Petrol rise should be an incentive to join us!

downfader

I was reading the article on the Times site and whilst its the usual nonsense of the AA complaining "..people wont eat, they'll use the money for petrol!" (When have you ever seen a starved mortal driving a car?) The comments did make me laugh a little.

Dear god, do people REALLY feel that hard done by? When I was a kid I spoke to my Grandfather and he told me he walked the 3 miles into work, and walked them home. If he was in a rush he'd ride his upright (he worked at the Docks). Times were different back then and I think people were happier.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/drivin ... 815398.ece

I know back then people lived closer to their jobs and the population was smaller - I cant help feeling this is also why they were happier too. When you live 30 miles from work, spend 2 hours in traffic each way (as my Father did the other week) and then have to pay a small fortune to keep running a car with fuel, MOT and taxes I'm not suprised they're miserable.

However this should be a valid oportunity for people to consider joining us on bike, or on foot. See how much we save! I spoke to my Brother about it, he's been summer-cycling into work and he reckons he saves £40 a month on fuel alone, mostly as the car isnt idling in a jam. It used to take him up to 40 minutes to drive in and the cycle ride is 15. The bike is the winner for the local journey!

cee

downfader wrote:

I was reading the article on the Times site and whilst its the usual nonsense of the AA complaining "..people wont eat, they'll use the money for petrol!" (When have you ever seen a starved mortal driving a car?) The comments did make me laugh a little.

Dear god, do people REALLY feel that hard done by? When I was a kid I spoke to my Grandfather and he told me he walked the 3 miles into work, and walked them home. If he was in a rush he'd ride his upright (he worked at the Docks). Times were different back then and I think people were happier.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/drivin ... 815398.ece

I know back then people lived closer to their jobs and the population was smaller - I cant help feeling this is also why they were happier too. When you live 30 miles from work, spend 2 hours in traffic each way (as my Father did the other week) and then have to pay a small fortune to keep running a car with fuel, MOT and taxes I'm not suprised they're miserable.

However this should be a valid oportunity for people to consider joining us on bike, or on foot. See how much we save! I spoke to my Brother about it, he's been summer-cycling into work and he reckons he saves £40 a month on fuel alone, mostly as the car isnt idling in a jam. It used to take him up to 40 minutes to drive in and the cycle ride is 15. The bike is the winner for the local journey!

I saw some interesting estimates recently....

journeys up to 1 mile.....quickest method is walking (takes time to unchain and rechain a bike, and or get to the car and go through lights etc.)
journeys 1 mile to 5 miles. quickest method is by bike

downfader

Yeah and I have to say that walking is just as much fun as cycling and with about 80% of the awareness needed for watching where you're going LMAO!!

Infact I can walk the 6 miles home from work in about 1 hour 20 minutes.

suzyb

downfader wrote:

I was reading the article on the Times site and whilst its the usual nonsense of the AA complaining "..people wont eat, they'll use the money for petrol!" (When have you ever seen a starved mortal driving a car?) The comments did make me laugh a little.

Dear god, do people REALLY feel that hard done by? When I was a kid I spoke to my Grandfather and he told me he walked the 3 miles into work, and walked them home. If he was in a rush he'd ride his upright (he worked at the Docks). Times were different back then and I think people were happier.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/drivin ... 815398.ece

I know back then people lived closer to their jobs and the population was smaller - I cant help feeling this is also why they were happier too. When you live 30 miles from work, spend 2 hours in traffic each way (as my Father did the other week) and then have to pay a small fortune to keep running a car with fuel, MOT and taxes I'm not suprised they're miserable.

However this should be a valid oportunity for people to consider joining us on bike, or on foot. See how much we save! I spoke to my Brother about it, he's been summer-cycling into work and he reckons he saves £40 a month on fuel alone, mostly as the car isnt idling in a jam. It used to take him up to 40 minutes to drive in and the cycle ride is 15. The bike is the winner for the local journey!

