| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
New Tax Discs
Does anyone know what information the bar-code on the new style Tax
Discs stores and who has access to reading the code. Nigel |
New Tax Discs
I guess that the bar code is merely a unique identifier which when it is
recorded with the bar code on the application form forms a valuable record of personal details and the source of the disc.. The two codes together would prove that the disc is genuine -- Regards John "Nigel" wrote in message ... Does anyone know what information the bar-code on the new style Tax Discs stores and who has access to reading the code. Nigel --- All of my outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.577 / Virus Database: 366 - Release Date: 03/02/2004 |
New Tax Discs
|
New Tax Discs
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:07:15 +0000, Martin Rich
wrote: Incidentally, something that I'd often wondered, and somebody here might know. Do the London bus operators (and, for that matter, anybody else with a big fleet of vehicles) just send somebody down to the post office every month with a whole pile of tax disc renewal forms and a company cheque? Or is there some more streamlined process for bulk renewal? Looking at the DVLA website, it seems there's some form of Electronic Re-Registration process for Fleet operators, though it doesn't go into specifics. It is, of course, also possible that the poor old Office Junior could get sent to the Post Office with a suitably large cheque (current rate for most double deckers being £500 for 12 months, £330 for Midi Buses [36 to 60 seats]), but extremely unlikely unless it's a very small operation. HTH, Barry -- Barry Salter, barry at southie dot me dot uk Read uk.* newsgroups? Read uk.net.news.announce! DISCLAIMER: The above comments do not necessarily represent the views of my employers. |
New Tax Discs
"Barry Salter" wrote in message ... On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 09:07:15 +0000, Martin Rich wrote: Incidentally, something that I'd often wondered, and somebody here might know. Do the London bus operators (and, for that matter, anybody else with a big fleet of vehicles) just send somebody down to the post office every month with a whole pile of tax disc renewal forms and a company cheque? Or is there some more streamlined process for bulk renewal? Looking at the DVLA website, it seems there's some form of Electronic Re-Registration process for Fleet operators, though it doesn't go into specifics. It is, of course, also possible that the poor old Office Junior could get sent to the Post Office with a suitably large cheque (current rate for most double deckers being £500 for 12 months, £330 for Midi Buses [36 to 60 seats]), but extremely unlikely unless it's a very small operation. Not sure how this answers, but I've seen a few Arriva the Shires buses with their Tax Discs stamped for the Arndale Centre post office in Luton. Which makes me wonder if Arriva the Shires (at least) really do send someone down to the post office once a month. |
New Tax Discs
In article , Martin Rich
writes Does anyone know what information the bar-code on the new style Tax Discs stores and who has access to reading the code. If you get a tax disc at a post office, the counter attendant scans the bar code before giving you the disc. This indicates to me that the bar code simply contains the number of the disc. I'm away from my cars for a couple of days, so I can't easily check this. -- Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address |
New Tax Discs
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:50:30 +0000, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote: In article , Martin Rich writes Does anyone know what information the bar-code on the new style Tax Discs stores and who has access to reading the code. If you get a tax disc at a post office, the counter attendant scans the bar code before giving you the disc. This indicates to me that the bar code simply contains the number of the disc. I'm away from my cars for a couple of days, so I can't easily check this. Unlike most other bar codes, the code on the tax disc doesn't have the numbers printed next to the bars. I'd also suspect it's the disc number, but don't know how to read bar codes visually so can't verify that Martin |
New Tax Discs
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:43:10 GMT, Nigel wrote:
Does anyone know what information the bar-code on the new style Tax Discs stores and who has access to reading the code. I got a new tax disc today and I've just scanned the bar code. It appears to be a type 128 code and has a 14 digit number encoded. The last 10 digits match the number across the top of the disc. In my case the first 4 digits are 0905 for a disc that runs out at the end of Feb next year. 0205 would have seemed more obvious. David |
New Tax Discs
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:32:45 +0000, David Walters
wrote: It appears to be a type 128 code and has a 14 digit number encoded. The last 10 digits match the number across the top of the disc. In my case the first 4 digits are 0905 for a disc that runs out at the end of Feb next year. 0205 would have seemed more obvious. You have to remember that these are the idiots who wasted good money inventing the new number plate system which pandered to the motor industry. greg -- You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts. |
New Tax Discs
