Still taxing diesel?

Transport and new transport: energy, pollution, engine innovations, concept car, hybrid vehicles, prototypes, pollution control, emission standards, tax. not individual transport modes: transport, organization, carsharing or carpooling. Transport without or with less oil.
Other
Pantone engine Researcher
Pantone engine Researcher
posts: 3787
Registration: 17/03/05, 02:35
x 12




by Other » 10/03/13, 22:06

Hello

carpooling to get to work, it seems functional, but more and more employers often ask an employee to stay overtime, or to come home before work, broken equipment, to fix it ect ..
It becomes complicated if 3 workers have to wait for the driver, the one who is traveling has to call home so that we can pick him up.
Also, workers must live in fairly close locations or on the route.
Not always applicable depending on the type of profession.

Andre
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 11/03/13, 09:48

chatelot16 wrote:
I will still criticize the state! if the gendarme were more concerned with maintaining order and less with racketing motorists, we could continue hitchhiking without risk


I'm not sure: the feeling of insecurity plays a role, of course; but I also note that individualism and the refocusing on oneself is developing (egoism one can say). All the presidents of associations note it ... [but all the same some "mediatized" exceptions: Telethon, Resto du Coeur ...].

Hitchhiking has never been a big risk !!! On the other hand, accepting a "marginal" in his car ... The car is a sanctuary of individualism and ... inappropriate gestures.

But it's just a little different opinion, not to argue.
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 11/03/13, 09:54

Andre wrote:Hello

carpooling to get to work, it seems functional, but more and more employers often ask an employee to stay overtime, or to come home before work, broken equipment, to fix it ect ..
It becomes complicated if 3 workers have to wait for the driver, the one who is traveling has to call home so that we can pick him up.
Also, workers must live in fairly close locations or on the route.
Not always applicable depending on the type of profession.

Andre


Yes. There are huge constraints.

Which for some companies can be explained by technical reasons (production chains, teams that leave together on construction sites ...).

But in some cases (offices), a more flexible schedule management would have little importance or negative consequences on productivity ... It's just that for some employers, it is difficult to agree to leave this "flexibility "to employees, they seem to lose their" chef "pants! (well of "little chef"!) ... A bit the same phenomenon as teleworking (which eliminates travel!).

In Alsace, however, "ad hoc" car parks are developing (at interchange level), they are always packed ... I think that despite everything is developing significantly.

But, in fact, this assumes that the “carpoolers” also have a little flexibility in their personal schedules (children to be picked up at such and such a time at the latest ...!).
0 x
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839




by Flytox » 11/03/13, 18:24

Message moderated by Flytox (delivered to the correct location)

Grelinette:
MessagePosted on: Mon 11 Mar 2013, 17:36


I heard this weekend on France-Inter a policy explaining, to justify the alignment of diesel taxes with those of petrol, that the diesel automobile industry could not be allowed to continue to progress like that in France given the pollution generated by diesel and the public health problem caused.

In contrast, the French automotive manufacturers are crying out for disaster because the French industry would have a particularly know-how in diesel matters and would have made huge investments in this market. According to them an alignment of taxes would have dramatic repercussions on the already sick French automobile industry ...

Once again, we have 2 positions that conflict.

Can we not imagine that the diesel manufacturers are working on exhaust pipes making the diesel less harmful?

But perhaps it is more a question of money than of public health?
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839




by Flytox » 11/03/13, 18:29

Answer by Chatelot16 (moderate / Moved by Flytox)

MessagePosted on: Mon Mar 11, 2013 17:10:51

the manufacturers all know how to make diesel and petrol ... so whatever the type they can manufacture what we want to buy

diesel has always been more expensive than petrol ... if it hurts car dealers to even equalize the 2 fuels, it will be harder to sell too expensive diesel at customers who don't need it

for too long when we wanted to buy a car we were driven either with too powerful gasoline ... or with useless diesel given the use of the car ... almost the refusal to sell low power gasoline
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.

[Eugène Ionesco]

http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
User avatar
Grelinette
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2007
Registration: 27/08/08, 15:42
Location: Provence
x 272




by Grelinette » 11/03/13, 18:55

Andre wrote:carpooling to get to work, it seems functional, but more and more employers often ask an employee to stay overtime, or to come home before work, broken equipment, to fix it ect ..
It becomes complicated if 3 workers have to wait for the driver, the one who is traveling has to call home so that we can pick him up.
Also, workers must live in fairly close locations or on the route.
Not always applicable depending on the type of profession.
Andre

Another problem not always known concerning carpooling: insurance: the journey from home to work is considered to be a professional trip paid for by the employer. A traffic accident between the home and the workplace is considered a work accident.

A few years ago, our employer warned us that in the event of carpooling, the passengers accompanying the driver were not covered by company insurance, unlike the driver!
0 x
Project of the horse-drawn-hybrid - The project econology
"The search for progress does not exclude the love of tradition"
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 11/03/13, 19:38

insurance is strong to encourage selfishness! keep your big car all for yourself ... carrying one more person increases the risk and we won't cover you

there is no lack of harassment against hitchhiking as against carpooling ... carpooling is almost considered as a black taxi
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 11/03/13, 19:51

Just for legal veracity: it is social security / accident insurance fund.

An accident during the journey normal is assimilated to an "accident at work", covered 100% by social security / accident insurance fund. If it is declared as such by the employer (a declaration is required on a special form).

But for that you have to be on the normal journey. However, everyday situations seem to be tolerated: an employee who "routs" to drop his child off at school or to go shopping.

The "official" site seems to include carpooling ! (I do not know if this is not a recent evolution of the jurisprudence, because in time, the diversion for races or drop a child canceled the benefit of the commuting accident - that's what I had also in mind; and am delighted to read the opposite while checking).

See eg: http://www.assistanteplus.fr/vie-pro/vo ... avail.html

http://travail-emploi.gouv.fr/informati ... sommaire_2
0 x
User avatar
Macro
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6459
Registration: 04/12/08, 14:34
x 1610




by Macro » 12/03/13, 10:22

A person transported in a car is considered by insurance as a third party. So covered in case of bodily injury and equipment.
Only it must be transported free of charge (a contribution to the transport costs is not considered as a tariffed transport)

This is what has just come out of the special conditions of my low cost insurance contract ...

So..Go for car sharing..Perso I just have a place available..And don't be in a hurry : Cheesy: : Cheesy:
0 x
The only thing safe in the future. It is that there may chance that it conforms to our expectations ...

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "New transport: innovations, engines, pollution, technologies, policies, organization ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 201 guests