On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 09:42:30 -0000, "Mikael Armstrong"
wrote:

"Keith J Chesworth" wrote in message
ws.com...
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 12:52:05 -0000, "Mikael Armstrong"
wrote:


Which would mean that companies would just give employees they currently
provide with company cars, allowances to buy private cars with, on a
contract hire arrangement! I'm surprised more don't do it as the company
car
tax regime removes most financial advantages anyway.

Mikael

They do, even my company is forcing us to use a lease company they
have set up.

I have heard of some doing that which seems ot make alot of sense to me from
a tax point of view. Still it does still seem a rarity, unless you have come
across more companies doing it?


Keith J Chesworth
www.unseenlondon.co.uk
www.blackpooltram.co.uk
www.happysnapper.com
www.boilerbill.com - main site
www.amerseyferry.co.uk

Whilst I can not quote from off the top of my head, I have the
impression that they are, just from the number of vehicle leasing
stickers on the backs of cars.

Keith J Chesworth
www.unseenlondon.co.uk
www.blackpooltram.co.uk
www.happysnapper.com
www.boilerbill.com - main site
www.amerseyferry.co.uk

Mark W wrote:

I think the UK Government should pass a law to make this technology
compulsory for all company cars.

BMW and DaimlerChrysler are already working on Hydrogen and Fuel
Cell power as a viable alternative to existing technologies. BMW
have suggested that they expect to be able to offer such engines
within 5-8 years. It's currently looking like the best alternative
to petrol/diesel engines but it wouldn't be feasible to make it
compulsory just yet.

JOOI, why only for company cars?

I want to punish company car drivers!

Ah so it's nothing to do with concern for the environment, merely jealousy.
Thank you for clearing that up for us

Steve wrote:
In article , Steve Firth
writes
Mark Townend wrote:

No, running a bus on methane means that CO2 is emitted from the
bus (as well as water) hence it's not "zero emission".

I never said it was

No, some ****wit from LT on R4 this week was trying to claim it was.

There is no methane involved. There are no carbon emissions. Only
water. You do not have your facts correct.

But the Usernet pedants will still insist water is an 'emission' - thus
missing the point entirely

Stimpy wrote in message
...
Steve wrote:
In article , Steve Firth
writes
Mark Townend wrote:

No, running a bus on methane means that CO2 is emitted from the
bus (as well as water) hence it's not "zero emission".

I never said it was

No, some ****wit from LT on R4 this week was trying to claim it was.

There is no methane involved. There are no carbon emissions. Only
water. You do not have your facts correct.

But the Usernet pedants will still insist water is an 'emission' - thus
missing the point entirely


But others rightly point out that production of Hydrogen (by BOC for
instance) is a very "dirty" process, thus hitting the nail on the head. All
LT are doing is moving the problem; they are doing nothing for the
environment.

In article , Jerry
writes

Stimpy wrote in message
...
Steve wrote:
In article , Steve Firth
writes
Mark Townend wrote:

No, running a bus on methane means that CO2 is emitted from the
bus (as well as water) hence it's not "zero emission".

I never said it was

No, some ****wit from LT on R4 this week was trying to claim it was.

There is no methane involved. There are no carbon emissions. Only
water. You do not have your facts correct.

But the Usernet pedants will still insist water is an 'emission' - thus
missing the point entirely


But others rightly point out that production of Hydrogen (by BOC for
instance) is a very "dirty" process, thus hitting the nail on the head. All
LT are doing is moving the problem; they are doing nothing for the
environment.

Two points:

1. Hydrogen production is not necessarily a 'very "dirty" process'.
However, at it worst, it is no worse than the production of diesel or
petrol.

2. Once produced, there is no secondary pollution as there would be from
internal combustion engines.

So, pollution is reduced to one source, instead of thousands, where,
potentially, better anti-pollution systems can be used. And London's
streets and low-level atmosphere are no longer subjected to harmful
emissions.

So, by any measure, TfL have reduced harmful emissions.
--
Steve
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/B$ d++(-) s+:+ a+ C++ UL++ L+ P+ W++ N+++ K w--- O V
PS+++ PE- t+ 5++ X- R* tv+ b+++ DI++ G e h---- r+++ z++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

"Stimpy" wrote in message
...
Mark W wrote:

I think the UK Government should pass a law to make this technology
compulsory for all company cars.

BMW and DaimlerChrysler are already working on Hydrogen and Fuel
Cell power as a viable alternative to existing technologies. BMW
have suggested that they expect to be able to offer such engines
within 5-8 years. It's currently looking like the best alternative
to petrol/diesel engines but it wouldn't be feasible to make it
compulsory just yet.

