Moaning About Petrol Prices Again

[User482]

You must have a reasonable economical diesel to get that, my diesel would cost a bit more but then I need a bigger car due to larger family etc. However fuel prices are definitely having an effect on the economy in some small ways. Food prices have shot up, in fact most good have gone up and price. Also the number of people who have now ditched second cars has increased just in my area alone. Some will say that for the greater good thats a good thing and I'd agree to a point, however longer term I think its going to be detrimental unless the public transport becomes cheaper and more suited to a working population in the 21st century! I encourage cycling alot and would rather cycle than drive but the flip side is that without car transport we would struggle !

C-max diesel, which will do over 60mpg if driven carefully. There's plenty of room for 4 people and luggage.

Regarding food, road fuel is a pretty small portion of the overall cost, so that's not the main reason for increases.

 

[Zoiders]

Whilst my CB500 is not a sports bike by any stretch of anyones imagination, I get around 80 miles a gallon from my bike. I don't ride it hard but commute on it most days, cycling the others. One tank of petrol, 16 litres does me for 8 days commuting or 250 miles a tank.

400 miles on a tank full.


http://www.hayes-dt.com/military.htm#bike2

 

[oldfatfool]

If fuel duty and / or tax is reduced how do you suggest we make up the shortfall in revenue?

If all the car drivers that only do 20 miles a day start riding bikes who will make up the shortfall, not only in fuel tax but also VED?

Personally I have gone from a car doing 25 mpg and 240 tax to car doing 40 mpg and 155 tax, and this I drive only when I have to, swmbo as gone from the same to a C1 on 20 tax and 60 mpg.

Due to the governments greed I am saving thousands.

 

[gavroche]

why is it that when something IS expensive ( like fuel), after a while the media finds all sort of reason to try and prove that it is not expensive after all. Who are they kidding? Fuel is expensive. electricity is expensive, gas is expensive, food is expensive, water is expensive and dont you think otherwise.
And it all started when some idiot decided that the climate was warming up and we were to blame!!!

 

[Glover Fan]

why is it that when something IS expensive ( like fuel), after a while the media finds all sort of reason to try and prove that it is not expensive after all. Who are they kidding? Fuel is expensive. electricity is expensive, gas is expensive, food is expensive, water is expensive and dont you think otherwise.
And it all started when some idiot decided that the climate was warming up and we were to blame!!!

Bear in mind a lot of fuel tax increases come courtesy of the EU, whose leaders are probably kicking out more CO2 in one week through air travel than a small nation of motorists in one year, all because they are having numerous meetings about a crisis they created and are too proud to do the right thing and bin the euro on the head and put up with the public wrath for the next 10 years.

 

[numbnuts]

why is it that when something IS expensive ( like fuel), after a while the media finds all sort of reason to try and prove that it is not expensive after all. Who are they kidding? Fuel is expensive. electricity is expensive, gas is expensive, food is expensive, water is expensive and dont you think otherwise.
And it all started when some idiot decided that the climate was warming up and we were to blame!!!

good post

 

[benb]

Well, although the cost of fuel has doubled in the last 20 years, the overall cost of running a car is 18% less than it was 20 years ago, in real terms. So running a car is still very cheap. Artificially so, some might argue.
http://www.rac.co.uk/report-on-motoring/report-one/cost-of-motoring/

 

[mchunt]

Most drivers around here could save a fortune if they didn't drive like loonies revving like crazy as they go past me on my bike trying to make a point that I held them up by a minute (9 times out of 10 I am sitting in same queue as them at next set of lights).

Personally I think fuel duty should go up but 'car tax' should be abolished - then people who drive thirsty cars a lot are penalised and those who use fuel efficient cars or dont drive a lot are better off - the government could then save on enforcement and management of VED. (but how many jobs would be lost?)

If we don't waste so much fuel unnecessarily on transport then the cost of other oil based goods won't rise quite so much in the future.

