nstg8a wrote:i reckon ruc's should be charged the same as rego... ie; when you buy a car, you are only liable for the rego from the date its transferred into your name... rucs should be the same. wouldnt be hard to do.
that way the previous owner dosnt get away with ripping the system...
but downside is it will encourage more people to rip the system off and they will simply increase the RUC for the rest of us to make up the shortfall.
at least the new owner can negotiate a lower buying price because of all the back RUC they will have to pay and that tends to lessen the amount of people ripping the system off.
i dont see how it would encourage more people to rip the system, if they know theyre gonna end up paying it regardless?
ive seen perfectly good vehicles sold for virtually nothing because of huge amounts of ruc's owed on them... but that bargain quickly gets expensive, especially if you havent done your homework, or dont know about rucs.
It seems to be that whatever system is used it is going to be ripped off i would not be surprised if under the present system the rip off rate is close to 30 %. It is probably more about which system will be ripped off least. Ultimately it is the honest owners that wind up paying more to cover the short fall. Maybe on paying your registration or warrant for a diesel vehicle owners could be issued with a swipe card which would then add their road user charge at the pump, this would not be based on mileage but based on weight of vehicle and litres of fuel. If you don't use your swipe card the pump defaults to the top rate of tax. Of course dispensations could still be applied for any off road mileage. This type of technology is already in use in a lot of the security related industries so it is just a matter of setting it up in the petrol stations. I do believe that this system would cost a little to set up but the price would be more than covered by the extra revenue gathered. Under the present system and these days with most diesel four wheel drives having digital odometers it is simply a matter of installing a switch on the odometer to rip the system off and of all the people I know who have diesel vehicles more than 50% are rippping the system off in one way or another.
Last edited by Fourbyfour on Sun May 24, 2009 4:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Slideways wrote:What happens when a diesel with broken odometer and high km's is swapped for a working odometer with lower k's. What happens with the RUC?
I know for a fact that the truck Im getting is well behind on its RUC and the km's were recorded at the last wof yeaaaars ago when it was already behind by a lot, so it must be on record that it has travelled more than the RUC is paid up to. But what happens when I put the other odometer/speedo in with much less k's, does the odometer have to be adjusted?
It'd obviously look dodgey as hell if its dropped well below the RUC records but what option is there?
Hey Slideways, what kind of cruizer do you have? Reason why I ask I own and have owned quite a few myself, Are you certain its the speedo thats defective? On some 60/70/80/100 series the sensor on the box tends to spit the dummy and the speedo will either go hay wire and travel at an erratic speed (0-220km whilst parked but idling)or cease to work at all. The cost for a 80 series sender unit can be up too $350 when in fact the same unit taken from a hiace van is $40 dollars.
Mate I wouldnt be paying for unjustified KM you havent travelled or kms that have been clocked up off road. As everyone has detailed we get screwed enough with taxes, keep in mind the web site www.carjam.co.nz this site will give you the last recorded kms at the point of a WOF/COF inspection.
A few years back the seller/disposer had to pay for any outstanding km but unfortunately as many here have detailed the new owner is now liable. I purchased a vehicle with more than $18000.00 owing in RUC as the vehicle had never been registered as a Diesel powered unit from the date landed in the country. The previous owner was liable and was not happy when LTSA contacted him after I purchased RUC for it, he was not a happy camper after buying it back for 3 x the price and apparently proving to LTSA all kms travelled were off road on a hunting block he then unregistered the vehicle and deemed it fit for only farm/offroad use only.
I have a vast influence over a fleet of more than 120 delivery vehicles and more than 420 vehicles registered under a TSL (transport services license) with RUC, I can only sympathize with many comments made under the current laws.
I will rest and wait and read the outcome of your thread whilst my blood comes back of the boil in regards to RUC.
Cheers Mike
92 Toyota VX,1HDT,3x Locked,Winch,stock
78 Toyota BJ40,3L Diesel,Gleason Locker
78 Toyota FJ40,V8,Locked,Winch,35"
84 Toyota BJ40,3L Diesel,Lefthook33"
76 Toyota FJ40,Custom,Winch,33" Mudz
78 Toyota FJ40,Chev V8,5 spd, Winch,33"
nstg8a wrote:ive seen perfectly good vehicles sold for virtually nothing because of huge amounts of ruc's owed on them... but that bargain quickly gets expensive, especially if you havent done your homework, or dont know about rucs.
exactly. if the buyer wasn't made responsible for the old RUC then the seller would get away with not paying and everyone would be trying to do that. as the buyer is responsible they make the seller pay for it by deducting it off the purchase price.
most vehicles these days the speedo is one of the ECU sensors. if you fit a switch on the speedo sensor it often throws up error codes and sometimes will not even work. some won't run properly a fueling etc is mapped to vehicle speed as well as rpm.
nstg8a wrote: most vehicles these days the speedo is one of the ECU sensors. if you fit a switch on the speedo sensor it often throws up error codes and sometimes will not even work. some won't run properly a fueling etc is mapped to vehicle speed as well as rpm.
Friend just done it on a 2003 Toyota Surf and believe me it does work.
nstg8a wrote: most vehicles these days the speedo is one of the ECU sensors. if you fit a switch on the speedo sensor it often throws up error codes and sometimes will not even work. some won't run properly a fueling etc is mapped to vehicle speed as well as rpm.
Friend just done it on a 2003 Toyota Surf and believe me it does work.
wait and see. you might be lucky. someone said it worked fine on a nissan, then months later they found ecu kept going to safe mode whenever the bypass switch was on. so don't be to suprised if it suddenly plays up later on.
depends how you have done it .. if you use a toggle and feed the signal directly to the ecu rather than than though the speed first on old trucks with cable drive its just a spd reed switch ,, on later trucks its a wave form(funny enough the same as what is feed to the dash) a good understanding of electronics and a scope is mandatory equipment when modding anything to do with single inputs on late model cars/trucks...
Anyone know the deal with 5 digit speedo's on real old trucks, where ks are all over the place??? As when the 5 digit speedos are read they are read as five digits so they go up and down and then if they are not registered for 5 years say they can jump around a bit??
Sorry I have to say I don`t see what people are whining about... If you're complaining that they`re too high, yet your mates rip the system off (meaning we all pay more) who`s fault is that?
It`s also irrelevant how RUC relates to fuel consumption - it`s calculated on a pavement wear factor, meaning heavier vehicles pay more to reflect the greater wear and tear on the roads.
(we use the fourth power law to relate axle loading against pavement life)
It`s like all tax - if RUC was decreased, excise duty on fuel would have to go up, or licensing costs would increase - or roading would have to rob from the consolidated fund to pay for maintenance and renewal of the network.
The only reason that there is now full hypothecation of fuel excise duty is that there wasn`t enough money to fund the required level of investment in the network - belive me things will only get more expensive as time goes on... and this will mean that RUC avoiders will get hammered...
Given that any of you guys can look at Carjam and see average mileage per day/period, do you not think that the NZTA at the Transport Registry Centre has the ability to do the same and flag your Rego No. when you`re up for a WOF / COF - i.e. go over this guy`s speedo, or even easier, put you down as a 'vehicle of interest' to the Police?
Nikolai_V wrote:Sorry I have to say I don`t see what people are whining about... If you're complaining that they`re too high, yet your mates rip the system off (meaning we all pay more) who`s fault is that?
It`s also irrelevant how RUC relates to fuel consumption - it`s calculated on a pavement wear factor, meaning heavier vehicles pay more to reflect the greater wear and tear on the roads.
It is relevant how RUC relates to fuel consumption. For a light (under 3 tonnes) vehicle it is very relevant.Compare a diesel vehicle with an equivalent petrol vehicle. (Many makes/models are available in both petrol and diesel).
If the petrol vehicle reduces its fuel consumption it pays less fuel tax per kilometre travelled. If the diesel vehicle reduces its fuel consumption it doesn't reduce its tax per kilometre - this is unfair and it doesn't encourage diesel drivers to try and reduce their fuel consumption.
If RUC relates to damage caused by vehicles using the roads then all vehicles should be paying for road use by RUC which could be set to reflect the level of damage caused. Motorcycles would get a reduction in tax.
RUC is an inefficient and inappropriate fuel tax for light, non-commercial vehicles. Diesel sold at the pump should be taxed like petrol. Heavy vehicles could pay RUC as well to reflect the greater damage they cause to the road network. Diesel used for offroad purposes could have its tax claimed back (just like you can claim your petrol tax or RUC back if you can prove off road use).
Nikolai_V wrote:Sorry I have to say I don`t see what people are whining about... If you're complaining that they`re too high, yet your mates rip the system off (meaning we all pay more) who`s fault is that?
It`s also irrelevant how RUC relates to fuel consumption - it`s calculated on a pavement wear factor, meaning heavier vehicles pay more to reflect the greater wear and tear on the roads.
It is relevant how RUC relates to fuel consumption. For a light (under 3 tonnes) vehicle it is very relevant.Compare a diesel vehicle with an equivalent petrol vehicle. (Many makes/models are available in both petrol and diesel).
