Buy all your VW California Accessories at the Club Shop Visit Shop

If you thought changing to an EV would be the end of the matter. Beware.

WelshGas

WelshGas

Retired after 42 yrs and enjoying Life.
Super Poster
Lifetime VIP Member
Messages
24,606
Location
United Kingdom
Vehicle
T5 SE 180 4Motion
Drivers risk being forced to pay a “tyre tax” as Britain explores a crackdown on brake and tyre wear emissions.
Ministers have hired advisers to explore how to address harmful emissions that experts say are more harmful than diesel fumes.
The Department for Transport has asked consultancy Arup to “develop recommendations on how to better assess and control these emissions which will persist after a transition to zero tailpipe emission vehicles”, according to a Government filing.
Although the Whitehall officials this weekend insisted that Arup’s work was not designed to inform tax policy, it is being seen as one of the strongest signals yet that a tyre tax is coming down the road.
Andy Turbefield, head of quality at Halfords, said: “Putting a tax on road safety is not the right way to plug the fuel duty gap. Worn tyres and faulty brakes are two of the biggest causes of accidents.
“As it is, many motorists are delaying tyre replacement and basic maintenance because of the cost-of-living crisis. Using the tax system to penalise people for keeping their vehicles in a roadworthy condition is not a good policy.”
Tyre and brake wear pollution is expected to be the next battleground for clean air campaigners after drivers switch to electric vehicles.
Particles sent into the air – known as “particulate matter (PM) 2.5” – are more harmful than nox emissions that have been the target of low-emissions zones such as Sadiq Khan’s Ulez in London.
Although tyre technology has developed to reduce dangerous emissions, the Environment Department said last week that non-exhaust road emissions have “remained largely unchanged between 1996 and 2021”
Mr Turbefield added: “If taxing non-exhaust emission is to be considered, then there needs to be more research into emissions from road surface wear. It’s plausible that electric vehicles, which are much heavier than petrol vehicles, cause more damage to road surfaces and are therefore a bigger source of road surface emissions. Any review needs to take account of the big picture.”
A Government spokesman said: “We want to better understand the impacts of non-exhaust emissions, such as tyres, on the environment which is why we’re conducting research on the matter. This research was not commissioned to inform tax policy development.
“As we continue to deliver on our target to meet Net Zero by 2050, we are committed to keeping the switch to electric vehicles affordable to consumers, which is why we are spending billions to help incentivise uptake and fund the rollout of charging infrastructure across the UK.”
In May Professor Alastair Lewis, chairman of the Department for Transport Science Advisory Council, said: “When everybody owns a low emissions vehicle, low emission zones become a toothless control lever to try to manage air pollution.
“A world where we [have] jam-packed roads full of electric cars [also] isn’t a particularly attractive one… Even if they are electric, [they] will generate lots of particles.”
“At some point in the future when most of those cars have disappeared, a different form of air pollution control” is likely to be needed, he added.
“We do have to project forward about how we’re going to manage vehicles in large cities like London in the future when we have a largely electrified fleet of vehicles
 
Yep. Euro7 standard due in 2025 coves tyre and brake particulates.

Emission limits for tyres and brakes:tyres and brakes shed particulate matter (microscopic pieces of material) as they wear. Euro 7 will set limits for how much brake dust and tyre particles can be produced by new cars. This is an entirely new requirement.

Also:

Longevity assessments for electric car batteries: EVs and plug-in hybrids will have the longevity of their batteries assessed under Euro 7, checking how much capacity they hold as time and mileage increases.

At the same time Italy is pushing for a relaxation of emission controls.

ROME, Feb 25 - Italy wants to team up with France and Germany to "influence" and slow the pace of European Union laws on cutting car and truck emissions, Industry Minister Adolfo Urso said on Saturday.
 
I work in the area of material science and tribiology and particulates from vehicle brake pads and tyres has been researched heavily over the years. You may recall the advice to plant tall hedging by busy roads to act as a physical barrier for homes.
 
Yep. Euro7 standard due in 2025 coves tyre and brake particulates.

Emission limits for tyres and brakes:tyres and brakes shed particulate matter (microscopic pieces of material) as they wear. Euro 7 will set limits for how much brake dust and tyre particles can be produced by new cars. This is an entirely new requirement.

