Conference terri::cars_uk

    
    re: .1
    
    But in general they are more expensive in the UK, even when the spec is
    identical. "Which?" have run articles on such things before.
    
    With 1992 will these price discrepancies be harmonised? Let's hope so?
    
    Neil

There's a straightforward solution to the problem.

The manufacturers would have to publish a single EC-wide price list, with
pre-tax prices quoted in ECU.  The base model would have to be identical in 
all countries and the same options available in all countries.  Left/right 
hand drive choice would have to be a zero-cost option.

jb

Re .1

But I doubt if the options cost #2,500!!!

Remember the days when Jap boxes offered all the options as standard included
in the base price, and they were competitive?  Bet you could save a bomb by
taking out all the bits most people never use!

And I remember when a HEATER was an option on the Cortina ......

	Yes, well in the early 80's personal imports became very 
	popular, but then the manufacturers suddenly found it 
	virtually impossible to supply RHD cars to anyone but 
	British dealers.

	Hopefully 1992 might help to level this out.

	The tax in the UK is 10% car tax, and 15% vat on top,
	making 26.5% in all. Wonder what it is in the other
	countries.

	I still maintain that the real reason for the high prices
	is the preponderance of 'Company' cars. When people actually
	have to fork out money they might use for something else
	it concentrates the mind wonderfully. Just try selling a
	second hand car and see how enthusiasticly the buyers toss
	large sums of money your way!.

	-John

	Re. Tax on cars.

	In Holland , car tax is ~12%, VAT is 18.5%, all in all over 30%.

	Gordon

   There seem to be some misconceptions about 1992. 

   The car makers are already obliged to supply lhd/rhd at local
   prices. You should be able to buy tax-free in Belgium and then import
   it into the UK and pay tax. The reasons you can't get the car in
   Belgium is because the car makers flout the law and refuse to supply
   or threaten to take away dealerships. 1992 won't change that.

   1992 will remove the barriers raised by governments (notably Italy)
   to the import of foreign vehicles.

    
    .1 Is wrong. It's nothing to do with the extras.
       
    The UK market is unique in that most of the purchases are done
    by companies and leasing organisations such as Hertz and PHH.
    Because of this, the UK prices are 'weighted' to the '10-off',100 off
    or even 1000 off price! What chance has the man in the street got
    when he wants to buy just one!? Its a simple wholesale/retail rule.
    
    .5 LEt's compare tax rates. 
    
    Here in France the the VAT is around 30% on new cars but look at
    these 'on the road prices'....VW PASSAT 1800 CL.   83,500 FF 
    				  ROVER 820e	      117,000 FF
    				  BASIC VW POLO        41,000 FF
    				  OPEL VECTRA 1.7D     87,000 FF                                       
                                                                         
    Divide by 9.5 to convert into pounds and compare with your UK prices.
    The French consumer gets lower prices DESPITE higher taxes but then
    the dealer has to fight for every sale as the fleet market is negligible.
                                                                         
    BTW, my neighbour here asked me if the UK would change to driving
    on the right after 1992, he was serious! He says that the French
    have to do away with their yellow headlights as all Euro specs come
    into line so surely we would standardise our cars too.....Mmmmm?
    
    Dave                           
    
    

>>                      <<< Note 930.8 by ANNECY::PARKER >>>
>>                        -< Why Brits pay thru the Nez >-
>>    BTW, my neighbour here asked me if the UK would change to driving
>>    on the right after 1992, he was serious! He says that the French
>>    have to do away with their yellow headlights as all Euro specs come
>>    into line so surely we would standardise our cars too.....Mmmmm?
    
    We are standard!. We follow ALL the rules on light patterns, safety
    regulations, type testing, etc... They just haven't come up with a
    standard for which side of the car the steering wheel fits!
    
    :-)Richard
    

    
    yes, and the Japanese drive on the correct side of the road too (ie the
    same one as us Brits), yet Japanese cars, converted to the wrong side
    of the road sell in Europe for less than the unconverted ones sell in
    Britain...
    
    something is certainly screwy...
    
