we are just whistling in the wind whilst destroying companies, putting people out of work and sleepwalking into being economically hostage to China.

4 years ago the EV market was very different, it's not entirely Toyota's fault they got it wrong, they've never been a great exponent of BEVs, preferring the hybrid route. I think if you asked their CEO the same question today you'd get a very different answer.

China ranks top in renewable energy, they produce more than 30% of the world's renewable electricity.
India's renewable sector is growing exponentially and they expect to reach net zero by 2070.
As for Brazil, I have no idea why you would pick such a bad example, Brazil has over 80% rewable electricity generation and had had for many years, mainly through hydro electric, similar to Scotland in that respect.

The point you are not wanting to face is that regardless of whether you or I like EVs they are the future. Sure you can drive a petrol car for decades to come but at some point in the not too distant future the price of fuel is going to be prohibitive purely because it's getting harder to extract the dwindling supply of oil.

 

[JohnMcL7]

Just back from a lovely few days in Cologne. (For obvious reasons we got the train). I have to say I'm eyeing up an electric cargo bike. For many people they are ideal.

Apparently very very popular for commercial use in New York.

I was reading a study about the use of e-cargo bikes for delivery work in city centres which it highlighted how much cheaper they were than an equivalent van and because they don't need parking spaces, they could easily stop wherever they needed to be.

I'd really like to try an e-cargo bike with the dog because pretty much the only short trips I do by car now are to take the dog just out of town for longer walks/swims off the lead. It's hard to tell how he'd be because he loves the car and may really like being on the bike however he may be unsettled and not like it at all.

 

[Buck]

I have owned an EV for just over a year. Bought just under one year old and therefore saved a decent amount compared to new. It is a lovely car, great to drive and economical to run.

Interestingly, the ICE cars that I was also looking at were more expensive!

I think if people want to carry on driving their ICE cars, that’s fine. For those that want to dip their toes into EV motoring and can make it work with the charging infrastructure etc then that is also good.

We are all passionate about our “rights” and I would always want the government of the day to incentivise change rather than punish non-change. The only incentive I have had so far is free VED for 18 months but from March will be paying the same as my old diesel car.