Road Safety News
 

Government extends subsidy for ultra-low emission vehicles

Friday 18th December 2015

The DfT has announced a long-term extension to the plug-in car grant, backed by a £400m investment in a bid to treble the number of ultra-low emission vehicles (ULEVs) on Britain’s roads.

The grant was created in 2011 to encourage sales of ULEVs and, according to the government, has been instrumental in the UK becoming the biggest ULEV market in the EU, and the fourth largest in the world. 50,000 people have already benefited from the grant.

The extension means that the grant will continue until at least the end of March 2018 and, as of March 2016, buyers of the greenest cars will save up to £4,500 off the  purchase price.

Andrew Jones, road safety minister, said: “The UK is a world leader in the uptake of low emission vehicles and the plug-in car grant has been key to that success.

“Extending the grant in a sustainable way ensures more than 100,000 people will benefit from financial support when purchasing these cheap-to-run and green cars.

“We are determined to keep Britain at the forefront of the technology, increasing our support for plug-in vehicles to £600m over the next five years to cut emissions, create jobs and support our cutting-edge industries.”

The government has also announced it will continue to provide a grant to help ULEV owners have a dedicated charge point installed at their home.

From 1 March 2016, the electric vehicle homecharge scheme (EVHS) will offer £500 per installation, which on average will cover around half of the cost of installing a charge point.


Comments

Comment on this story
Report a reader comment

What's your view - comment on this story:

I confirm that I have read and accept the moderation policy and house rules relating to comments posted on this website.
Your comment:
Your name and location:
Your email:

Goodness Duncan

I think you are referring to the quote from "On the road" by Jack Kerouac which is:

“Our battered suitcases were piled on the sidewalk again; we had longer ways to go. But no matter, the road is life.”

Why is it that so many campaigners against speed control so quickly accuse pro-control people of wanting to ban cars? Perhaps you can explain!
Rod King, 20's Plenty for Us

Agree (0) | Disagree (0)
0

Perhaps Rod is ignoring the the motto "Via Vita" — "The Road is Life." One only has to go to those places where there are no roads to see how impoverished they are in comparison to those places where roads and vehicular traffic are plentiful. The road and the car has given far more life to the world than it has ever taken away.

There's also the thorny issue of the road ambulance. I'll wager that after suffering a serious injury even a pathalogical car hater would choose to be carried swiftly to hospital in a motorized ambulance rather than be carried there slowly on a hand cart.
Duncan MacKillop. No surprise - No accident.

Agree (0) | Disagree (1)
-1

Well "lot's of doubt" actually Duncan.

Your comment is not based on reality, especially with petrol prices dipping below £1 a litre. In fact most research reports show that total taxation from transport does not meet the direct and indirect costs to society of transport. Take a look at this report from the IPPR :-

http://www.ippr.org/files/images/media/files/publication/2012/08/war-on-motoring-myth_Aug2012_9542.pdf?noredirect=1

If I may quote " Estimates of these social and environmental externalities range up to £56 billion in total."

Far from UK transport taxes "propping up" the NHS, UK transport is a considerable drain on the NHS in both its direct casualty costs and the indirect costs of poor health due to transport policies.
Rod King, 20's Plenty for Us

Agree (1) | Disagree (1)
0

A significant effect that the road transport system has on public health is perhaps the £50 billion that it generates in taxation revenues every year. No doubt a significant proportion of this revenue goes into the NHS and the education system which both help to prolong the lives of the population.
Duncan MacKillop. No surprise - No accident.

Agree (0) | Disagree (1)
-1

95% of drivers would not consider buying an electric vehicle and there is not the slightest prospect of them making a measurable difference to air quality in the foreseeable future.
Idris Francis Fight Back With Facts Petersfield

Agree (0) | Disagree (2)
-2

I am delighted that the news about "road safety" has now been extended beyond the traditional "casualties only" effect of transport but now includes the far greater effect of transport on public health through emissions. In a recent report BRAKE estimated that 52,000 died prematurely from air quality each year and whilst electric cars still produce carbon emissions during the creation of electric power, they can go some way in reducing the concentration of pollution within some urban areas.

Coupled with the estimated 32,000 premature deaths from Chronic Heart Disease attributed to inactivity then their is ample opportunity to create a safer road network both for direct casualties and the many times greater deaths that result from our transport policies.

With Public Health professionals increasingly seeing the "bigger picture" there is an excellent opportunity for road safety and public health professionals to join forces to develop healthier transport policies as in many places such as London, Bristol, Calderdale, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool and others where such collaboration already exists.
Rod King, 20's Plenty for Us

Agree (2) | Disagree (4)
-2