RUC on Private Light Vehicles

[Driftit 1945]

Now that I am a diesel owner and work in the RUC industry I want to get behind having RUC dropped or significantly reduced for light vehicles. A light vehicle is considered anything under 3.5tons.

RUC was designed for heavy vehicles. Vehicles of which do extra damage to the roads. So your 318D's are being taxed for damage to the roads just because they run a more efficient fuel type which is not as heavily taxed at the pump as petrol.

So would you be happy paying a little more at the pump but nothing in RUC charges?

I feel that a motor vehicle under 3.5 tons that is registered as Private vehicle and not used as a trade vehicle should not be subject to RUC.

Whats your thoughts fellow diesel owners. 4WD's, Utes, Cars. Is there any current action against this?

[Palazzo 438]

If you're paying the same tax as petrol cars, sure.

[Driftit 1945]

Yup that's what I want. However I think they pay a little more at the moment. Need to confirm this.

I have a feeling it is just easier for the NZTA to control it this way. (This means it will NEVER change if true, NZTA has very outdated processes and systems).

Though the little NZ company I work for Eroad has just convinced the local government in the State of Oregon to set up a tax system the way it should be.

Tax at the pump. Trucks require an extra label as they already do. In this case there will be a Eroad GPS RUC unit installed.

[gjm 3194]

The rates applicable for light vehicles are different to those applied to larger, heavier vehicles. Lorries do more damage, and pay more RUC.

There is an argument that a calculation could be applied and the RUC for private light vehicles added to the cost of diesel at the pump, and the charges for larger vehicles reduced. However, I suspect (don't know) that this may have impact when it comes to business accounting, tax relief and so on.

[lord_jagganath 421]

the current system does not provide an incentive for older vehicle owners to upgrade to more efficient machines. in fact, it penalises fuel efficiency to a degree.

so yeah, we are absolutely behind this.

[E30 325i Rag-Top 2915]

I get my RUC paid for me, but have to pay for the fuel at the pump - so from a totally selfish point of view, no keep it as it is!!

From what I remember from my time in HT, the whole point of the RUC system is to allow for people that use diesel power but not on the roads (tough sh!t for all those petrol users - boats, bikes, jet-skis, ride-on mowers, etc). It then gets a bit murky for things like log-trucks that spend a lot of time off-highway, but also spend time on the road - things like eRoad and GPS tracking have been brought in to count that and claim the money back.

So in terms of people like my old man running around in his 116d it is a little bit odd to be paying RUC and also weird that he pays it at the same rate as I do for the mighty 330d.

Get rid of the RUC and move the tax to the pump, off road users can claim back (as most do already anyways) and introduce a graded license payment, or Rego as most people call it, based on emissions - don't forget diesel license fee is also more than a petrol for some obscure reason!

Over to you - go Dan. If you want a hook up in the MIA let me know, there has been a lot of discussion around this in the industry already as it is hampering new diesel sales in private vehicles.

[mynbmr 225]

The current system of Road Users is based on farm vehicles using diesel and not the road and

that's why there is Road Users for all diesel on road vehicles. So before we start picking on trucks doing

damage to the roads, just some facts :

I own a 44 tonne 9 axle B Train

For the first six months of this financial year, I have already paid $39,000 on Road Users.

In my 18 years driving trucks, I have spent in excess of $1.3 million of Road Users. My

new truck is 20 months old and Ive already done 170,000kms. Just the fuel bill for the

first six months was $61,000. My trailers have done in excess of 1,000,000kms and I

still have the same brakes. And this is only one truck, multiply that by however many there

are and we MORE than pay for fixing the roads. Not picking on anyone, but just some

facts. We also own a diesel 4WD.

Its not the trucks causing the damage, but the Contractors using substandard materials,

they chip seal it one day and the next day the chips are already coming off. In the early

days when Ministry of Works were doing the roads, they chip sealed it, rolled it with big,

heavy rollers, swept it, painted it and it was useable by that night. Now they use the trucks

as rollers and all the chips stay in the tread of the tyres.