Also:

Longevity assessments for electric car batteries: EVs and plug-in hybrids will have the longevity of their batteries assessed under Euro 7, checking how much capacity they hold as time and mileage increases.

At the same time Italy is pushing for a relaxation of emission controls.

ROME, Feb 25 - Italy wants to team up with France and Germany to "influence" and slow the pace of European Union laws on cutting car and truck emissions, Industry Minister Adolfo Urso said on Saturday.
We are no longer subject to EU standards now we resigned our membership. I wonder if the 2025 Labour government will adopt Euro 7 anyway.

We took Vinnie to the Italian Lakes last year via Northern Milan. Sooooo much slow traffic! If anyone needs reduced emissions it those poor Milanians.
 
Drivers risk being forced to pay a “tyre tax” as Britain explores a crackdown on brake and tyre wear emissions.
Ministers have hired advisers to explore how to address harmful emissions that experts say are more harmful than diesel fumes.
The Department for Transport has asked consultancy Arup to “develop recommendations on how to better assess and control these emissions which will persist after a transition to zero tailpipe emission vehicles”, according to a Government filing.
Although the Whitehall officials this weekend insisted that Arup’s work was not designed to inform tax policy, it is being seen as one of the strongest signals yet that a tyre tax is coming down the road.
Andy Turbefield, head of quality at Halfords, said: “Putting a tax on road safety is not the right way to plug the fuel duty gap. Worn tyres and faulty brakes are two of the biggest causes of accidents.
“As it is, many motorists are delaying tyre replacement and basic maintenance because of the cost-of-living crisis. Using the tax system to penalise people for keeping their vehicles in a roadworthy condition is not a good policy.”
Tyre and brake wear pollution is expected to be the next battleground for clean air campaigners after drivers switch to electric vehicles.
Particles sent into the air – known as “particulate matter (PM) 2.5” – are more harmful than nox emissions that have been the target of low-emissions zones such as Sadiq Khan’s Ulez in London.
Although tyre technology has developed to reduce dangerous emissions, the Environment Department said last week that non-exhaust road emissions have “remained largely unchanged between 1996 and 2021”
Mr Turbefield added: “If taxing non-exhaust emission is to be considered, then there needs to be more research into emissions from road surface wear. It’s plausible that electric vehicles, which are much heavier than petrol vehicles, cause more damage to road surfaces and are therefore a bigger source of road surface emissions. Any review needs to take account of the big picture.”
A Government spokesman said: “We want to better understand the impacts of non-exhaust emissions, such as tyres, on the environment which is why we’re conducting research on the matter. This research was not commissioned to inform tax policy development.
“As we continue to deliver on our target to meet Net Zero by 2050, we are committed to keeping the switch to electric vehicles affordable to consumers, which is why we are spending billions to help incentivise uptake and fund the rollout of charging infrastructure across the UK.”
In May Professor Alastair Lewis, chairman of the Department for Transport Science Advisory Council, said: “When everybody owns a low emissions vehicle, low emission zones become a toothless control lever to try to manage air pollution.
“A world where we [have] jam-packed roads full of electric cars [also] isn’t a particularly attractive one… Even if they are electric, [they] will generate lots of particles.”
“At some point in the future when most of those cars have disappeared, a different form of air pollution control” is likely to be needed, he added.
“We do have to project forward about how we’re going to manage vehicles in large cities like London in the future when we have a largely electrified fleet of vehicles
Sorry @WelshGas but you are not going to convince with reason and facts the religiously infatuated EV supporters.
Not even if you or the govt would address the big elephant in the room which is the CO2 production at the beginning of the life of an EV, starting from the extractions of the material needed. Unfortunately the break even point of 80,000mi (when EVs were beginning to be really emitting less CO2 in their lifetime compared to ICE vehicles) has been pushed further up by the complaint of range limitations of BEVs, leading to an increase of battery' size and relevant quantity and cost of raw material needed and CO2 to source them. Of course the bigger batteries do impact weight an that impacts PM2,5 emissions too.
This is all irrelevant, because the mass just want an EV no matter what. It is a big group who also vote, hence the dumbest decisions from the Govt and ever dumber in EU-rope.
 
