When to sell

[Nonimouse]

I often ponder selling mine - different case from a Defender, but early D1's are going up in value. 

Since I inherited the Grand Vitara, I've come to appreciate comfort, economy and reversing cameras - but, annoyingly, it's 2 wheel drive!  I would happily but another GV, slightly older and maybe a 2.0 petrol or 1.9 Diesel, with 4wd and low box. Trailer size isn't as important as it was and neither is load are. Economy and cheap tax are more so

[Mossberg]

To mad Pete re just paying when going to IKEA. Imagine if IKEA had a £9 parking charge,  would you feel that's OK or would you feel ripped off and aggrieved? Also, if you live in "the zone" this charge is for every time it goes off your drive. If you feel £9 per day is not in your price range then this affects the value of your vehicle and its use to you. Also are you less likely to go to IKEA in the future or go somewhere else - this could have a big impact on some businesses. 

If these charges are truly all about air quality, why is it a charge based on every hour of every day? Why not a charge associated with the high pollution areas during the hours of high pollution?

I live just outside the greater Manchester area and I can assure you that a lot of the 500 square miles is really quite rural. 

[Daan]

I think the later you sell, the better. Inflation is the word I think is what raises prices of property and classic cars. So if you have money in the bank, you need to spend it on either of these commodity's or you will just loose money. How long it will keep going up is the big question, but i think for years to come. There is the American market for the older defenders and also the Twisted, kahn and Arkonik etc tuning crowd who need base vehicles to create their Chelsea tractors. You cannot get new defenders anymore (not proper ones anyway), so the demand will always be there.

Series land rovers are now seen as proper classic cars, and even series 3s are fetching quite a lot of money, so I think that will keep happening. 

Daan

[monkie]

The Bristol IKEA example for me is a good one. Currently to get to IKEA from where I live (in my highly polluting diesel) up the A37, through a small bit of Bristol past Temple Meads train station and then to IKEA. This is the most direct route using the least amount of fuel. If I want to get there but avoid the charge, I have to go up the M5, across the M4 and down the M32. A much longer journey using more fuel and therefore causing more pollution. (Now how does that contribute to cleaner air for anyone?) Personally I think the best way to approach this would be to scrap VED and any clean air tax for City centres but put the charges onto the price of fuel (maybe figure out an exemption or reimbursement for HGVs to support hauliers). I think this way would be fairer because if you choose to drive a more polluting vehicle or drive a further distance or indeed have a heavy right foot, you will pay more in tax towards the pollution you have caused rather than paying a flat fee whether you have spent 5 minutes zipping through the city centre or spent all day rolling coal round the one way system. 

[Bowie69]

9 minutes ago, monkie said:

A much longer journey using more fuel and therefore causing more pollution. (Now how does that contribute to cleaner air for anyone?)

Point is, it is not in the city centre, nor near residential areas/schools where particulates especially are known to have horrible effects on children's development and allergies. 

Not saying I agree with congestion zones (and I live near Bristol so know exactly what you are talking about, and avoid it at all costs), but the end goal is laudable, even if the execution is terrible.

[monkie]

23 minutes ago, Bowie69 said:

Point is, it is not in the city centre, nor near residential areas/schools where particulates especially are known to have horrible effects on children's development and allergies. 

Not saying I agree with congestion zones (and I live near Bristol so know exactly what you are talking about, and avoid it at all costs), but the end goal is laudable, even if the execution is terrible.

True, except what about schools, homes etc not in the city centre but near major roads that will have the excess traffic squeezed out of the city centres. I think it just moves the problem rather than solving it, but generates cash. 

[simonpelly]

Seems to me that most solutions to change peoples behaviour with respect to driving seems to involve more "stick" rather than "carrot".

I'd even be prepared to pay more general tax (council/PAYE/etc...) to fund clean, quality FREE local transport. At that point, there is little excuse to not use them more generally. (Unless admittedly you're picking up a wardrobe from IKEA). Perhaps this is just a different kind of stick?

Would also like to see more kids walking or dedicated buses for school. The irony of the desire to have clean air around schools when you witness that amount of school drop off traffic.

I also wonder whether a longer term move to more working at home will have any impact? Appreciate this does not fit well for all jobs.

Simon...