    /. Ian .\

    
    I agree with .8 and .9.........It's a case of 'left' and right',
    not as our continental friends think 'right' and 'wrong'!
    
    BTW if you ever get into a discussion with a Euro or American about
    left and right driving, the question to ask them is "Do you know
    why you drive on the right?" The answer is normally "Errr no , but
    why do you drive on the left?".....................There's a very
    good answer for our friend which goes way back to Ye Olde England...
    .....I'm *$** if I'm going to type it all out here though!
    
    Dave

Actually following that rathole, early American road vehicles (horse drawn 
cargo wagons, stage coaches and the like) had the driver on the right and 
the guard on the left... just like ours!

/. Ian .\

Re: .12

The whole of the US did not switch to driving on the right until the 1930s.

jb

    
    .13		Tell us which ones and I'll tell you THAT story!
    
    Dave

    You left out the Irish. They should have the steering wheel in the
    middle.
    
    To my certain knowledge the entire environs of Dublin in the early
    seventies were occupied by hi-tech Morris Minors. They had 
    (I presume) an electromagnetic pickup arrangement, which aligned
    the central axis of the car with the white line down the middle
    of the road.
    
    They also had built in radar detection of cars issuing at high speed
    from side-roads (they must have done) and also RSPCA designed
    infra-red detectors to enable avoidance of the occasional pig,
    donkey, and herd of horses and/or cows.
    
    I was impressed. I did think it somewhat mean of them to insist
    that no such devices existed, though I pleaded desparately with
    them to fit them to my car as well.
    
    Mike Day (survivor 2 years in Dublin)
    

re: .13

Please give some more information and/or cite sources. I've never heard
of anything like that in the US.

I'm am very doubtful as the last right hand drive cars to be built in
the US were in the mid-teens. (Except for certain specialized vehicles
like post office delievery vans)

Well the first surfaced road in New Hampshire (Route 3) was surfaced in 1936 or
thereabouts (I remember a 50th anniversary special on Channel 11 New Hampshire 
Public TV, but don't recall if it was in 1986 or 87).

Since on narrow dirt tracks people drive to avoid the ruts rather than on a 
particular side, except when passing other cars, it is possible that it was
sometime in the thirties before a national law required driving on the right.

Indeed "rut driving" is a good reason why some off road drivers like to have
"wrong side" cars - since when passing another road user the driver is on the
side nearest the road edge and can more easily see problems that might throw him
off the road into a ditch or stone wall...

/. Ian .\

    
    Yer Tis!......The reason why Brits drive on the correct side of
    the road (the left)
    Are you sitting comfortably?......Than I'll begin
    
    Long, long ago in Olde England there were many highwaymen, thiefs,
    blaggards and bounders on the 'roads'.
    To travel on the early roads of England was such a hazardous
    occupation, even more hazardous than driving on the M25 in the
    late 20th century.
    The mode of transport back in those days was horse (1 hp) or horse
    and carriage (2 hp or the 4 hp turbo version).
    In both cases, the 'driver' would tend towards the left of the road
    or track, especially when it was flanked with high hedgerows.
    
    The reason for this was that if you were assailed by a highwayman,
    your attacker would be forced to come at you from your right side.
    Most people are right handed and back then left-handed people were
    burned or drowned as witches so you were either right-handed or
    dead. 
    Holding the reins (sort of leather straps functionally a steering
    wheel) in your left hand, you would draw your trusty sword with
    your right hand and defend yourself on your strong side. To aid
    your defence in the 2 or 4 hp version (they had non-recaro benches)
    you would sit on the right hand side to give you a height and reach
    advantage over your attacker.
    
    Only a surviving left hander or complete idiot drove on the right
    which is why so many people got robbed, raped and pillaged in Europe
    while England increased in wealth and went on to dominate the world
    in the 19th Century. 
    This is also the reason why there are no charming hedgerows in France,
    Germany etc as they got fed up being leaped-out at from behind hedges
    by ambidextrous robbers and tore all their hedges down.
    
