But the fact remains, CO2 tax isn't fair. How can it represent 'fair' when those cars that are incredibly inefficient are not taxed appropriately?
By not taxing the more inefficient vehicles, it's creating a tax haven for those that can afford it and penalising those who can't.
If 99% never need 4WD and still buy them and drive 99% of the time in 2WD, why not just buy a 2WD in the first place? In that case, they should be taxed for sheer stupidity (with a pinch of salt there please!), if not a 4WD tax.
Inefficient vehicles are taxed more than efficient vehicles.
But I take your point that stupidly inefficient vehicles aren't taxed more.
So, as you say, you get a Subaru WRX driver paying the same roadtax as an Aston Martin driver.
So, yes, in that respect the current 'cap' is wrong.
The fact is many people prefer the physical size/space/perceived safety/driving position of a 'Jeep' type vehicle.
My MD, for example, has such cronic back problems he struggles to get in/out of a normal height vehicle.
The fact it has 4wd, even only when needed, is incidental.
They/he would be happy with a permanent 2wd version, as long as it kept the height etc.
But they don't make 'em....
It's 2wd with the option of 4wd, or full-time 4wd.
Most of the time, like with Audi's quattro system, you're just dragging around another 100kgs of dead weight.
Which is why I never opted for quattro on either of my Audis.
But aren't they taxed at the pumps for that?
Inefficient vehicles (or drivers) do pay more tax per mile. Which is surely the fairest way.
Because of that 1%? 
My 4WD occasionally has to go where no 2WD could venture (up a wet field). But the other 99% it is in 2WD mode. Why should I be taxed more for that. And see above...
This is the crux of my point really.
We used to have a Honda HRV.
99% of the time it was just a 2wd, 1600cc car.
Occasionally, in snow, the 4wd kicked-in.
Hardly fair that we should have been lumped with the 'Chelsea tractor' brigade.
But that's the way the likes of 'The Sun' tar you, with their anti-4wd brush.
New drivers restricted to 45 m.p.h. for a year.
If you don't mind the idea of a new driver, who has NEVER driven on a mortorway, whizzing up and down them at 70 , you have more faith in new drivers than I do.
I don't know about you, but I practiced on dual carriageways while I was still a learner.Motorways didn't hold any great surprises - in fact, they had nice long sliproads to get up to speed when joining, not like on some fast A-road dual carriageways!
In the context of this thread, I think more people would have an issue with them clogging up the motorway only doing 45.
I don't think there's anyone (government included) claiming road tax is anything other than a simple rule based on a car's CO2 level and that the term road tax is just an old, slightly misleading name for it.
But yeah, a very efficient car run on a daily basis creates a lot more CO2 in a year than a top-end sports car that's only used for a quick blast on a Sunday! When it comes to new cars, taxing on CO2 levels is almost like taxing the rich - people with sports cars and expensive 4x4s will generally pay more. With old cars though, the tax keeps going up and generally these people can't afford to buy new cars...
Exactly. So abolish the meaningless road tax!
Well done for being exception to the rule. I think you know what I was getting at though.
I do like the way that nobody has (yet) disagreed on a caravan tax!
Also when cars are doing 50mph in lane 1, are forceing lorrys into the 2nd lane and then that slows the 2nd lane to 56mph of less.Then you get the 60mph club in the fast lane and BANG! its not a motorway anymore.
Death to those who do not at least acheive the speed limit.If you did such a thing on your driving test, you would not be so smug.