 

[gavroche]

Well, although the cost of fuel has doubled in the last 20 years, the overall cost of running a car is 18% less than it was 20 years ago, in real terms. So running a car is still very cheap. Artificially so, some might argue.
http://www.rac.co.uk...st-of-motoring/

my point exactly. And what does "in real terms" actually mean. "In real terms" I now have less money in my pocket due to everything having gone up except my income. "In real terms" I am struggling to keep my head above the water. As for the RAC, they have a vested interest as they want people to keep buying cars. It is their business.
"In real terms" I am actually pissed off with it all and all the lies we are constantly fed with.

 

[Dan B]

Personally I think fuel duty should go up but 'car tax' should be abolished - then people who drive thirsty cars a lot are penalised and those who use fuel efficient cars or dont drive a lot are better off - the government could then save on enforcement and management of VED. (but how many jobs would be lost?)

I sort of agree, but I think that if the objective is to change behaviour (rather than just to save money) then penalising country dwellers when they often have no viable alternative to the car is probably not such a great idea.

I'd rather see some element of congestion-based road pricing which would usually weigh heavier on urban journeys where alternatives (public transport, cycling, walking) are more readily available. But TBH I suspect you could get the same effect by taxing parking according to the value of the land it's built on

 

[User482]

If all the car drivers that only do 20 miles a day start riding bikes who will make up the shortfall, not only in fuel tax but also VED?

Personally I have gone from a car doing 25 mpg and 240 tax to car doing 40 mpg and 155 tax, and this I drive only when I have to, swmbo as gone from the same to a C1 on 20 tax and 60 mpg.

Due to the governments greed I am saving thousands.

If we get a mass shift from private cars to bicycles, then we can spend less on congestion, policing, health care, emergency services, road building, air quality controls...

 

[Glover Fan]

As much as I detested the idea based on privacy concerns, stripped back road pricing per mile is actually the fairest way to charge motorists. The organisation would have the ability to have different rates dependent on urban and rural areas, with urban roads attracting the highest unit pricing.

They could also satisfy the haulage companies with specific rate plans for business.

Then abolish fuel duty altogether and VED.

With the advent of APNR you could have a camera at every intersection, so you wouldn't need to rely on a GPS device that could be tampered with.

 

[User482]

As much as I detested the idea based on privacy concerns, stripped back road pricing per mile is actually the fairest way to charge motorists.

Not really - there'd be very little incentive to drive an economical car, or drive more economically. Jonesy will tell you that a range of instruments are required, depending on what you're trying to achieve.

 

[snorri]

why is it that when something IS expensive ( like fuel), after a while the media finds all sort of reason to try and prove that it is not expensive after all. Who are they kidding? Fuel is expensive.

The degree to which it is expensive depends on how much you choose to use.
I find road fuel costs me 11-12 pence per mile which is considerably cheaper than comparable modes of transport and a lot more convenient.
Road fuel is cheap.

 

[Archie_tect]

I sort of agree, but I think that if the objective is to change behaviour (rather than just to save money) then penalising country dwellers when they often have no viable alternative to the car is probably not such a great idea.

I'd rather see some element of congestion-based road pricing which would usually weigh heavier on urban journeys where alternatives (public transport, cycling, walking) are more readily available. But TBH I suspect you could get the same effect by taxing parking according to the value of the land it's built on

Attitudes about who should bear the brunt of transport taxation clearly depends on where the person, who is questioned about it, lives...

Taxing VED on emissions encourages research and development into sustainable power... further taxation on fuel encourages better fuel efficiency. No argument with either.

Increasing the cost of car ownership inevitably hits poorer people hardest and affects people living in rural areas to a greater extent but subsidies and unequal taxation is unsustainable, surely eventually people will be forced to make choices about where they can afford to live, work and socialise based on transport availability which will force people to adjust their lifestyles to use public transport and encourage alternative methods?

The sooner public transport integration is re-introduced the better, together with cycle storage similar to the Danish and Dutch models

Wouldn't urban road pricing and taxing city parking tend to move jobs and people out of town centres with no obvious benefit for either.