ROME, Feb 25 - Italy wants to team up with France and Germany to "influence" and slow the pace of European Union laws on cutting car and truck emissions, Industry Minister Adolfo Urso said on Saturday.
It's got nothing to do with Stellantis, Iveco, Pirelli, Brembo, Renault , Renault trucks, Michelin, Daimler+VW+BMW, Daimler trucks or Continental... promised !!! :cheers
 
Sorry @WelshGas but you are not going to convince with reason and facts the religiously infatuated EV supporters.
Not even if you or the govt would address the big elephant in the room which is the CO2 production at the beginning of the life of an EV, starting from the extractions of the material needed. Unfortunately the break even point of 80,000mi (when EVs were beginning to be really emitting less CO2 in their lifetime compared to ICE vehicles) has been pushed further up by the complaint of range limitations of BEVs, leading to an increase of battery' size and relevant quantity and cost of raw material needed and CO2 to source them. Of course the bigger batteries do impact weight an that impacts PM2,5 emissions too.
This is all irrelevant, because the mass just want an EV no matter what. It is a big group who also vote, hence the dumbest decisions from the Govt and ever dumber in EU-rope.
Sorry, couldn't care a toss. This will impact ALL vehicles, no matter how they are powered. One way or another the motorist will be screwed. And obviously you don't understand the difference between Climate Change , CO2 and NO2 and Environmental Damage due to PM 2.5 Particles which have no impact on Climate Change but a significant impact on the Environment and Health.
 
Sorry, couldn't care a toss. This will impact ALL vehicles, no matter how they are powered. One way or another the motorist will be screwed. And obviously you don't understand the difference between Climate Change , CO2 and NO2 and Environmental Damage due to PM 2.5 Particles which have no impact on Climate Change but a significant impact on the Environment and Health.
Dear @WelshGas, not sure why you are coming at me now that strong. I am not sure where I have mentioned "Climate Change" in the post you are quoting. EVs were (re-)born to address the CO2 problem weren't they? Now it turns out the impact on PM2,5, in the article you quoted regarding tyres and brakes is not the same between ICE-vehicles and BEVs because of the weight. So the problems are linked together. Fancy re-reading my post without prejudice ?
 
We are no longer subject to EU standards now we resigned our membership. I wonder if the 2025 Labour government will adopt Euro 7 anyway.

We took Vinnie to the Italian Lakes last year via Northern Milan. Sooooo much slow traffic! If anyone needs reduced emissions it those poor Milanians.
You're prob Ok so long as you don't want to cross over the channel with your non-EU7 compliant vehicle......
Milan suffers from geography. Add in the density of population, industry and ICE's and its a toxic mix. During the winter months the smog gets so bad the local authorities enforced strict car usage restrictions. Odd number plates can travel on one day, even on another.
 
Dear @WelshGas, not sure why you are coming at me now that strong. I am not sure where I have mentioned "Climate Change" in the post you are quoting. EVs were (re-)born to address the CO2 problem weren't they? Now it turns out the impact on PM2,5, in the article you quoted regarding tyres and brakes is not the same between ICE-vehicles and BEVs because of the weight. So the problems are linked together. Fancy re-reading my post without prejudice ?
Apologies. You mentioned EV,s another " Dieselgate " in the making as far as I am concerned . They might address Climate Change but not Enviromental Pollution.
Anything with wheel and brakes contribute to PM 2.5 pollution and the heavier they are the worse they are.
 
Sorry @WelshGas but you are not going to convince with reason and facts the religiously infatuated EV supporters.
Not even if you or the govt would address the big elephant in the room which is the CO2 production at the beginning of the life of an EV, starting from the extractions of the material needed. Unfortunately the break even point of 80,000mi (when EVs were beginning to be really emitting less CO2 in their lifetime compared to ICE vehicles) has been pushed further up by the complaint of range limitations of BEVs, leading to an increase of battery' size and relevant quantity and cost of raw material needed and CO2 to source them. Of course the bigger batteries do impact weight an that impacts PM2,5 emissions too.
This is all irrelevant, because the mass just want an EV no matter what. It is a big group who also vote, hence the dumbest decisions from the Govt and ever dumber in EU-rope.
I think the 80,000 figure you cited is kilomètres and not miles.