"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message ... You have to remember that these are the idiots who wasted good money inventing the new number plate system which pandered to the motor industry. In what way does it pander to the motor industry? Changing the 'year identifier' twice a year was brought in with the old single letter identifier scheme. As I understand it the car industry would much rather not have a change at set points in the year but rather have a continuous series and so reduce the peaks and troughs in car sales after and before the changeover time. Of course if you're not fussy about when your car was born according to the number plate you can get a bargain. Dave |
New Tax Discs
"David Walters" wrote in message
... In my case the first 4 digits are 0905 for a disc that runs out at the end of Feb next year. 0205 would have seemed more obvious. Perhaps they are using week numbers. -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
New Tax Discs
In article , John Rowland
writes In my case the first 4 digits are 0905 for a disc that runs out at the end of Feb next year. 0205 would have seemed more obvious. Perhaps they are using week numbers. Unlikely, since they won't know the week of sale when they print the code. -- Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address |
New Tax Discs
In article , David Walters
writes Does anyone know what information the bar-code on the new style Tax Discs stores and who has access to reading the code. I got a new tax disc today and I've just scanned the bar code. It appears to be a type 128 code and has a 14 digit number encoded. The last 10 digits match the number across the top of the disc. In my case the first 4 digits are 0905 for a disc that runs out at the end of Feb next year. 0205 would have seemed more obvious. The first digit of the disc number *is* the expiry month. I'll look at my tax disc when I remember and see what the code says. -- Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address |
New Tax Discs
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:37:54 -0000, "Dave Liney" wrote:
You have to remember that these are the idiots who wasted good money inventing the new number plate system which pandered to the motor industry. In what way does it pander to the motor industry? Changing the 'year identifier' twice a year was brought in with the old single letter identifier scheme. Which is exactly what happened with the yearly letter change and then the 6 monthly nonsense which resulted from the august sales glut. It was originally meant to turnover on the 1st of Jan. As I understand it the car industry would much rather not have a change at set points in the year but rather have a continuous series and so reduce the peaks and troughs in car sales after and before the changeover time. Pardon my french, but F*ck the car industry. Other countries manage just fine without changing a year identifier every 6 months. IIRC in switzerland the plate is handed out for life. In 7-8 characters, they could have easily encoded registration information using Base36 and not have of the 4/7ths redundancy on each and every plate. Of course if you're not fussy about when your car was born according to the number plate you can get a bargain. Quite. Taking a 10-15% loss on something driven new out the showroom door is the height of stupidity. greg -- You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts. |
New Tax Discs
"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message ... In 7-8 characters, they could have easily encoded registration information using Base36 and not have of the 4/7ths redundancy on each and every plate. What's your problem with the redundancy? Isn't some of it needed anyway to enable the old numbering systems to coexist with the new one? -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
New Tax Discs
In article , David Walters
writes It appears to be a type 128 code and has a 14 digit number encoded. The last 10 digits match the number across the top of the disc. In my case the first 4 digits are 0905 for a disc that runs out at the end of Feb next year. 0205 would have seemed more obvious. Having thought further about it, 05 is probably the year of expiry (which isn't encoded in the disc number), but 09 probably means "this is a car tax disc" as opposed to, say, "this is a pension book". -- Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address |
New Tax Discs
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 01:40:41 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote: "Greg Hennessy" wrote in message .. . In 7-8 characters, they could have easily encoded registration information using Base36 and not have of the 4/7ths redundancy on each and every plate. What's your problem with the redundancy? Its a horse designed by a committee. Isn't some of it needed anyway to enable the old numbering systems to coexist with the new one? Taking up nearly 60% of each and every plate issued is bad design IMHO. Some is needed if one is going to encode the year and location of registration. Personally I consider the issue of yearly plates to be silly. Giving each license holder his own plate for life would have solved the problem once and for all. greg -- You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts. |
New Tax Discs
Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 01:40:41 GMT, "Richard J." wrote: "Greg Hennessy" wrote in message ... In 7-8 characters, they could have easily encoded registration information using Base36 and not have of the 4/7ths redundancy on each and every plate. What's your problem with the redundancy? Its a horse designed by a committee. That's not an answer to my question. Isn't some of it needed anyway to enable the old numbering systems to coexist with the new one? Taking up nearly 60% of each and every plate issued is bad design IMHO. You're implying that it needs only 3 characters to identify the vehicle. That's a maximum of 46,656 using all letters and digits. I think we have rather more vehicles than that on the roads. Some is needed if one is going to encode the year and location of registration. Personally I consider the issue of yearly plates to be silly. Giving each license holder his own plate for life would have solved the problem once and for all. What is this "problem" that you are so concerned about? -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
New Tax Discs
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:42:35 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote: What's your problem with the redundancy? Its a horse designed by a committee. That's not an answer to my question. It is, I was clearly referring to ~60% redudancy in the current system. Which I qualified in the sentence below. Isn't some of it needed anyway to enable the old numbering systems to coexist with the new one? Taking up nearly 60% of each and every plate issued is bad design IMHO. You're implying that it needs only 3 characters to identify the vehicle. Where did I imply that. A vehicle is *uniquely* identified from the 26^3 combination of the 3 character remainder, not the 4 characters wasted on a static year / registration office. Thats only ~17.5k odd combinations which one must assume a busy registration office would easily consume in a matter of days/weeks. Especially with bulk registrations from fleet buyers. Common sense would dictate that a combination of 2 digit Year [A-Z0-9] registration location 4 Character Base36 unique ID, would generate nearly 1.7 million unique registrations in comparison Personally I consider the issue of yearly plates to be silly. Giving each license holder his own plate for life would have solved the problem once and for all. What is this "problem" that you are so concerned about? Unnecessarily wasting taxpayers money. The number of vehicles and licensed drivers on the roads is relatively fixed when compared to the open ended number to keep track in the current system. greg -- You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts. |
New Tax Discs
Greg Hennessy ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying : You're implying that it needs only 3 characters to identify the vehicle. Where did I imply that. A vehicle is *uniquely* identified from the 26^3 combination of the 3 character remainder, not the 4 characters wasted on a static year / registration office. Thats only ~17.5k odd combinations which one must assume a busy registration office would easily consume in a matter of days/weeks. Especially with bulk registrations from fleet buyers. Erm, not quite. A vehicle is *uniquely* identified by the full seven characters. For example - AB51DEF, AB02DEF and AB53DEF might all exist. AB51DEF, GH51DEF, KL51DEF might all exist. While it's possible that the 17,500 AB51 registrations may well only last a week, the office that issues AB has a number of series available to it for the six month period dictated by 51. The smallest allocation of codes to an office are Inverness and Truro, with two apiece, and Bangor and Aberdeen with three apiece. There's one code allocated to new cars registered to addresses on the Isle of Wight. http://www.dvla.gov.uk/vehicles/regm...ent_system.htm has a disclaimer, too - "Please Note: In the event of one office receiving an exceptionally high demand that depletes its stock of registration marks, marks may be transferred between DVLA local offices." Since there's 19x23 regional identifiers, there's a total of 7.7million unique registrations available in each six month period. According to the SMMT, there was a "record" 2.6million new cars registered in the whole of 2003. OK, that's cars, not trucks/busses/bikes/whatever, but even so, it's a long way off the 15.4 million available plates.... |
New Tax Discs
Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:42:35 GMT, "Richard J." wrote: Taking up nearly 60% of each and every plate issued is bad design IMHO. You're implying that it needs only 3 characters to identify the vehicle. Where did I imply that. A vehicle is *uniquely* identified from the 26^3 combination of the 3 character remainder, not the 4 characters wasted on a static year / registration office. Thats only ~17.5k odd combinations which one must assume a busy registration office would easily consume in a matter of days/weeks. Especially with bulk registrations from fleet buyers. Common sense would dictate that a combination of 2 digit Year [A-Z0-9] registration location 4 Character Base36 unique ID, would generate nearly 1.7 million unique registrations in comparison But that's still 7 characters, and it doesn't cope with the 40 DVLA offices identified in the current system, which the DVLA presumably finds convenient. So why is it better? Personally I consider the issue of yearly plates to be silly. Giving each license holder his own plate for life would have solved the problem once and for all. What is this "problem" that you are so concerned about? Unnecessarily wasting taxpayers money. The number of vehicles and licensed drivers on the roads is relatively fixed when compared to the open ended number to keep track in the current system. I assume you mean owners rather than drivers, otherwise your scheme doesn't work for commercial vehicles at all. But I'm still not clear how you would save money. When a car was first assigned to an owner, it would need to be registered against that owner's personal number (assuming a tidy situation where he had just got rid of his previous car and could therefore reuse the number). It would then have to be re-registered when sold to another owner. Where is the saving? -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