[melowpuf 19]

don't forget diesel license fee is also more than a petrol for some obscure reason!

That's because our diesel 3 series are 4 times more dangerous than your E30 Convertible, Dans E34 turbo and my E34 V12. Well thats according to ACC in the Rego breakdown.

[allan 295]

Another saving to be had should this pass is the $9.00 booking fee you get stung for every time you purchase more miles

[gjm 3194]

For the record (and for those who don't know) I drive a diesel car. And I don't have any issue with paying for road usage costed on a utilisation basis.

There are annoyances. Like if you own a certain older large Toyota SUV, and insert a switch in the red wire to the distance recorder, it's possible to not record the distance traveled yet very quickly and easily switch it back on if required. This happens with privately owned vehicles from many manufacturers.

Playing Devil's Advocate, instead of introducing a multiplicity of charging bands for different categories of DERVs, why not pull the road usage component of taxation from fuel completely and apply it across the board to all vehicles, thus capturing distance covered by electrical, LPG and any other vehicles? Sure, so banding will likely to continue to apply, but it levels the playing field.

Regardless, one size fits all is unlikely to happen, however nice that might be.

[Driftit 1945]

Some good points. Cheers guys.

Having different rates for different vehicle types is possible through NZTA's current system.

They have this capacity for Trucks and trailers so they should have it for vehicles.

You pay different rates depending on your vehicles gross tonnage and axle count. So having different rates for Engine size and emissions standards could be done for cars.

If the public got behind the idea it could work. But considering that when NZTA changed there RUC types in 2012 they forgot about mobile Cranes. They still have not fixed this. Their standard RUC ticket doesn't even let them drive down the road. They have to buy two types of RUC just to move. In a specific order.

Dutchy I see how much money flows through for RUC. It is eye opening. I can't say how much. But going on Dutchy's figures as an average would give you an idea. I highly doubt the revenue from road tax is all spent on our roads. Not even close.

[gjm 3194]

Dutchy I see how much money flows through for RUC. It is eye opening. I can't say how much. But going on Dutchy's figures as an average would give you an idea. I highly doubt the revenue from road tax is all spent on our roads. Not even close.

The motorist is a cash cow for governments world wide. It's a captive tax stream - you can't get away from paying, and if more money is needed, it is one of the first areas to see hikes in taxation.

If you don't like it, what will you do? Stop using your vehicle? In NZ, especially, that's not an option as the lack of viable intercity public transport dictates you must be personally mobile.

Some sort of rationalisation seems appropriate. At the moment it's a system designed by bureaucrats, and that never bodes well!

[Palazzo 438]

The amount of revenue from cars has never been spent on roads in full. Lots of it goes on subsidising public transport, you should see the subsidies on ferry's, would truly make your eyes water.

[Driftit 1945]

The motorist is a cash cow for governments world wide. It's a captive tax stream - you can't get away from paying, and if more money is needed, it is one of the first areas to see hikes in taxation.

If you don't like it, what will you do? Stop using your vehicle? In NZ, especially, that's not an option as the lack of viable intercity public transport dictates you must be personally mobile.

Some sort of rationalisation seems appropriate. At the moment it's a system designed by bureaucrats, and that never bodes well!

The amount of revenue from cars has never been spent on roads in full. Lots of it goes on subsidising public transport, you should see the subsidies on ferry's, would truly make your eyes water.

Subsidising something that is substandard.

The UK has some good systems in place. However they have a population that requires them to be there.

Though I am unsure how their RUC system works. We are actually one of the few countries in the world that have a RUC system.

Denmark is another. But their trucking industry is fiercely controlled by the Unions. And their RUC system is quite simple.

Oregon now has a system thanks to Eroad. They have more trucks than we have people though. And it was badly needed.

Aussie's privately built roads are next on the list.

NZ motorists are being way over taxed though. And now that I am reading more into it I see that any change would need to be backed and pushed by major industry. And petition from some diesel drivers would be bluntly ignored.

[_ethrty-Andy_ 2122]

Also recently becoming a diesel owner recently ill jump in.