You talk about the masses and their wants. Consumption leads to growth, that leads to jobs. Consumers will be trained and incentivised to that which promotes jobs by government. It’s not really even the people fault, they just go for the option which makes them ‘feel’ better about the planet
 
This was tried in Athens to reduce pollution. Result, a big increase in two car families, one car even reg, one car odd reg.
Exactly. Same situation in Milan. This was back in the 90's. Not sure if its still a thing.
 
All this says is that Motor vehicles of any power train contribute to health hazards.

Perhaps we should examine instead our reliance on motor vehicles and scratch our heads a bit and ask how did we all manage when they were a rarity.

I'm on Spike Island, Bristol at the moment. I am indulging myself in looking at some of the engineering marvels produced by this city whilst at the same time enjoying my sojourn alongside the floating harbour, itself a feat of engineering by William Jessop. Looking at The beautiful Clifton Suspension bridge and spending hours on the SS Great Britain, all the while casting my mind back to the late 70's when Bristol planners wanted to build an urban motorway that would have plonked an ugly great concrete interchange occupying most of Spike Island, destroying communities, history, heritage and beautiful recreational walking, all to be tossed on the sacred altar of the motor car. I won't even mention the destruction of Totterdown.

I don't know what the answer is. As private motor car usage increased so it forced closure of much of our public transport infrastructure to the point where, a car has gone, for many, from being a luxury to being a necessity.
 
All this says is that Motor vehicles of any power train contribute to health hazards.

Perhaps we should examine instead our reliance on motor vehicles and scratch our heads a bit and ask how did we all manage when they were a rarity.

I'm on Spike Island, Bristol at the moment. I am indulging myself in looking at some of the engineering marvels produced by this city whilst at the same time enjoying my sojourn alongside the floating harbour, itself a feat of engineering by William Jessop. Looking at The beautiful Clifton Suspension bridge and spending hours on the SS Great Britain, all the while casting my mind back to the late 70's when Bristol planners wanted to build an urban motorway that would have plonked an ugly great concrete interchange occupying most of Spike Island, destroying communities, history, heritage and beautiful recreational walking, all to be tossed on the sacred altar of the motor car. I won't even mention the destruction of Totterdown.

I don't know what the answer is. As private motor car usage increased so it forced closure of much of our public transport infrastructure to the point where, a car has gone, for many, from being a luxury to being a necessity.
Did you know that in the 1980s buses were privatised everywhere except London.

In the next forty years private car usage would sky rocket everywhere…… except London.

Correlation is not causation obviously. But us two never get the bus as a taxi is always cheaper.
 
Did you know that in the 1980s buses were privatised everywhere except London.

Indeed. I executed the Management Buy out for one of them and bought 4 more afterwards :D

Ironically my last school project was to discuss Railways. My dissertation was entitled "Battle of the Beechings"
 
I think the 80,000 figure you cited is kilomètres and not miles.

You talk about the masses and their wants. Consumption leads to growth, that leads to jobs. Consumers will be trained and incentivised to that which promotes jobs by government. It’s not really even the people fault, they just go for the option which makes them ‘feel’ better about the planet
not sure about the jobs, a lot of people in the german car industry are been laid off as EVs are simpler and require less employees....
 
This has been on the cards for ages. The promise of long term, wide spread, low tax, EV use was always an illusion aimed at the gullible.

This latest taxation weeze is mainly aimed at maintaining or improving the tax take. As all vehicles have tyres and brakes, I'm surprised they haven't thought of this before.

It doesn't matter what excuse they come up with as it will have very little to do with actual environmental or health issues. They are merely the excuse! It will be just another way of milking the same old cash cow.

Window tax next?
 
Last edited:
We are no longer subject to EU standards now we resigned our membership. I wonder if the 2025 Labour government will adopt Euro 7 anyway.

We took Vinnie to the Italian Lakes last year via Northern Milan. Sooooo much slow traffic! If anyone needs reduced emissions it those poor Milanians.
U.K. not forced to follow but given U.K. buys a subset of what international manufacturers produce, it’s probably likely unless consumers are happy with a more expensive model? Interesting article here:
 
Back
Top