New Tax Discs
"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message ... On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:37:54 -0000, "Dave Liney" wrote: You have to remember that these are the idiots who wasted good money inventing the new number plate system which pandered to the motor industry. In what way does it pander to the motor industry? Changing the 'year identifier' twice a year was brought in with the old single letter identifier scheme. Which is exactly what happened with the yearly letter change and then the 6 monthly nonsense which resulted from the august sales glut. You seem to have missed the point that the twice yearly changeover has nothing to do with the new system but was already in place before it was introduced. There was no change in the time of identifier change with the introduction of the new system. As I understand it the car industry would much rather not have a change at set points in the year but rather have a continuous series and so reduce the peaks and troughs in car sales after and before the changeover time. Pardon my french, but F*ck the car industry. Other countries manage just fine without changing a year identifier every 6 months. If you actually read what I had posted you would have realised that I said that the car industry does not want the changeover at 12 months or 6 months, they would rather have a continuous series. Which apparently you are suggesting but feel the need to disagree with me. Dave. |
New Tax Discs
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 22:22:08 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote: Common sense would dictate that a combination of 2 digit Year [A-Z0-9] registration location 4 Character Base36 unique ID, would generate nearly 1.7 million unique registrations in comparison But that's still 7 characters, and it doesn't cope with the 40 DVLA offices identified in the current system, which the DVLA presumably finds convenient. So why is it better? that's 36 unique registration locations versus 40. What's so special about maintaining 40 DVLA offices ? What is this "problem" that you are so concerned about? Unnecessarily wasting taxpayers money. The number of vehicles and licensed drivers on the roads is relatively fixed when compared to the open ended number to keep track in the current system. I assume you mean owners rather than drivers, otherwise your scheme doesn't work for commercial vehicles at all. No I mean drivers. A commercial vehicle driver turns up and attaches his plate to the vehicle he's driving that day. But I'm still not clear how you would save money. When a car was first assigned to an owner, it would need to be registered against that owner's personal number Well apart from depriving garages of the 500 quid plate fees they charge for putting a new car on the road. How hard is it for a new owner to turn up with a set of plates and id for the garage to key into the relevant database. (assuming a tidy situation where he had just got rid of his previous car and could therefore reuse the number). That's the whole point, under the swiss system, one can move the plate between every vehicle one owns. The function of the plate is to identify the driver, and the driver can only drive one car at a time. It would then have to be re-registered when sold to another owner. Where is the saving? Why would it have to be 're-registered'. The new owner turns up with his plates and drives away. greg -- You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts. |
New Tax Discs
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:20:32 -0000, "Dave Liney" wrote:
Which is exactly what happened with the yearly letter change and then the 6 monthly nonsense which resulted from the august sales glut. You seem to have missed the point that the twice yearly changeover has nothing to do with the new system but was already in place before it was introduced. Which was an attempt to smooth over august sales peak caused by the suffix changed being moved there from January. Are you suggesting that said movement of the yearly identifying mark and the resulting distortion on sales had nothing to do with the motor industry ? There was no change in the time of identifier change with the introduction of the new system. Proof if any was needed of the current dogs breakfast. If one is going to introduce a completely new system and encode a yearly identifying mark, changing it every 6 months is just silly. Pardon my french, but F*ck the car industry. Other countries manage just fine without changing a year identifier every 6 months. If you actually read what I had posted you would have realised that I said that the car industry does not want the changeover at 12 months or 6 months, That would be the car industry who persuaded the govt to move the suffix change from Jan to Aug in the Mid 60s, and then whinged even more to get a twice yearly change due to the distorting effects that change had on the market. Unless you are suggesting the govts of the day had some other reasons for taking such arbitrary action ? they would rather have a continuous series. The registration system doesn't exist for the benefit of the car industry. greg -- You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts. |
New Tax Discs
Greg Hennessy wrote in message . ..