Firstly, if i flick a switch the previous owner installed very stealthy, it is cheaper for my to drive this enormous unaerodynamic 4.2L Patrol around than it is to drive my 316i. Thats bullshit, though i will be using that when i leave the road. im not going to cheat a system.

One solution to think about:

Assuming a black market for fuel doesnt open up (massive fines would solve that) Drivers of Farm vehicles or other such diesel powered equipment could have some sort of fuel card they are eligable for that discounted all their fuel. of course, to make the system viable, there would have to be a minimum fuel spend of say $10k per annum or something to be eligable, which would also be able to be tracked on said fuel card etc. The system would "penalise" users of deisel backup generators, heaters etc, but they are still a lot cheaper than other solutions, and petrol users are already penalised like my lawn mower or neighbours boat etc. Maybe big consumers like private boats could fill at marina fuel stations and they would have no tax thier, would have to be some sort of audit there??

Just ideas

[elmarco 56]

You cant ignore the large off road diesel consumers - everything from shipping, personal boats, earthmoving equipment, gen sets, pumps, heaters etc. And the fuel consumption on some of those will make the annual fuel bill for a light vehicle look like someone missed the decimal place a couple of times. Taxing at the pump will make their life much more complicated, as will the cost of managing the refunds for IRD (and that wont come free).

And whats to stop the guy with a truck, digger & ute from fillng the road vehicles with diesel from the tax refunded tank besides his moral compass? Really, theres nothing to stop that. I believe in the UK (JTP or GJM could probably confirm) that off highway diesel is dyed red which stains the tank - I have heard of customs & excise stripping a car on the side of the motorway to check if the tank was stained red from off road diesel. But that seems much more complicated (& expensive to operate) than he system we already have.

[gjm 3194]

And whats to stop the guy with a truck, digger & ute from fillng the road vehicles with diesel from the tax refunded tank besides his moral compass? Really, theres nothing to stop that. I believe in the UK (JTP or GJM could probably confirm) that off highway diesel is dyed red which stains the tank - I have heard of customs & excise stripping a car on the side of the motorway to check if the tank was stained red from off road diesel. But that seems much more complicated (& expensive to operate) than he system we already have.

Yup - they use red diesel. It pretty much immediately dyes the inside of the tank, the lines and the injectors an easily seen (with the naked eye) red colour.

It does wash out... Eventually. Many dozens of tanks of standard diesel are required.

[elmarco 56]

I would personally prefer tax at the pump as it would make my life easier, but the pragmatist in me says that what we already have is actually the simplest system.

Everyone who wants to deal with IRD more please raise your hand now....

[kiwi535 538]

the reason RUC is stated above,its for all the big diesel vehicles that dont actually drive on the road.And if you think maintaining roads is expensive try building one.Your one million dollars might get you 1 kilometre.Its for the diesel consumed by the vehiles that build the raods etc so that system isnt going to be scraped.What wwe have to do is get the system rejigged for small efficient cars.The ruc rate for my 2.0 diesel is a mere few cents less than my brothers 4.5 diesel land cruiser.Where is the rational for that.It should literally be half

[Driftit 1945]

the reason RUC is stated above,its for all the big diesel vehicles that dont actually drive on the road.And if you think maintaining roads is expensive try building one.Your one million dollars might get you 1 kilometre.Its for the diesel consumed by the vehiles that build the raods etc so that system isnt going to be scraped.What wwe have to do is get the system rejigged for small efficient cars.The ruc rate for my 2.0 diesel is a mere few cents less than my brothers 4.5 diesel land cruiser.Where is the rational for that.It should literally be half

Yeah keeping the same system we have now but having different classes would be the ideal way. And the NZTA system can do this. It currently does it with all heavy vehicles. But for lights there is one class only. >3.5ton. I am unsure why the government isn't trying to push more private diesel cars onto the road.

[Phil-540i 166]

Now that I am a diesel owner and work in the RUC industry I want to get behind having RUC dropped or significantly reduced for light vehicles. A light vehicle is considered anything under 3.5tons.

