I think it depends where you live, In the North the weather tends to kill them quickly when I take a trip south its seems to me that I tend to see more older cars including ones I haven't seen for years.
I think there will be a massive move to hybrid and electric in the next 5 years and by the mid 2020's you will be left with a few small hatchbacks purely petrol powered, and a few of the larger SUV's still with a Diesel option, don't forget the manufacturers are under pressure to move to cleaner vehicles. To me electric is becoming a No Brainer and my next car will likely be electric, I also think that once the supermarkets decide its no longer worth selling Petrol/Diesel we will get a significant rise in fuel prices.
Location has a big bearing, if you look at the South East there's likely to be a fair few new cars, however if you look at Cornwall a lot of the locals will own older vehicles.
However within that there's going to be exceptions, look at a poorer area of a city and you'll find more older vehicles (especially where there's fewer jobs where there's company vehicles), however with second hard costs of vehicles being higher in Cornwall you often find the that the cost saving from buying a car that's as few years old is much smaller and so it's more attractive for those who can afford it to buy a new car.
That is a big assumption to make, personally I think electric vehicles are flawed and are too impractical for most people.
The future is in hydrogen powered vehicles instead.
It's a long way off as ICE vehicles will still be with us until atleast 2045
As a family we make regular long distance journeys to visit family, even being cautious and applying a 80% rate to the battery and then the fast charge then topping up 80% of that we could make a 210 mile trip (4-5 hours) with one stop on a car with a started range of 170 miles. As such it's allowed for the battery to degrade quite a bit but still be within the limits of the battery warranty.
Now before children we did often do that without a stop (which isn't ideal, but doable), however even then we've done the trip with other adults of a similar age to us and there was a need for two stops.
To be forced to stop for up to 30 minutes on that sort of trip probably isn't a deal breaker, as to fill up without paying 10p/l more at service stations rather than supermarkets fairly easily adds nearly that to your journey time anyway. As often you'll need to add 7 minutes of driving to the petrol station, 5 minutes to fill up, 7 minutes of driving back to the trunk road and that's 19 minutes.
To recharge at a services, 2 minutes to the charging point, 15 minutes charge, 2 minutes back to the trunk road and that's 19 minutes.
However, even then that's only looking at fairly infrequent trips. Day to day the car wouldn't need to be refueled, even without going out of your way to do that it's going to add 5 minutes a time.
For many that's not too much of a problem, however unless you've got pay at pump it makes it fairly hard for a parent with small children in the car to do. Remove the need to refuel and it makes their life easier.
24 hour full recharge from a plug socket for some of the larger range cars likewise isn't a problem. Let's take for example our trip to see family, we buy a car with a 300 mile range and get there with no stops and 10 miles left late Friday night (circa 12 midnight). Well overnight is going to get about 8 hours of charge (probably more) yes will use it a bit the next day, but then it'll have at least 10 hours of charge and likewise the same again the following night. It's already had time to charge 28 hours, as a bare minimum before we then head back Sunday afternoon, which then should be enough to get us home. If not then we just have to stop for 5 minutes for a short top up and a wee break.
There may well be some who do more long distance travel than that, however even with those sorts of trips about 8 times a year and we're thinking that the benefits outweigh the small inconvenience that we are likely to see.
I've also seen arguments like, I but a £1,000 car and so will never be able to afford an EV. Well chances are 20 years ago they'd have thought that they'd not be able to get a car with ABS and Aircon, now you'd be hard pushed to find a car without them fitted (if they're not working that's a different matter).
However it also doesn't take into account the fuel costs for petrol/diesel vs EV, which is likely to be about 8p/mile cheaper for EV. That means over 3 years doing 6,000 miles a year that's another £1,500, add in 3 years of VED and chances are that's another £500. Could you get an EV for £3,000? Not yet (cheapest appears to be £5,000 on a very quick check on one site and that's less than 10 years old and less than 75,000 miles, matching that on an ICE car for £1,000 is possible but more likely to bea higher milage car). However the gap isn't as big as it would at first appear.
However chances are there's not going to be quite so much to fix (unless you need to replace the battery which would be very expensive) and so there's likely to be other savings to be had and/or you could keep the car for longer (so as to spread the purchase costs over a longer period and could reduce the risk of buying a dud which you move on from aftera year or two which are more costly).
Also, chances are that the EV's are attracting a premium cost at the moment as there are so few of them of that age about, so over time the costs would likely reduce.
If I was looking at milage charging I'd start off at 1p per mile for each fuel type paid at the MOT (£100 for 10,000 miles), I'd also increase at inflation plus 1% fuel duty so that the cost of fuel encouraged lower milage use. Then start to ramp it up, with EV's rising in cost more slowly than petrol, aiming for 12p/mile for petrol/diesel by 2040 (before rising to 30p/mile by 2080 - by which point it'll only be classic cars where they are likely to only be doing low milage anyway) plug in Hybrids reaching that much but 2060 (before reaching 30p/mile by 2100) and EV's reaching 10p per mile by 2070 (all prices excluding inflation).