Personally I consider the issue of yearly plates to be silly. Personally I quite like it. Its a quick rough indication of a cars age when you're buying 2nd hand. Ok the plates could be faked but thats a whole other issue. Giving each license holder his own plate for life would have solved the problem once and for all. No thanks. I don't want a plate that will identify me personally. I carry enough id as it is and don't need yet more big brother survellance on top of it. B2003 |
New Tax Discs
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:39:34 +0000, Greg Hennessy
wrote in : That's the whole point, under the swiss system, one can move the plate between every vehicle one owns. The function of the plate is to identify the driver, and the driver can only drive one car at a time. Not in my experience; I was told that a plate may only be swapped between two different vehicles of the same insurance class. The plate doesn't identify the driver, it more identifies the insurance -- if you lay your bike up for the winter, you return the plate to the insurer for safe-keeping (and a lower insurance premium) during the time it's off-road. When I left Switzerland I had t return the plate to Zurich Insurance, not the Aargau equivalent of DVLA. -- Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Engineering, ___ CMS Collaboration, Brunel University. Room 40-1-B12, CERN KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty". |
New Tax Discs
Dave Liney wrote:
If you actually read what I had posted you would have realised that I said that the car industry does not want the changeover at 12 months or 6 months, they would rather have a continuous series. I don't believe you. Surely the motor industry loves the fact that so many people buy a new car just because the year identifier on the number plates has changed? Here in Australia we do have a continuous series and there are no year identifiers, and the average age of the cars looks lot higher (although for obvious reasons it's hard to be sure). However, there are still sales peaks caused by the introduction of new models (and the discounting to get rid of the old ones) and in June (at the end of the financial year). |
New Tax Discs
"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message ... On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:20:32 -0000, "Dave Liney" wrote: You seem to have missed the point that the twice yearly changeover has nothing to do with the new system but was already in place before it was introduced. Which was an attempt to smooth over august sales peak caused by the suffix changed being moved there from January. Are you suggesting that said movement of the yearly identifying mark and the resulting distortion on sales had nothing to do with the motor industry? The move of the suffix to August did not cause the sales peak. There had been one when the changeover was in January and the changeover month was moved to a time when the demand for new cars could more easily be met. The distortion of sales was caused by the government's introduction of the yearly indentifier; nothing to do with the motor industry. There was no change in the time of identifier change with the introduction of the new system. Proof if any was needed of the current dogs breakfast. If one is going to introduce a completely new system and encode a yearly identifying mark, changing it every 6 months is just silly. What is encoded is a six monthly id mark. Changing that every six months makes sense to me. If you actually read what I had posted you would have realised that I said that the car industry does not want the changeover at 12 months or 6 months, That would be the car industry who persuaded the govt to move the suffix change from Jan to Aug in the Mid 60s, and then whinged even more to get a twice yearly change due to the distorting effects that change had on the market. They asked the government to move the changeover month, which happened in 1967. However this was in response to the government bring in the year identifier in in 1963, which was not of the motor industry's doing. They were trying to make the best of a bad situation. Do you really think that people didn't want to show they had a new car by getting one right after the changeover in January, but when it changed in August they suddenly did? they would rather have a continuous series. The registration system doesn't exist for the benefit of the car industry. What do you want? Half the time you are saying there should be a continuous series and then you say it would be terrible to do it because the motor industry would prefer it. Dave |
New Tax Discs
"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message ... Dave Liney wrote: If you actually read what I had posted you would have realised that I said that the car industry does not want the changeover at 12 months or 6 months, they would rather have a continuous series. I don't believe you. Surely the motor industry loves the fact that so many people buy a new car just because the year identifier on the number plates has changed? Most industries would prefer, for the same number of sales annually, to have them level across the year rather than have a significant dip and peak once or twice a year. I don't think the changeover makes people buy cars. It makes them buy a new car, if they are going to buy one at all, just after the changeover rather than in the month before but that is a different thing altogether. Dave. |
New Tax Discs
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 19:05:36 -0000, "Dave Liney" wrote:
The move of the suffix to August did not cause the sales peak. Of course it did. There had been one when the changeover was in January and the changeover month was moved to a time when the demand for new cars could more easily be met. That contradicts what I've heard elsewhere. It was moved to August precisely to stimulate demand. Few people were in the humour to spend money on new cars just after Xmas. The distortion of sales was caused by the government's introduction of the yearly indentifier; nothing to do with the motor industry. There was never a sales peak in January, thats nonsense. greg -- You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts. |
New Tax Discs
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:30:33 +0000, Greg Hennessy