I used to be one of those 30 miles by car commuter. It took at least 20 minutes longer during peak times because of the traffic and cost enough when petrol was at 80p.

Eventually quit the job, partly because of the frustrating drive. Now whether I could cycle to work would be one consideration when looking for another.

fossyant

Same here - worked 30 miles away for about 8 years. Got very sick of it, especially £250 plus per month on fuel, so moved jobs to some where closer, and within a descent ride (one which I can vary from 6 to 20 miles - usual ride is 11).

I took a big pay cut, but didn't miss spending all that money on fuel though.

jimmypippa

fossyant wrote:

Same here - worked 30 miles away for about 8 years. Got very sick of it, especially £250 plus per month on fuel, so moved jobs to some where closer, and within a descent ride (one which I can vary from 6 to 20 miles - usual ride is 11).

I took a big pay cut, but didn't miss spending all that money on fuel though.

When I started my first job work, I had been looking all over the country and found a reasonable one about 50-miles from my parents' home. For the first few months, I commuted from there (around the M25) and worked out that I was spending on average pretty much half a working day, per day in commuting, so my equivalent hourly rate was about 66% of what it would have been with zero commute.

roger_merriman

I suppose it depends on if a car is needed for other reasons, there are plenty of fairly new cars around so people are running cars where the biggest hit is the cars depreciation.

a small older car can be run very cheaply my little car does 40's though traffic and will get close to, or into 50's on a longer run.

this said it's fuel people seem to get upset about not the money blowing away off their car just because it's a year older. people are odd.

downfader

roger merriman wrote:

I suppose it depends on if a car is needed for other reasons, there are plenty of fairly new cars around so people are running cars where the biggest hit is the cars depreciation.

a small older car can be run very cheaply my little car does 40's though traffic and will get close to, or into 50's on a longer run.

this said it's fuel people seem to get upset about not the money blowing away off their car just because it's a year older. people are odd.

There was a guy on the news talking about a Vauxhall he'd bought in 2007 a little while back. Cost him £16k iirc, and earlier this year was worth just under £8k. And you're right - they moan about fuel, hahaha!

My message is still the same: Join us....

AndyManc

Millions upon millions of car journeys made each year are less than 4 miles, when petrol was £1.25/ltr, people just cut out unnecessary trips and many turned to cycling, lets hope that happens again.


.

nwallace

Mass private transport allowed us to live further from work, it also allowed the greater centralisation of work and the locking of people into private transport.

What has taken 60 years (from the 50's) to achieve will probably take much longer to unravel, and if the unravelling is attempted over night will cause civil unrest.

As it is now, when people want to live somewhere they can't due to work, they just buy a city pad and then buy the place they actually want anyway and use it at weekends.

Trying to force people onto public transport by increasing costs doesn't work.
When fuel prices were touching 120 here there was no increase in the number of people getting the bus.
However strangely there is a lot less people using it now the price of fuel has gone back down.

If people stop using cars for anything other than commuting and working it means they are probably spending more time slothing in the house.

downfader

nwallace wrote:

Mass private transport allowed us to live further from work, it also allowed the greater centralisation of work and the locking of people into private transport.

What has taken 60 years (from the 50's) to achieve will probably take much longer to unravel, and if the unravelling is attempted over night will cause civil unrest.

As it is now, when people want to live somewhere they can't due to work, they just buy a city pad and then buy the place they actually want anyway and use it at weekends.

Trying to force people onto public transport by increasing costs doesn't work.
When fuel prices were touching 120 here there was no increase in the number of people getting the bus.
However strangely there is a lot less people using it now the price of fuel has gone back down.

If people stop using cars for anything other than commuting and working it means they are probably spending more time slothing in the house.

The majority of peeps I know who drive the long distances dont tend to be able to afford a second house.

First Busses here want to increase the fare to account for fuel costs I'm told, so public transport here wont be an option for many in the future.

iclestu

nwallace wrote:

As it is now, when people want to live somewhere they can't due to work, they just buy a city pad and then buy the place they actually want anyway and use it at weekends.