However, for those who are willing to have monitoring boxes in their vehicles then there would be reductions for using their vehicles on roads with low volumes of congestion (although using roads which are classed as residential streets when a more suitable through route was available wouldn't attract such a discount). This would mean that those who lived in less urban areas would be able to get around more cheaply until they reached an urban area. Such boxes could also remove the charges from travel undertaken in private roads.
It would mean that you'd know that a trip would cost you £4 based on milage only but you may see that fall to £3 or maybe even £1 if congestion was low or was done mostly on lightly used rural roads where there's no alternative route (for instance the last mile back to your home along the only road to get there could be free if it's in a rural setting).
You would probably still see some congestion charges for major urban areas, but those could be more easily added to your annual charge rather than needing a charge to be paid on that day, making charges of £2 to £10 reasonable to include rather than needing to start at £10 due to the admin involved.
With the increase in the ability to WFH or may well be that people are able to reduce some of their costs, so even paying £100/year in milage costs from (say) 2025 may still be that they pay less in travel costs than they did before.
Yes there's likely to be some who can't WFH, so would be a little worse off. However if they found one or two journeys a week where they walked/cycled locally rather than drove, saving 20p each week in fuel costs (the equivalent of about 2 miles) then it would reduce the impact of the rise by £10. Whilst that may not save them much more going forwards it could encourage them to consider moving to be closer to work out at least moving so that public transport becomes an option (at least for one half of a couple).
With regards charging a car in am area where there's limited on street parking and little/no off street parking, most of those are likely to be in urban areas. If not then chances are the land costs of buying a field and adding some public chargers to it for a number of houses to share (ideally those which at charges of you use the charger for more than a given time, but long enough that most cars could add 100 miles to the range or reduces to a very low charge rate so that there's little advantage to remaining plugged in) would likely be fairly low and could make it easier to park near your house when you didn't need to charge your car. Unless your doing more than 20 miles a day (range of 120 miles) or 40 miles a day (range of 230 miles) then chances are you'd only need to charge once a week anyway so a street of 20 houses may only need 2 charging points, even if every house had 2 cars (at least 3 charging slots each weekday evening and at least 20 over the weekend, with a few people being able to charge during the day time - such as parents at home with children, shift workers, those who have at least 1 day off Monday to Friday, the retired, etc.).
One parking charger, with a reasonable cable length could cover at least 3 parking bays (parallel to the kerb parking), maybe even 8 if if cars can park nose to nose like in a car park.
You could therefore have a field 23m x 32m with parking for 16 cars with 2 charges (including a 1m walkway between the 2.5m x 5m parking bays, where most shop parking spaces are 2.4m x 4.8m). That would be enough for a street of 20 homes, but then that street would have fewer cars parked on it making it a much nicer place to live (maybe being able to add cycle storage on street so there's a secure dry place outside of the houses to store bikes, or even being able to add a micro park with some seating to green up the area making the houses worth more than they otherwise would be and offsetting at least some of the cost of buying the land for the charging of cars).
In urban areas is being in residents permit schemes and use at least 50% of the revenue to subsidise public transport so that people didn't need to own a car, in doing so removing the need for so much on street parking, and making it easier for those who still need a car.
For the first few years there would be a flat charge regardless of numbers of cars, however after improvements to public transport have been brought in then the second car for a household would attract an extra charge and a third car would see a higher charge again and so on (say £100, £250, £750 and £3,000 for the fourth or more cars). In doing so the cost for one car wouldn't be too much for most people, a second car wouldn't add too much but a third car starts to look quite expensive and almost no one would look to have more than 3 cars (although people may still do so by parking in carparks a short distance away).
Each house would, for free, get a book of 25 free day parking tickets, with an extra 25 being charged at £250 and with 4 hour parking available for free for each car per day for shorter term visitors (that's enough for most evening visitors, as it's 7pm to 11pm), with no limit between 12pm and 4am (so an overnight stay could be from 8pm to 8am without incurring a charge, but not on two consecutive days without using a pass).
Overall car use per person needs to fall at the population increases otherwise we're going to need to build more roads (which would likely need extra taxes being paid by us all to cover the cost of maintaining them all).
In theory is there was no need to maintain roads (say everything was possible by bike or walking) then our council taxes could be lower and we wouldn't be paying a lot of taxes/duty for the use of our cars and so we'd also save money there too. Likewise housing wouldn't need as much land (most houses are at least 8m apart just so that cars can get between them, often they are more than that to allow for the parking of cars, if that side could be used for other things, such as front gardens, play equipment, public open space, etc. with a 3m footway/cycleway) reducing the cost of building houses (as a lot of the cost of houses in down to the land costs). Of course life isn't that simple and we do still need vehicle access to near our houses, but it does highlight how much effort, cost and land we apply to something which most use for less than a few hours a day.