wrote: Unnecessarily wasting taxpayers money. The number of vehicles and licensed drivers on the roads is relatively fixed when compared to the open ended number to keep track in the current system. Form a taxpayers' and risk management. point of view I'd be very uneasy about dismantling a system that in principle has been around for 100 years plus (with some work on the number format every few decades to ensure the continuing supply of new numbers) to introduce something radically new. In the US vehicle licensing is the responsibility of individual states. Some have systems where numbers stay with the vehicle; others have something like the Swiss system where the numbers stay with the driver. I wonder whether anybody's done a study on whether one of these systems is cheaper to administer than the other. Martin |
New Tax Discs
Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 19:05:36 -0000, "Dave Liney" wrote: The move of the suffix to August did not cause the sales peak. Of course it did. There had been one when the changeover was in January and the changeover month was moved to a time when the demand for new cars could more easily be met. That contradicts what I've heard elsewhere. It was moved to August precisely to stimulate demand. Few people were in the humour to spend money on new cars just after Xmas. I don't know where you heard that, but my recollection from that time is that there was indeed a peak in the New Year, originally in order to have the cachet of a car dating from the new year, and reinforced from 1963 onwards by the year letter. Car manufacturers tended to tool up for new models during the August holidays. Thus, the "1966" models were put into production in September 1965, exhibited at the October 1965 Motor Show, and then lay around unsold because people wanted a 1966 registration. It was for that reason that the year letter change was moved to 1st August. It was indeed done to stimulate demand, but to do so in August in order to lessen the huge peak in January. The distortion of sales was caused by the government's introduction of the yearly indentifier; nothing to do with the motor industry. There was never a sales peak in January, thats nonsense. I disagree (see above). Your evidence? -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
New Tax Discs
Dave Liney wrote:
"Aidan Stanger" wrote... Dave Liney wrote: If you actually read what I had posted you would have realised that I said that the car industry does not want the changeover at 12 months or 6 months, they would rather have a continuous series. I don't believe you. Surely the motor industry loves the fact that so many people buy a new car just because the year identifier on the number plates has changed? Most industries would prefer, for the same number of sales annually, to have them level across the year rather than have a significant dip and peak once or twice a year. But most would give that up for more sales annually. With a fluctuating demand, they have the opportunity to manipulate their pricing policy to take advantage of it. I don't think the changeover makes people buy cars. It makes them buy a new car, if they are going to buy one at all, just after the changeover rather than in the month before but that is a different thing altogether. The changeover certainly made people buy cars when it was annual. Did the change to every 6 months make people realise how silly that was? |
New Tax Discs
|
New Tax Discs
In article ,
Colin Rosenstiel writes Have you noticed how high a proportion of the plates that have "X" or "Z" (or both) in the three-letter group, presumably because the DVLA can't sell most of them? There are 13824 three-letter groups available. 3176 (23%) contain an X or a Z. That roughly matches my perception of their frequency; have you done a census? -- Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address |
New Tax Discs
|
New Tax Discs
In article ,
Colin Rosenstiel writes There are 13824 three-letter groups available. 3176 (23%) contain an X or a Z. That roughly matches my perception of their frequency; have you done a census? I thought it was more than that, hence my question. The problem is that once you start looking, you tend to notice them more. That's why I asked about a census. FX: pause I just did a very crude one while waiting at a bus stop at King's Cross. 21 cars passed with series 3 index plates; 5 had X or Z. -- Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address |
New Tax Discs
Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article , Colin Rosenstiel writes There are 13824 three-letter groups available. 3176 (23%) contain an X or a Z. That roughly matches my perception of their frequency; have you done a census? I thought it was more than that, hence my question. The problem is that once you start looking, you tend to notice them more. That's why I asked about a census. FX: pause I just did a very crude one while waiting at a bus stop at King's Cross. 21 cars passed with series 3 index plates; 5 had X or Z. IIRC they try to avoid combinations that are words, or sound/look similar to a word, because they want to avoid rude ones and can sell the rest. You will therefore have a higher proportion of consonants, especially those like X and Z which are less likely to be part of a recognisable acronym. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
New Tax Discs
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote in message
... In article , Colin Rosenstiel writes Have you noticed how high a proportion of the plates that have "X" or "Z" (or both) in the three-letter group, presumably because the DVLA can't sell most of them? There are 13824 three-letter groups available. 3176 (23%) contain an X or a Z. That roughly matches my perception of their frequency; have you done a census? This puzzled me at first, until I realised that there is a 1 in 24 chance of getting a "Z" in each of one of the columns, which means a 1 in 8 chance of getting a "Z" in one of the three columns. -- Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society http://www.omnibussoc.org E-mail: URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/ |
New Tax Discs
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:15 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk