Brandane said:
I would love to be able to commute to work on my bike, BUT; it's 25 miles each way, much of it on hilly, busy trunk roads. Factor in the weather in the west of Scotland and it's a non-starter.
Statistics are wonderful things and as has already been said in other replies, those figures don't represent the real world. Buy a good second hand car in a low VED/insurance group and the standing costs should be reasonable. Not much we can do about fuel costs as long as HM Treasury keep robbing us blind.
"the average person occupies 12 hours a week in order to travel 87 miles: = 7.25mph."
I wonder where they did the survey, inside the M25 probably??
My 25 mile commute takes about 35 minutes, average speed 42.8 mph.
And yet these car-expenses are (slightly outdated) AA figures and (up to date slightly higher) RAC figures for a bog-standard car up to four years old, beyond which you have to start factoring in more significant repairs.
If anything, given it's motoring organisations doing the sums, it'd be likely to err on the side of conservatism.
Most people buying new also think about the forecourt price and forget they're paying a great whack extra on credit, though that's not part of the reckoning here.
I find it interesting that people want to say "My car costs less than that, (cos it's a tiny car/old wreck) therefore the car-cost figures are wrong", rather than "My car costs less, therefore I'm below-average".
Agreed, though, that buying after that first year's killer depreciation knocks a fair bit off it, as long as you don't have to keep taking it to the garage in three years' time.
You can look up the car websites and see how they work it out: there really isn't much to argue with there.
And let's say they've done a very strange thing for a car-interest group and overestimated car costs by a factor of 20-25%, a thousand quid or so. The average joe is still working 6 hours to make that 4-hour commute possible by car.