Blackraven

Perhaps

But my worry is that the EU government is basically targeting ALL KINDS of vehicles..........which means sports cars and high-performance vehicles will be no exception to this "WITCH HUNT".

This simply means that the likes of Ferrari, BMW M, Audi quattro GMBH, Porsche, Jaguar, Bugatti, Koenigsegg, Lamborghini, etc............would have to drastically reduce the exhaust sound volume that comes out of the vehicles that the make.

Simply idiotic and beyond retarded

spwolf

it is especially idiotic when they all deemed Prius too silent and made it have beeping device installed so people can hear it :-).

grabber2

They just want another reason to charge "noisy" tax on sport cars like above. Just like US charge car maker for not meeting the new mpg requirement

Big Andy

You have to question why any government body would want quieter vehicles. A major cause of stress and poor quality of life in the urban environment is traffic pollution and noise. We tackle pollution through emission regulations and traffic noise through traffic calming measures, sound reduction barriers and new road surface materials. Tyre technology can also help reduce vehicle noise, as can legislation aimed at reducing exhaust noise and noisy diesel engines, particularly at idle.
I've got no love for the EU but I'm always loathe to indulge in hysterical knee-jerk reactions when some publication writes half a story without considering the issue as a whole.

Blackraven

Agreed

Those are the kind of backward politicians who want to send humanity back into the stone age.

If you don't like the 'noise', either buy earmuffs, get used to it........or have your ears chopped off so you will be deaf for life

Sulu

Chopping ears off is what they did back in the dark ages.

Blackraven

The UK has relatively effective public transportation services and no doubt it works. Everything from London buses, black cabs, Underground (or as you guys call it the 'TUBE'), Docklands Light Railway, Overground, National Rail.......and even the upcoming Crossrail project. People there really patronize the public transport system there and it works.

Still, let me kindly ask you this: Would you be willing to continue to own and operate an automobile........even if TFL (Transport for London) would seek to further increase the Vehicle Excise Duty rates every single year? What if the London Congestion Charge would add an additional CO2 emissions charging scheme?

Personally, I wouldn't mind that much. I'm cool with stuff like biking, taking trains or walking.

However, what about you? Would you be fine with that? What about the rest of the people in the European Union? Would they agree or disagree to it? Did those select few politicians from Brussels even consult with the automakers and the general public regarding this?

Or does that mean that they can make whatever law they want and the general public would be forced to accept it?

*Batman*

What about Ferrari, Lamborghini, McLaren, Porsche and BMW M. Nobody wants those to be quiet?

*Batman*

Also the best thing they could do to quiet down the roads in Europe is to cut back on the Diesels.

Big Andy

You're getting a little confused. The Government sets the Vehicle Excise Duty Rates (the annual road tax). These are emission (CO2) based and in the last 5 years the amount I pay each year has halved - despite driving a car that is faster, more powerful, and 50% more fuel efficient. The annual tax for my wife's car has just gone down again and she pays the equivalent of $45 a year tax on it. Her next car will be zero rated for VED.

Transport for London sets the Congestion Charge - it's actually an emissions charge and is also CO2 based. If you want to drive in and out of London each day (although why anyone would want to is beyond me) there are many cars that are exempt from the charge due to their low CO2 output.

Obviously the EU negotiate with car manufacturers so that the same rules apply across the single market, that's the whole point. They also want people to buy and drive cars - the car industry is a major employer and exporter.

The original OP didn't mention public transport but I'm glad you did as taxi, buses and trucks are some the noisiest vehicles so regulation is good thing there - and you also failed to address the central point of my post, that is urban noise pollution, - perhaps you'd like to outline how you would tackle that problem?

mmarshall

Most of those cars (especially the first three) also don't sell in large, mass-production numbers, either.

mmarshall

Good point. In London, don't some of those old Austin taxicabs and classic double-decker buses essentially go back to 1950s technology?

I8ABMR

pretty much sums up to the government wanting more revenue and will blanket the desire for more money with the false guise of providing less noise pollution even with no real complaints. They figure that they can add one more tax to the insane taxes drivers in that part of the world already pay and since most people's cars are not "noisy" most will not give a damn that the few with the higher powered cars will need to pay more. This has nothing to do with helping people. Its 100% revenue generating BS

ydooby

Well, if I were to properly implement this new regulation, I would do it just like the CO2 emission-based taxation currently used in the UK. Instead of banning highly noise-polluting vehicles altogether, and instead of being viewed to be trying to generate additional tax revenue, I would simply redistribute the current tax revenue according to calculations based on not just CO2 emissions, but also noise-pollution ratings. This way, quieter cars get taxed less than they currently do, while rich people wanting to roll in fancy sports cars can still do by paying higher tax premiums, and the government will not get any more overall tax revenue as a result.

Anyone agrees with my proposition? This will definitely tilt the favor from diesels to hybrids too in Europe.

I8ABMR

good reasoning. Not bad at all