    A.L.L. Bull (Ph.D) Faculty of History, Moonrakers University, Wilts

   RHD = clockwise     = forward progress
   LHD = anticlockwise = backward

   E de B.

I heard something a couple of years ago about left/right brain activity...which
said that the right was the 'natural' side of the road to drive on.  I don't
know if there is any basis for this - I don't know much about the differences
between what the left and right sides of the brain control.

Anybody know more about this theory?

-Al

    
    re. 20  Its not a question of which side of the road to drive is
    natural but on which side of the vehicle to sit. 
    Going back to 'Ye Olde England' theory you would sit on the right side 
    of your wagon to defend yourself more effectively. 
    Most people being right handed naturally raise their right arm to
    cover their face and turn instinctively to the left when they are attacked, 
    (think about that) the turn to the left to get out of trouble is
    an instinctive one.                                                        
    I'm sure there is a Phd to be had writing a thesis on this subject
    or maybe someone already has, some questions I would ask are:
    
    	- Are there more accidents in LHD or RHD countries?
    	- Are there more accidents of a certain type in LHD countries?
    		eg. crossing the centre line in a crisis situation due
    	 	    to the natural turn to the left.
    
    	- Do more cars in RHD countries get ditched due to people swerving
    	  off to the left than in LHD countries? (I guess there are
    just as many 'near misses' in LHD as RHD countries.
    
    This is getting interesting!
    
    Dave
    

    re. some previous: a lot of the drivers I'm observing apparently have
    only half of their brain left, anyway, so it doesn't make any
    difference, does it :-?
    
    Carefully yours,
    
    Chris

	Something that I seem to recall reading not so long ago, was that
	 left-handed people were involved in more serious crashes,
	 statistically speaking, than right-handed. (UK stats.)

	Reason was as someone stated earlier, due to reflexive action.

    
    Re .23
    
    Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha :^)

    Mark
    

	Well, I might be biased, but I've put in a good few thousand
	miles on the continent and I still think that driving on
	the left is natural and correct.

	-John (Right handed)

	Talk about the looney left ! I don't think there is any relevance
	whether you right handed driving on the left/right or left handed
	driving on the left/right. 

	I seem to recall a survey though that indicated ambidextrous drivers
	who also rode motor cycles had a preponderance for falling off uphill
	on adverse camber if it was raining.

	Gordon (Right handed, I think) 

    Of course, you have to mount your horse on the left whilst wearing
    your sword, in order to avoid skewering the horse.
    
    Looks like all the left handed folk will have to emigrate to countries
    driving on the right.
    
    I did hear a story about one of the remaining European countries
    driving on the left who were contemplating changing to the right,
    They were going to phase it, starting with buses and heavy goods
    vehicles...

The earlier note about there not being 'surfaced' roads in NH until the 1930's
didn't sound right to me so I did some checking.

From the 1911 Automobile Blue Book (a large tome listing just about all
the routes, distances, points of interest etc. from major(?) towns in New 
England to other major towns - sort of a route guide)

'Portsmouth (NH) to Concord, 57.0 miles, macadam first 15 miles and last
13 miles......'

From the 1933 AAA Automobile Green Book (similar, but later version of the
above)

'Concord to Bretton Woods (via Barnstead, Alton Bay, Ossipee), 114.1 miles,
ALL MACADAM.....'

So it would appear that there were at least some paved roads in NH as
early as 1911 and by 1933 long distances were paved.

As regards driving on the right vs the left. In 1927 my father and 2 friends
drove from Boston to Los Angeles and back (about 7k miles). The car was
a 1925 Chrysler, left hand drive. My father kept a very complete daily diary 
with milage, costs, what they saw/did etc. There is no mention anywhere about 
driving on the left side of the road. Given that he had never driven a car 
before the trip and learned underway I can't imagine him not noting the fact 
of changing sides if it were true. I suppose they may not have gone through a 
State that was different but it seems unlikely. Given the various strange laws 
in different States (true even today) it is possible that legally you were
supposed to drive on the left but in practice I doubt it.

