4 ms·

We already have similar exceptions, in Europe at least. Old cars past a certain age (usually over 30 years old AFAIK) are considered old timers and are often ex

We already have similar exceptions, in Europe at least. Old cars past a certain age (usually over 30 years old AFAIK) are considered old timers and are often excempt from modern emissions and safety regulations so someone driving a priceless exotic like a '69 Boss Mustang V8 could end up paying less tax and insurance than your Average Joe middle classer pays on his 10 year old 1.6L family econobox.

masklinn 5y ago
The ban is obviously for the sale of new ICE cars, it's not economically or structurally possible for 300 million cars to get fully replaced over that period, and the infrastructure to manage charging for 300 million EVs is simply not there.
Ensorceled 5y ago
That’s not “similar”. It would be similar if we granted emissions or safety exemptions to new cars from a different manufacturer. My uncles 1942 Jeep is exempt for historical purposes, not so rich people can play with fast, expensive cars.
- PaywallBuster 5y ago
  double standard if your uncle can keep driving old, low efficient, highly polluting vehicles why can't a rich person buy a ICE ferrari? Makes much more sense to charge on "pollution/gas usage" Kind of wealthy tax but without intervening in the market and picking winners or the "right solution"
  - foepys 5y ago
    Because the general expectation (and current reality) is that old cars will break and be scrapped eventually. Only few remain and those few don't matter in regards to global emissions as they are mostly not daily drivers. They instead contribute to keeping tiny bits of history alive. I'd compare it to old houses which are often designated as landmarks. We don't demolish them just because they are not energy efficient by modern standards.
    - cto_of_antifa 5y ago
      Hypothetically speaking, let's say I'm a serial killer. For some unclear pathological reason, I can really only feel joy while murdering people. Should we give me an exemption to Laws against assault and homicide to allow me to enjoy it?
  - Ensorceled 5y ago
    “We allow this thing that existed before the rules were made to continue to exist” and “we won’t allow only rich people to create new rule breaking things” is NOT a double standard. Why are you trying to position high end sports car owners as oppressed?
    - PaywallBuster 5y ago
      "gas engine ban"
  - Symbiote 5y ago
    I don't know the rules in every country, but to get the exemptions it's generally required that the vehicle isn't used much — driving only to shows or museums for the biggest discount, or limited to a fairly low annual mileage. That will continue to be the case for old cheap and expensive cars, and we justify it to preserve industrial history. There's no reason to introduce a similar exemption for certain new cars.
    - Ensorceled 5y ago
      Ontario has historic plates ... lots of rules but generally what you just described.
- darkmatterrat 5y ago
  You have to be moderately wealthy or live with a lot of land to be able to afford the space to work on cars in some parts of Europe (typically Northern Europe). I would have to rent out a separate space if I wanted to work on my car or vehicle with historical significance. Also Governments tax old cars out of existence in some countries e.g. in Belgium IIRC I was being told by a friend that vehicles that are essentially deemed to old are made uneconomical to own because of increases in taxes. If you are rich this tax isn't particularly expensive. However if you aren't rich you are essentially forced to get a newer vehicle (which is expensive in itself).
Broken_Hippo 5y ago
It isn't the same. Most old cars aren't rare models, but models that were decently popular, and a lot are ones that defined the style of the time and/or hold up well enough to meet some popular beauty standards. Heck, my own car has less than a decade to go to hit that 30 year mark and we just buy cheap cars. Most are certainly not an exotic car, in no small part because most cars are not exotic. Which is realistically a reason fairly poor folks can have an old car.
TacticalCoder 5y ago
(first let me say I'm all for the ban if ICE are banned and I'm against an exception for Ferrari). But.. common... everybody knows oldtimers cars aren't really on the road. Most collectible cars belong to people who own several cars and they very rarely hit the road. That is precisely why the insurance is so cheap. I've got both an old Porsche and an old Ferrari and I pay 160 EUR a year to insure them both (100 for the first one, and 60 for the second one, as I've got a "fleet": two is a fleet, that's kinda funny). People not only never drive these cars, they're also ultra cautious with them when they take them out. It's because they do so little kilometers/miles yearly and because people are so cautious that the insurance costs next to nothing. They're more art pieces / garage queens than cars: remnants of a less civilized era. Also... My insurance is ultra cheap but there's a gotcha: I need to have an insured daily less than 15 years old, otherwise I need to pay the regular insurance price for my two oldtimers. So it's not really true that people pay less: they pay less but only because they need to have a "real" car to benefit from the cheaper insurance. These old cars are also typically huge gaz guzzlers, doing easily 3x to 4x the fuel consumption of a modern car: so using it on a daily basis would, in the end, cost you much much more than using a modern car. I hope these exceptions for oldtimers will stay and that, at least once in a while, they'll be authorized on the road: say maybe allowed on the roads one saturday every month or something like that. P.S: btw it's not just the insurance that is cheaper: oldtimers are typically exempt from the yearly road tax (in the countries where such a tax exists).
- vladvasiliu 5y ago
  > But.. common... everybody knows oldtimers cars aren't really on the road. Most collectible cars belong to people who own several cars and they very rarely hit the road. That's true. And I actually think that maybe the issue isn't that we drive around in ICE cars, but rather that we drive around. Sure, there are people with mobility issues, delivery, etc. I'm not talking about those, since I think they're not the majority of traffic, so likely not a huge problem. I'm talking about "regular people". I think the issue is that the vast majority of traffic is people commuting to work, so instead of trying to build a faster horse (use cars that pollute less) there should be more emphasis on actually driving less. By that I mean encouraging companies to allow working from home and developing public transportation. The issue with laws like this is that they don't take into account the various situations. In my case, I own a motorcycle that won't be allowed in Paris and other major French cities starting in 2024. I rarely use it during the week since I actually commute by transit. But I sometimes go on long trips and stay overnight in big cities. I wouldn't be allowed to. Would buying a new motorcycle, which I don't need since my current one works perfectly, be actually good for the environment? Sure, it would probably pollute somewhat less per km ridden, but it would have to be produced in the first place and then shipped halfway around the world.
ArchStanton 5y ago
>someone driving a priceless exotic like a '69 Boss Mustang V8 could end up paying less tax and insurance than your Average Joe middle classer pays on his 10 year old 1.6L family econobox. lol. It's funny to think of them as a 'priceless exotic' as those cars are basically mass produced items with an engine option. Let's consider the cost. A decent Boss 429 is probably around $250k-$300k. The sales tax in California is around 10 percent, about $2k/year for the license, $4-$5/gallon for gas at around 8 mpg, collector car insurance at roughly 1% of stated value.