If the petrol vehicle reduces its fuel consumption it pays less fuel tax per kilometre travelled. If the diesel vehicle reduces its fuel consumption it doesn't reduce its tax per kilometre - this is unfair and it doesn't encourage diesel drivers to try and reduce their fuel consumption.
The fact that you perceive them as unfair is your opinion – I personally think it would be good if all vehicles paid RUC, as well as an appropriate rate of fuel excise duty. Petrol vehicles tend to be lighter (excluding petrol 4wd`s) and therefore do less damage to pavements, in accordance with the fourth power law…
The purpose of RUC is not to reduce fuel consumption, rather as a cost recovery mechanism through which to fund asset maintenance and renewal. A good way to encourage people to drive more efficient vehicles would be road-tax banding, like in the UK (where higher fuel consumption p.a. = higher road tax p.a.). From the pavements point of view, it doesn`t matter how efficient the vehicle travelling upon it is - the axle loading(s) are the important factors.
If RUC relates to damage caused by vehicles using the roads then all vehicles should be paying for road use by RUC which could be set to reflect the level of damage caused. Motorcycles would get a reduction in tax.
RUC is an inefficient and inappropriate fuel tax for light, non-commercial vehicles. Diesel sold at the pump should be taxed like petrol. Heavy vehicles could pay RUC as well to reflect the greater damage they cause to the road network. Diesel used for offroad purposes could have its tax claimed back (just like you can claim your petrol tax or RUC back if you can prove off road use).
Funnily enough I have absolutely no problems with the second part of your statement whatsoever. Heavy vehicle operators and the Road Transport Forum may have a few issues though...
But as for FED on diesel - the compliance costs alone would scupper that idea.
The recent review of the RUC system was pretty favourable - we have one of the best systems in the world for recovering costs from road users.
All we need IMHO is to reduce the effective subsidy that light vehicle users provide to trucks, and create a truly user-pays road system, which would encourage more sustainable use of our network, and therefore tax revenue. Maybe even, creating more use of our rail network…???
Fuel price rises on the cards for diesel drivers New 5:27PM Wednesday Aug 12, 2009
The price of fuel could be about to rise for people who own diesel cars.
Transport Minister Steven Joyce has sent the signal while unveiling changes to the current road user charges system.
He says there is research that shows users of light diesel vehicles are not paying their fair share for road use and it is something he will seek to re-balance.
Mr Joyce says owners of diesel cars can expect to pay more in the future.
Some of that will come into effect October, when amended fuel taxes are introduced to replace the previously proposed regional fuel taxes.
tallsam66 wrote:well could be time to buy some new RUC to beat the price rise.
Could also be a time for a change of Government already, I had often wondered how long it would take for them to realise how much money they were losing through people avoiding paying. What they will do is once again up the road user charges so the ones of us who are paying just pay more. I don't think you will see them looking at a more efficient and fairer system as they will just put that in the too hard basket. The technology is there to come up with a fairer system for all but will probably never happen.
there was a bit of talk of if they might put the tax into the fuel. a much easier way to do it, easier to police (except for marine fuel) and much easier on consumers who have to much around with different rates for different vehicles and loads.
tweake wrote:there was a bit of talk of if they might put the tax into the fuel. a much easier way to do it, easier to police (except for marine fuel) and much easier on consumers who have to much around with different rates for different vehicles and loads.
Yes that would be fairer but various weights of vehicles pay different charges trucks etc,easiest solution would be to be issued a swipe card when you register your vehicle. Swipe either at the pump or when paying for fuel to calculate charges to be added.There would have to be some form dispensation for off road and non road user mileage. Our companies work vehicles do 95% of their milage on company property. Reclaiming back offroad mileage at the moment is such a mission that our company simply doesn't even bother. What the present system does do is make sure people who are running biofuels and methanol type products still pay road user charges and if you only paid at the pump those people would get away with it. It is difficult to come up with a 100% completely fair system but I think there are better systems than what we have got at the moment.
current system is a pain. we get 3 ton sticker for the season but when that runs out get a 2 ton sticker (cause i don't carry loads in the off season). when towing trailer you meant to get more mileage to cover the weight of the trailer (like who ever bothers with that).
at least if its in the fuel, more weight you have increases the fuel you use which means you pay more tax. also a big advantage for those with small economical motors.
reclaiming tax. most of the farms claim tax back for petrol so diesel shouldn't be any harder.
homemade fuels present a problem but then again it might be a nice incentive to get more into bio fuels.