	The monopolies commision is to investigate the UK car price
	scam.

	Whether they'll achieve anything or not has yet to be seen.

	-John

    I heard that on News at Ten last night. They said the report is
    expected in 15 months time!
    
    Ian.

    
    We pay 50% more.....
    
    well that's what it said on the news last night :-)

    Certainly there appear to be some major differences in car prices
    around Europe.  Some of the price comparisons though do seem to neglect
    our Car Tax which is paid before VAT (ie a tax on a tax).  Also many
    people forget on mass market cars, the list price is rarely paid -
    discounted prices should be the basis for comparison. 
    
    If the UK didn't have company cars (and I do have one), the discounts
    available to the private buyer might be much higher.
    
    Anyway, what I'm saying is that we have to be very careful when
    comparing car prices - we need to be accurate to establish how much
    higher our prices are.

I think that header note has the percentage differences for car prices in
the EEC.

    
    Lewis, you were looking at a slightly obscure model, ie imported
    from the states, whose sales in the UK could be counted in the tens.
    
    Who the hell in the Uk is going to buy a JEEP !
    
    Nigel

>I think that header note has the percentage differences for car prices in
>the EEC.
    
    It does, but is doesn't state the discounts normally available in those
    countries.  I managed (after a lot a work) to get 12% off a Fiesta
    1.1LX (current model) 3 months ago.  4% was on offer simply by asking.
    I have to say I would rather not have the hassle of having to haggle,
    just lower the list price (which nobody pays on mass market European
    cars - do they?).   BTW the tax, which is not discountable, is based on
    the list price.
    
    This naturally does not take into account the 3.9% credit over two years
    for 50% of the purchase price.  Is this deal available in the lowest
    price countries?  We need to compare the entire purchase package.
    
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending UK prices, they are high, but I 
    just want to get at the facts.  What deals are available in Europe? 

    
    
    I disagree about comparing the "entire package". The fact that car 
    manufactures offer cheap finance proves they are charging too much
    for the car in the first place.
    
    I also don't think we should include discounts. How many people
    get a discount when they P/X?
    
    Cheap starting price means less car tax and less VAT. We are being
    screwed.
    
    I just want to buy a car at the lowest price and I don't want loads
    of extras that I have to pay for when I don't need them.
    
    R.

	I must admit being sceptical about the effect of the Monopolies
	Commission. Market forces will out anyway.

	What will make a big difference would be the effective abolition
	of the company car.

	Now I realise that most to most readers of this conference this
	amounts to heresy, but really it would benefit all. In another
	topic the merits of lease/not lease are being discussed relative
	to the current economic position. What hasn't been taken into 
	account in these discussions is that whilst 50% of all new cars 
	are 'company' ones the prices will be artificially high.

	If such cars are totally eliminated prices will drop and we'd be
	better off. After all who actually pays for the army of people
	who exist to operate these schemes. By this I don't mean fleet
	as such but all the finace companies and the like that handle
	the billions a year business. I don't think they contribute
	much to the national good really.

	-John

    Well The UK car prices are near enough double what they are in the
    US.
    
    Grant

re .38
>    I disagree about comparing the "entire package". The fact that car 
>    manufactures offer cheap finance proves they are charging too much
>    for the car in the first place.
>    
>    I also don't think we should include discounts. How many people
>    get a discount when they P/X?
    
    I not disagreeing with your first paragraph.  Regarding part-ex, what
    are secondhand prices like in say, Denmark?  Maybe they are very low, I
    don't know.  All I'm saying is that while we are discussing relative
    pricing, we need to view the whole picture.
    
    re: a later reply
    I also agree that getting rid of the company car would be a major step
    to reducing car prices - and I do have a company car that I need for my
    job (about 16,000 company miles/yr).  I would much rather have a larger
    salary (and therefore pension).  With the lower new car prices, I could
    afford a decent new car for myself too.