masklinn 5y ago

The ban is obviously for the sale of new ICE cars, it's not economically or structurally possible for 300 million cars to get fully replaced over that period, and the infrastructure to manage charging for 300 million EVs is simply not there.

Ensorceled 5y ago

That’s not “similar”. It would be similar if we granted emissions or safety exemptions to new cars from a different manufacturer. My uncles 1942 Jeep is exempt for historical purposes, not so rich people can play with fast, expensive cars.

PaywallBuster 5y ago
double standard if your uncle can keep driving old, low efficient, highly polluting vehicles why can't a rich person buy a ICE ferrari? Makes much more sense to charge on "pollution/gas usage" Kind of wealthy tax but without intervening in the market and picking winners or the "right solution"
- foepys 5y ago
  Because the general expectation (and current reality) is that old cars will break and be scrapped eventually. Only few remain and those few don't matter in regards to global emissions as they are mostly not daily drivers. They instead contribute to keeping tiny bits of history alive. I'd compare it to old houses which are often designated as landmarks. We don't demolish them just because they are not energy efficient by modern standards.
  - cto_of_antifa 5y ago
    Hypothetically speaking, let's say I'm a serial killer. For some unclear pathological reason, I can really only feel joy while murdering people. Should we give me an exemption to Laws against assault and homicide to allow me to enjoy it?
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  “We allow this thing that existed before the rules were made to continue to exist” and “we won’t allow only rich people to create new rule breaking things” is NOT a double standard. Why are you trying to position high end sports car owners as oppressed?
  - PaywallBuster 5y ago
    "gas engine ban"
- Symbiote 5y ago
  I don't know the rules in every country, but to get the exemptions it's generally required that the vehicle isn't used much — driving only to shows or museums for the biggest discount, or limited to a fairly low annual mileage. That will continue to be the case for old cheap and expensive cars, and we justify it to preserve industrial history. There's no reason to introduce a similar exemption for certain new cars.
  - Ensorceled 5y ago
    Ontario has historic plates ... lots of rules but generally what you just described.
darkmatterrat 5y ago
You have to be moderately wealthy or live with a lot of land to be able to afford the space to work on cars in some parts of Europe (typically Northern Europe). I would have to rent out a separate space if I wanted to work on my car or vehicle with historical significance. Also Governments tax old cars out of existence in some countries e.g. in Belgium IIRC I was being told by a friend that vehicles that are essentially deemed to old are made uneconomical to own because of increases in taxes. If you are rich this tax isn't particularly expensive. However if you aren't rich you are essentially forced to get a newer vehicle (which is expensive in itself).

