The AA Complaining Again

[TheDoctor]

Yes. Cars get more economical too, so it's not a one off saving.
If we got a small turbo diesel, we could halve our fuel costs.

 

[Red Light]

That's the point I made a good few pages back. Anyone can save 5% of fuel costs by driving more economically. Unless you're already getting 70 mpg from an Octavia estate, I suppose!!

But many even now are lucky if they get 30mpg from their current vehicle. Until there is a preponderance of fuel efficient cars on the road, petrol is not too expensive IMO.

 

[TheDoctor]

Decreased inefficiency is not a one off but the lighter right foot is. Funny how it gets trotted out, almost as though it were a new idea, time and time again.

Looking at most peoples driving styles, it is a new idea. Plus, it's a gradual process. Could I instantly go from 35 mpg to 50 mpg? Probably not. Could I go from 35mpg to 40, and then to 45, and then to 50? I dare say. It'd take a while, but it could be done.

 

[Red Light]

Decreased inefficiency is not a one off but the lighter right foot is. Funny how it gets trotted out, almost as though it were a new idea, time and time again.

Observationally it's still a novel idea to many drivers though

Edit: beaten to it by TD!

 

[dawesome]

To an extent, the media are dependent of propagating the "Over-taxed Motorist" myth. They earn millions form adverts for cars. It isn't remotely true. Private motoring receives massive hidden subsidies, motorists pay nothing like what they ought to to cover the cost of the damage they inflict. The average urban saloon is subsidised to the tune of around £2k a year. If motorists paid the true cost of motoring fuel would be at least double the cost.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

So - to all who are anti-car and hence anti anything using fuel; what did you do to get your bike? Walk and swim to Taiwan or Germany or the States? Get real - the world needs transport; otherwise it's back to village huts and Gee Gees.

 

[Smokin Joe]

To an extent, the media are dependent of propagating the "Over-taxed Motorist" myth. They earn millions form adverts for cars. It isn't remotely true. Private motoring receives massive hidden subsidies, motorists pay nothing like what they ought to to cover the cost of the damage they inflict. The average urban saloon is subsidised to the tune of around £2k a year. If motorists paid the true cost of motoring fuel would be at least double the cost.

Yawn.

Typical of the tripe trotted out by the greens. Take away the motor industry and it's products with all the related employment and tax paying benefits of manufacture and use and then see what sort of ecomomy you end up with. Somewhere level with Cambodia or Vietnam I should think.

Even the Labour Party at it's most left wing understood the importance of industry in general and the car industry in particular. Only the middle class left who have mostly spent their lives in the public sector don't get it.

 

[Piemaster]

But many even now are lucky if they get 30mpg from their current vehicle. Until there is a preponderance of fuel efficient cars on the road, petrol is not too expensive IMO.

Don't think its purely down to the vehicles, or to the way they are driven.
The type of journey has a big influence on it. Sitting in a traffic queue you are doing precisely 0 mpg no matter how efficient or small/large the engine is. Hence the latest manufactures trend for start/stop cars. With a trip to the supermarket the engine may not get hot enough to work at its most efficient and factor in lights, demisting consumption will be poor. My wife has actually asked me to 'nip to the cash machine' as we are going out tonight. I can walk it in 10 minutes, she was implying the car - it's that sort of use that irritates me. Totally unecessary. If I had a horse I could go on that

 

[dawesome]

Yawn.

Typical of the tripe trotted out by the greens. Take away the motor industry and it's products with all the related employment and tax paying benefits of manufacture and use and then see what sort of ecomomy you end up with.

Easy tiger, nobody said ban all cars, your straw man is like posting "They'll bring back the man with the red flag next LOL" in a discussion about speeding law enforcement.

Add up all the revenue from motorists. Subtract all road maintenance, signs, traffic lights. The cost of policing. The cost of accidents and deaths, congestion and pollution, the cost to the NHS, the cost to anyone with insurance who subsidise uninsured drivers to the tune of half a billion a year.

Starts to look like motorists are parasites, doesn't it?

We've coped very well without cars before, we will again, it's a matter of economics, and the only reason people think they are car-dependant is because we have built a society modelled around the motor car.

 

[The Jogger]

Easy tiger, nobody said ban all cars, your straw man is like posting "They'll bring back the man with the red flag next LOL" in a discussion about speeding law enforcement.

Add up all the revenue from motorists. Subtract all road maintenance, signs, traffic lights. The cost of policing. The cost of accidents and deaths, congestion and pollution, the cost to the NHS, the cost to anyone with insurance who subsidise uninsured drivers to the tune of half a billion a year.

Starts to look like motorists are parasites, doesn't it?

We've coped very well without cars before, we will again, it's a matter of economics, and the only reason people think they are car-dependant is because we have built a society modelled around the motor car.

Don't we as cyclists use the roads, signs, traffic lights etc etc................and some of us (not me) don't pay road tax.

 

[MontyVeda]

So - to all who are anti-car and hence anti anything using fuel; what did you do to get your bike? Walk and swim to Taiwan or Germany or the States? Get real - the world needs transport; otherwise it's back to village huts and Gee Gees.

Mine was built in Yorkshire and purchased in Cumbria. There is no need to go all the way to Taiwan or china, we have the technology too, but our manufacturers, for the most part, don't want to pay UK wages. Possibly because us, as consumers, don't want to pay UK prices.

 

[Smokin Joe]

Easy tiger, nobody said ban all cars,

You're the one who claims every car is subsidised to the tune of two grand a year. That would mean if there were no cars we would all be that amount better off. Perhaps you have some hard figures (not guesstimates) to back your claim up?

 

[TheDoctor]

FFS. No one is suggesting getting rid of the car industry, or cars, or anything, so we can forget the straw-man arguments.
Petrol going up by 5% is not The End Of Civilisation As We Know It.
Is that really too tricky a point to grasp?

 

[Smokin Joe]

FFS. No one is suggesting getting rid of the car industry, or cars, or anything, so we can forget the straw-man arguments.
Petrol going up by 5% is not The End Of Civilisation As We Know It.
Is that really too tricky a point to grasp?

Perhaps if you read dawesome's post you will see why it appears he was saying exactly that. I mean, if it costs us two grand in subsidies for every car on the road...

 

[dawesome]

The cost of running a car is kept unnaturally low, the hidden subsidies remain hidden because so much relies on maintaining car-dependence. The oil and car lobby, for example, anyone who thinks they hold no sway needs their bumps felt.

With HGVs, the subsidy is even greater, once road degradation is factored in, but even with small cars the total revenue from VED doesn't even cover the cost of repairing pavements smashed and knocked about by pavement parking. Look at the land devoted to encouraging this car-dependence, parking places devoted to housing a vehicle used for two hours a day. Farcical.