[Bowie69]

12 minutes ago, simonpelly said:

I'd even be prepared to pay more general tax (council/PAYE/etc...) to fund clean, quality FREE local transport.

Universal transport coverage is totally impractical and prohibitively expensive for people that live in a rural setting, would you expect them to pay for people to get around in cities for nothing when they STILL have to go everywhere by car?

 

13 minutes ago, simonpelly said:

amount of school drop off traffic.

Can get behind this 100%, to see 100+ vehicles descending on the local schools causing no end of traffic problems, not to mention the pollution -stick them all on buses.

[monkie]

1 minute ago, Bowie69 said:

Universal transport coverage is totally impractical and prohibitively expensive for people that live in a rural setting, would you expect them to pay for people to get around in cities for nothing when they STILL have to go everywhere by car?

 

Can get behind this 100%, to see 100+ vehicles descending on the local schools causing no end of traffic problems, not to mention the pollution -stick them all on buses.

Or where possible - walk. Zero pollution and helps reduce the obesity crisis. Both my wife and I work full time, where possible I walk my daughter to school. So many of my neighbours drive their kids and it isn't because of work pressures. I find that a good walk before I start work helps me to focus throughout the day and keep stress at bay.

[Bowie69]

Just now, monkie said:

Or where possible - walk.

Absolutely, lot of kids do walk round here, even on what I would have considered pretty dangerous roads.

[simonpelly]

"Universal transport coverage is totally impractical and prohibitively expensive for people that live in a rural setting," - Sure. That makes sense and agree impractical for all. That's the problem with generalisation. 

One of my old English teacher's favourite quotes - "He who generalises, generally lies" 🙂

Guess I was mainly thinking about folk living directly in the middle of urban areas. I'm Bristol based also and do wonder how many folk living a few miles from the city center end up driving in and parking up for the day?

Simon...

[Nonimouse]

It's worth checking your reg against the you.gov checker. There are so many levels of LEZ. I can't take my T4 to Bath, but I can take the D1....  Bath is a releatively low LEZ rating. No idea what Bristol is intended to be.  I go to Exeter if I want Ikea - that won't be effected by the propsed LEZ in Exeter.

Look at the Manchester zone, it seems utterly crazy - like someone who hadn't a clue, designed it - surely that would never happen

[smallfry]

3 hours ago, Nonimouse said:

WHat were you driving?

I took my little van because of the oil that might have leaked out. I wish I had taken my car as apparently they are exempt (for the moment) I had no idea a clean air zone existed there. I foolishly thought it only applied to larger cities, and it didnt even cross my mind to check. I will now though, if I am going anywhere unfamiliar.

This is the problem with it though, if you are driving across the country you may pass though unfamiliar places unknowingly, and I think it unfair if a trunk road passes through a clean air zone.

I also found the signage at Bath appalling, the signs were there, as I saw afterwards, but were not really eye catching, blending into the background for the most part. We know what traffic signs look like, and you do notice them, but these could have been Estate Agents signs or summat, not what you would normally notice.  

[Nonimouse]

30 minutes ago, smallfry said:

I took my little van because of the oil that might have leaked out. I wish I had taken my car as apparently they are exempt (for the moment) I had no idea a clean air zone existed there. I foolishly thought it only applied to larger cities, and it didnt even cross my mind to check. I will now though, if I am going anywhere unfamiliar.

This is the problem with it though, if you are driving across the country you may pass though unfamiliar places unknowingly, and I think it unfair if a trunk road passes through a clean air zone.

I also found the signage at Bath appalling, the signs were there, as I saw afterwards, but were not really eye catching, blending into the background for the most part. We know what traffic signs look like, and you do notice them, but these could have been Estate Agents signs or summat, not what you would normally notice.  

It's pretty carp signage - in fact Bath Cc couldn't organise a party in a brewery.

The reason they did it, was because the Heavies run down to the A36/Southampton, from the M4. There's a bridge in the middle of Bath that is now 18tonne rated and it was having to take the 44 tonners - fixing it was going to cost millions.

Now the Heavies come down the A46/A4 and turn off at Box, dopwn to Bradford on Avon, then Trowbridge and rejoin the A36 via the A361. An utter nightmare and spreading extra particulates in more urban areas..  Keep the maintenance costs down at Monkton Coombe though