Broken_Hippo 5y ago

It isn't the same. Most old cars aren't rare models, but models that were decently popular, and a lot are ones that defined the style of the time and/or hold up well enough to meet some popular beauty standards. Heck, my own car has less than a decade to go to hit that 30 year mark and we just buy cheap cars. Most are certainly not an exotic car, in no small part because most cars are not exotic. Which is realistically a reason fairly poor folks can have an old car.

TacticalCoder 5y ago

(first let me say I'm all for the ban if ICE are banned and I'm against an exception for Ferrari). But.. common... everybody knows oldtimers cars aren't really on the road. Most collectible cars belong to people who own several cars and they very rarely hit the road. That is precisely why the insurance is so cheap. I've got both an old Porsche and an old Ferrari and I pay 160 EUR a year to insure them both (100 for the first one, and 60 for the second one, as I've got a "fleet": two is a fleet, that's kinda funny). People not only never drive these cars, they're also ultra cautious with them when they take them out. It's because they do so little kilometers/miles yearly and because people are so cautious that the insurance costs next to nothing. They're more art pieces / garage queens than cars: remnants of a less civilized era. Also... My insurance is ultra cheap but there's a gotcha: I need to have an insured daily less than 15 years old, otherwise I need to pay the regular insurance price for my two oldtimers. So it's not really true that people pay less: they pay less but only because they need to have a "real" car to benefit from the cheaper insurance. These old cars are also typically huge gaz guzzlers, doing easily 3x to 4x the fuel consumption of a modern car: so using it on a daily basis would, in the end, cost you much much more than using a modern car. I hope these exceptions for oldtimers will stay and that, at least once in a while, they'll be authorized on the road: say maybe allowed on the roads one saturday every month or something like that. P.S: btw it's not just the insurance that is cheaper: oldtimers are typically exempt from the yearly road tax (in the countries where such a tax exists).

vladvasiliu 5y ago
> But.. common... everybody knows oldtimers cars aren't really on the road. Most collectible cars belong to people who own several cars and they very rarely hit the road. That's true. And I actually think that maybe the issue isn't that we drive around in ICE cars, but rather that we drive around. Sure, there are people with mobility issues, delivery, etc. I'm not talking about those, since I think they're not the majority of traffic, so likely not a huge problem. I'm talking about "regular people". I think the issue is that the vast majority of traffic is people commuting to work, so instead of trying to build a faster horse (use cars that pollute less) there should be more emphasis on actually driving less. By that I mean encouraging companies to allow working from home and developing public transportation. The issue with laws like this is that they don't take into account the various situations. In my case, I own a motorcycle that won't be allowed in Paris and other major French cities starting in 2024. I rarely use it during the week since I actually commute by transit. But I sometimes go on long trips and stay overnight in big cities. I wouldn't be allowed to. Would buying a new motorcycle, which I don't need since my current one works perfectly, be actually good for the environment? Sure, it would probably pollute somewhat less per km ridden, but it would have to be produced in the first place and then shipped halfway around the world.

ArchStanton 5y ago

>someone driving a priceless exotic like a '69 Boss Mustang V8 could end up paying less tax and insurance than your Average Joe middle classer pays on his 10 year old 1.6L family econobox. lol. It's funny to think of them as a 'priceless exotic' as those cars are basically mass produced items with an engine option. Let's consider the cost. A decent Boss 429 is probably around $250k-$300k. The sales tax in California is around 10 percent, about $2k/year for the license, $4-$5/gallon for gas at around 8 mpg, collector car insurance at roughly 1% of stated value.