Realy?!

I need a new job.

Jeez - I can't afford one place never mind 2.

georgee

Went to view a car yesterday with a 3.5 litre engine, bring on the price rise, I go 28 miles a day by bike which I substantially got free from a jumble sale and can claim for petrol when I use the car for work. Bring on more depreciation for the car I fancy, happy to pay through the nose if it's a treat I use rarely especially where some other numpty have already lst 2/3 the value of the thing.

MrChuck

roger merriman wrote:

this said it's fuel people seem to get upset about not the money blowing away off their car just because it's a year older. people are odd.

They certainly are when it comes to cars- it's almost like a different framework applies and the same rationale that applies to other things is suspended.

I appreciate that for some people public transport or cycling really is a non-starter (as opposed to just too much bother) but on the whole I've not got too much sympathy for people complaining about the cost of driving.

Aidy

roger merriman wrote:

this said it's fuel people seem to get upset about not the money blowing away off their car just because it's a year older. people are odd.

I dunno, fuel is money you have to keep on spending.

Depreciation comes out money you've already spent. Once I've spent money I tend not to worry about it any more. I know what I can afford at the point of purchase, and will spend accordingly, but then I'd like my running costs to be as low as possible - because I can't guarantee what I'll be able to afford in the future.

dhutch

I bike everywhere within town, to uni, campus, shops, freinds. Etc.
Bike lives in the house, with a quick to use lock around the rear wheel to the frame.

At home however its a 15minunte ride to the local shops for a loaf of bread or to post a letter, the cars on the drive. But the bikes in the locked store room, locked to itsself, a ground anchor, and the other bike. Its like fort knocks, becuase of the number of times we've had the garage broken into the the cops dont give a shit. So i go in the car becuase i can get there an back in less time than i get unlock the bike and its raining anyway.

I someone said to use the car would be an extra £2, i wouldnt even hasitate to pay it. £5 might be the tipping point. But that would have to have fuel at about £10 a liter. Which is sillty.

But yeas, ulitmately i agree, when people walked/rode more, life was slower, less computer age, people where happier and more socailable and greatfull. But i dont thing just the cost of petrol is the answer.
Prices as it is now £1/liter ish, its enough that people choose cars on mpg and the manufactours strive to reduce that (unlike in america) so its not all bad.


Daniel

el_presidente

fossyant wrote:

... moved jobs to some where closer, and within a descent ride (one which I can vary from 6 to 20 miles - usual ride is 11).

....

You can't have a descent ride there AND back!!

cjw

Have you read the comment below the article though;

Well Steve had it almost right. Raising taxes in time of recession is never a good idea. The only solution is tax relief (cutting taxes) and reducing government spending since most of the spending is for administrative purposes and not beneficial to outcome. Second point, is beware of anyone who wants to resort to walking or riding bicycles or horses or whatever....the is regressive and does not advance civilisation. True advancement will come from stimulus to private sector growth such tax cuts to business and industry to spur development and growth thereby creating jobs and more income. The way forward does not include ideas that send us back to the 19th century.

Roastie

cjw wrote:

Have you read the comment below the article though;

Well Steve had it almost right. Raising taxes in time of recession is never a good idea. The only solution is tax relief (cutting taxes) and reducing government spending since most of the spending is for administrative purposes and not beneficial to outcome. Second point, is beware of anyone who wants to resort to walking or riding bicycles or horses or whatever....the is regressive and does not advance civilisation. True advancement will come from stimulus to private sector growth such tax cuts to business and industry to spur development and growth thereby creating jobs and more income. The way forward does not include ideas that send us back to the 19th century.

Proof that our population contains idiots.

downfader

cjw wrote:

Have you read the comment below the article though;

Well Steve had it almost right. Raising taxes in time of recession is never a good idea. The only solution is tax relief (cutting taxes) and reducing government spending since most of the spending is for administrative purposes and not beneficial to outcome. Second point, is beware of anyone who wants to resort to walking or riding bicycles or horses or whatever....the is regressive and does not advance civilisation. True advancement will come from stimulus to private sector growth such tax cuts to business and industry to spur development and growth thereby creating jobs and more income. The way forward does not include ideas that send us back to the 19th century.