JOOI, why only for company cars?

I want to punish company car drivers!

Ah so it's nothing to do with concern for the environment, merely
jealousy.
Thank you for clearing that up for us



Buses are getting it, Mercedes are trialling different versions in various
cities with First Group.

"Depresion" wrote in message
...

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...

This really p****s me off about company cars, its such a wasteful policy
to
throw away cars that are 3 years old.

They are hardly thrown away, they are sold and form the back bone of the
2nd
hand car market.

Which is why I'll never buy a secondhand car.


I reckon company cars should have a minimum life cycle of 10 years,
maybe
20.


Yep I know of one! Company car 15 years old, never missed a service, now got
280,000 on the clock. Utterly reliable, bodywork terrific so why get rid of
it?. Renault 25, my Dad uses it. Now retiring to Spain will pay the company
a fiver and take it with him!

"Chris Street" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:57:10 -0000, "Oliver Keating"
wrote:


"Andrew P Smith" wrote in message
news
In article , Mikael
Armstrong writes

Which would mean that companies would just give employees they
currently
provide with company cars, allowances to buy private cars with, on a
contract hire arrangement! I'm surprised more don't do it as the
company
car
tax regime removes most financial advantages anyway.

Mikael

I've had a company car for a number of years (currently got a Saab 9-5
which goes in 6 weeks). The company has reduced the amount of money we
get to spend on our cars to 16K in these austere times and we now have
to make the cars last 3.5 years as opposed to 3.

This really p****s me off about company cars, its such a wasteful policy
to
throw away cars that are 3 years old.

Thrown away? FFS ever heard of the economic principle called selling
something

Considering most of them are worth about a third of their original value, it
may as well be throwing away.


I reckon company cars should have a minimum life cycle of 10 years, maybe
20.

By which time mine would have nearly a million miles on the clock and be
into it's eight gearbox or whatever. Not reliable.

Trucks seem to do ok. Why is it that as soon as the odometer rolls past 100k
the car is deemed "unreliable" "uneconomic"

Don't you think the car manufacturers have something to do with this?



Despite the tax, the allowance to buy my own car from my employer
provides no incentive whatsoever to dump the company car as it's not
enough to run a moped on, let alone a family saloon like a Vectra.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of
this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

--
79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
The other 42% are made up later on.
In Warwick - looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.

"Depresion" wrote in message
...

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...

This really p****s me off about company cars, its such a wasteful policy
to
throw away cars that are 3 years old.

They are hardly thrown away, they are sold and form the back bone of the
2nd
hand car market.

I reckon company cars should have a minimum life cycle of 10 years,
maybe
20.

The price of relatively new 2nd hand cars would increase dramatically as
would
the number of older cars on the road not very good for the environment.
Forcing
all company cars to be sold after 1 year to a government agency who would
then
sell them on in exchange for an older car (IE a 5 to 10 year old car is
used as
a deposit based on say the black book price plus a grand with a government
funded low interest credit on the balance) this would help get the less
safe
worse polluters off the road.



Maybe the price of second hand cars is rediculously low. After 3 years a car
is worth 1/3 of its value? That is crazy. Is it 1/3 of the car?

Maybe if there weren't so many Mondeo's piling onto the market people would
be driving around in more Supermini's and City cars which are never used as
company cars.

If second hand car prices were kept a little higher, then people would keep
cars longer before scrapping them. It only takes a £200 repair to a 10year
old car and its off down the scrap heap - what a waste.

And, btw as for the environment, manufacturers always claim how "clean"
their cars are, but an unbeleivable amount of environmental damage occurs
during the manufacture *and disposal* of a car which seems to be frequently
ignored.

There is an old expression - "waste not, want not"

But it appears in our consumer society where everyone is going nuts with
"buy, buy, buy," it is the fashion to have a new car every couple of years.
Just as with everything else, we buy, we throw away, we buy we throw away.
The cycle will only come to an end when we abruptly run out of resources.

"Jon Porter" wrote in message
...

"Depresion" wrote in message
...

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...

This really p****s me off about company cars, its such a wasteful
policy
to
throw away cars that are 3 years old.

They are hardly thrown away, they are sold and form the back bone of the
2nd
hand car market.

Which is why I'll never buy a secondhand car.


I reckon company cars should have a minimum life cycle of 10 years,
maybe
20.


Yep I know of one! Company car 15 years old, never missed a service, now
got
280,000 on the clock. Utterly reliable, bodywork terrific so why get rid
of
it?. Renault 25, my Dad uses it. Now retiring to Spain will pay the
company
a fiver and take it with him!


Exactly my point. Maintain a car properly and it *will* last the mileage.