RUC was designed for heavy vehicles. Vehicles of which do extra damage to the roads. So your 318D's are being taxed for damage to the roads just because they run a more efficient fuel type which is not as heavily taxed at the pump as petrol.

So would you be happy paying a little more at the pump but nothing in RUC charges?

I feel that a motor vehicle under 3.5 tons that is registered as Private vehicle and not used as a trade vehicle should not be subject to RUC.

Whats your thoughts fellow diesel owners. 4WD's, Utes, Cars. Is there any current action against this?

I've always had diesel 4WDs & utes for over 20yrs, & still do. Your first sentence astounds me in that its not something you've considered or probably given a rats a$$ about until umm, you've become a light diesel owner yourself......... but yes, its not a totally fair system, but its the system we've got........

All light vehicles now pay the same rate for RUC's, something else that changed around 18 months ago, regardless of whether its a 3 series BMW, or a Landcruiser or whatever. Somewhat unfairly IMO, I'm lead to believe trucks are now further penalised by having to buy their RUC's at whatever the vehicle's GVM rating is, irrespective of their maybe running at a consistently lighter weight.........

Dutchy would have better info, but theres some units out there paying more than $1 per km on RUC's.........

[KwS 2376]

I considered purchasing a diesel last year (Golf TDI, wicked cars) but for the amount of KM i travel, the RUC just seemed ridiculous so i ended up with an efficient petrol car (although not as efficient as that TDI!). Im all for a RUC drop for passenger cars, it appears very overdue in my eyes. I wouldnt mind paying RUC still, if it took what the car was into consideration and didnt just lump it in with all the other diesel vehicles under 3.5 Tons, thus had a more reasonable cost.

[E30 325i Rag-Top 2915]

Unfortunately the RUC system ISN'T simple - ok, it is for cars and light vehicles, but when you get into HTs it's a whole different ball game. So much so that the CVIU, NZTA and police between them don't know what they are doing in many situations. There are so many possible axle and tyre configurations possible under the mass and dimension rules that there aren't enough RUC classes to cover them all (and I think this was the unwritten part of the reasoning behind the recent changes).

I ended up in a courtroom on behalf of a customer when the government tried to claim an ADDITIONAL $1m+ for RUC as they were arguing the classification of the trailers was incorrect. When it was pointed out that the classification used was ratified by the LTSA before being used the case was suddenly dropped, but only after we had all gone to court over it.

Adding more complexity the system might not be the best for the consumer... but still worth giving it a go.

[Driftit 1945]

Unfortunately the RUC system ISN'T simple - ok, it is for cars and light vehicles, but when you get into HTs it's a whole different ball game. So much so that the CVIU, NZTA and police between them don't know what they are doing in many situations. There are so many possible axle and tyre configurations possible under the mass and dimension rules that there aren't enough RUC classes to cover them all (and I think this was the unwritten part of the reasoning behind the recent changes). I ended up in a courtroom on behalf of a customer when the government tried to claim an ADDITIONAL $1m+ for RUC as they were arguing the classification of the trailers was incorrect. When it was pointed out that the classification used was ratified by the LTSA before being used the case was suddenly dropped, but only after we had all gone to court over it. Adding more complexity the system might not be the best for the consumer... but still worth giving it a go.

I deal with all of this on a day to day basis. I probably call them once a week with a new combination they don't support for trucks and trailers.

And as I said. A heavy crane needs to buy RUC that doesn't even allow it to drive. They then need to purchase an addition 20 tons of weight just to be able to go up the road. Bloody hassle for them.

Light vehicles do need a classification system the same as the heavy vehicles. I will have a chat to some of our people in the know at the NZTA to see what they feel will happen.

In the mean time I am going to buy a heap of RUC so I don't forget to get some. Or put an Eroad unit in the car and leave it on Auto.

Can anyone explain why Diesel Rego is more expensive?

[E30 325i Rag-Top 2915]

Pay more ACC content in the fee. You are obviously more likely to have an accident in a diesel than a petrol...?!?