Its not the Bristolcars blog guy is it?

Have left a retort, lets see if it gets published.

Porgy

cjw wrote:

Have you read the comment below the article though;

Well Steve had it almost right. Raising taxes in time of recession is never a good idea. The only solution is tax relief (cutting taxes) and reducing government spending since most of the spending is for administrative purposes and not beneficial to outcome. Second point, is beware of anyone who wants to resort to walking or riding bicycles or horses or whatever....the is regressive and does not advance civilisation. True advancement will come from stimulus to private sector growth such tax cuts to business and industry to spur development and growth thereby creating jobs and more income. The way forward does not include ideas that send us back to the 19th century.

The car is as much a product of the 19th century as the bike - probably more so as it has in essence changed little in over a hundred years wheras the bicycle has transformed almost beyond recognition.

And how forward looking is it to use a vehicle that requires resources and fuel that are just about to run out, and to be driven by people withmostly limited economic resources wokring in unsustainable industries, and to run on roads that are already so filled with vehicles that the average speed in cities is still what it was when the horse and cart was dominant?

Specialized Needs

Porgy wrote:

The car is as much a product of the 19th century as the bike - probably more so as it has in essence changed little in over a hundred years whereas the bicycle has transformed almost beyond recognition.

And how forward looking is it to use a vehicle that requires resources and fuel that are just about to run out, and to be driven by people with mostly limited economic resources working in unsustainable industries, and to run on roads that are already so filled with vehicles that the average speed in cities is still what it was when the horse and cart was dominant?

If you can be bothered, you should post that in the Times's feedback. Seriously, they are good points.

What I love is that no one seems to have queried Liam B's calculations

£1.70 x 2 a day x 5 days a week x 300 days a year = £5,100

seem to be too many days there for a year ...

Neither has anyone yet pointed out he could get a season ticket, or that he should include possible congestion and parking charges in his London example. But then in my experience, people tend to push their case to the limit to make a point :roll:

Edit: wrong newspaper

downfader

duncedunce wrote:

Porgy wrote:

The car is as much a product of the 19th century as the bike - probably more so as it has in essence changed little in over a hundred years whereas the bicycle has transformed almost beyond recognition.

And how forward looking is it to use a vehicle that requires resources and fuel that are just about to run out, and to be driven by people with mostly limited economic resources working in unsustainable industries, and to run on roads that are already so filled with vehicles that the average speed in cities is still what it was when the horse and cart was dominant?

If you can be bothered, you should post that in the Times's feedback. Seriously, they are good points.

What I love is that no one seems to have queried Liam B's calculations

£1.70 x 2 a day x 5 days a week x 300 days a year = £5,100

seem to be too many days there for a year ...

Neither has anyone yet pointed out he could get a season ticket, or that he should include possible congestion and parking charges in his London example. But then in my experience, people tend to push their case to the limit to make a point :roll:

Edit: wrong newspaper

Yeah 52x5 is his bus time.. 260 days on a bus around abouts.

..sorry second edit: our season tickets are a little restricted too. Certain routes only iirc.

Porgy

duncedunce wrote:

If you can be bothered, you should post that in the Times's feedback. Seriously, they are good points.

I can't post on there from work - but feel free to make those points on my behalf 8)

roger_merriman

Aidy wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

this said it's fuel people seem to get upset about not the money blowing away off their car just because it's a year older. people are odd.

I dunno, fuel is money you have to keep on spending.

Depreciation comes out money you've already spent. Once I've spent money I tend not to worry about it any more. I know what I can afford at the point of purchase, and will spend accordingly, but then I'd like my running costs to be as low as possible - because I can't guarantee what I'll be able to afford in the future.

most seem to think that way even when the cars value lost can be many times the fuel cost per year. such is life.

nwallace

iclestu wrote:

nwallace wrote:

As it is now, when people want to live somewhere they can't due to work, they just buy a city pad and then buy the place they actually want anyway and use it at weekends.

Realy?!

I need a new job.

Jeez - I can't afford one place never mind 2.

hm, over general in that me thinks! but there are people who do it.
Commuting from Manchester to London or Galway to Dublin is madness but probably still cheaper than buying in London/Dublin, that's the other side of it there are people who have to travel silly distances because they can't afford to live closer to work. Possibly having no suitable public transport for that.

Porgy wrote:

The car is as much a product of the 19th century as the bike - probably more so as it has in essence changed little in over a hundred years wheras the bicycle has transformed almost beyond recognition.

You what?

Let me post a picture of a 19th century car




And how a bout a 19th century bike


The motor car has evolved massively in the 20th Century, with external feature evolution ending in the early to mid 1980's, the focus moved to efficiency (Engine development in that period was massive, you went from simple blocks with mechanical ignition and carburettors to seriously efficient engine management systems) and then safety in mainstream products (more "exclusive" models had everything a late 80's Ford had by the mid 70's).

Right now I am borrowing my brothers late 90's Toyota, it has something like 140bph from a 1,6L engine, and I am getting 34mph out of it without trying. In my normal SAAB 99, 2L engine I get 28mpg with a bit of effort (though it's the sort of car where you have to keep the power on) the engine blocks are about the same age design. The same engine block as My Saab has can be configured for 250bhp with the same fuel usage under DIN standards (Which is quite crude, it's a pretty case of floor it up to 30 then stomp on the brakes repeatedly)

The Bicycle stopped evolving externally long long ago with attention going to make them more efficient, more gears means better spacing allowing better use of your own power and lighter components.

Or in other words the development of the motor car has only just caught up with the bicycle in it's development state.

However suggesting that Walking and Cycling is a backwards step is stupid at best.
All forms of transport have a everyday role that they are most suitable for.

I would categorise them as
Walking, short distances
Cycling, Medium distances
Bus, Medium to Long Distance
Train, Long distance travel
Car, Medium to Long distance where the Train -> Bus option is not economical.

However the Train companies are screwing that up as it costs a lot more for a return ticket for 1 from Dundee to Glasgow than it does to drive.
Train is 36 quid return off peak, Driving is 200 miles, which is around 30 quid for me, as soon as there is a passenger that's the train screwed as an option.

As for depreciation I never intend on spending money on anything that new.
The maintainable costs of something old isn't too bad. In fact I think the only thing more expensive than the gear box (took it out a car that went to the scrappers as a shell with rotten panels, everything else put in the reuse pile) was a bit of welding to the rear wheel arches.

davmaggs

Actually I kind of agree with some of the comments. There is a tendancy for certain types to love recessions or other problems as it will finally be the time that we all go back to some golden age. They seem to forget the the working man will be the one to suffer.

The combustion engine is one of the greatest inventions in the world. It's given freedom (not just travel, but from physical toil) to millions. No-one will give up that unless something drastic happens, or something equal or better replaces it.

Also this idea that oil is about to run out is absolute nonsense. Ever since the 70s oil, uranium, gold or whatever is predicted to run out. Then someone finds more or better still invents a way to get a better amount from the same resources (oil wells leave 2/3 underground). At the moment there are huge amounts of oil, but mostly owned by state firms too incompetent to get at it.

Porgy

Working man

excellent!!

Porgy

davmaggs wrote:

Actually I kind of agree with some of the comments. There is a tendancy for certain types to love recessions or other problems as it will finally be the time that we all go back to some golden age. They seem to forget the the working man will be the one to suffer.

I've seen this criticism leveled at the Green movement - the reality is that we want change to be managed so that the "working man" as you put it is not the one that suffers.

However, we now live in Corporate post capitalist and post Democratic world, and I suspect that unless the "working man" wakes up from his sleepwalk - we're all going to go down the toilet together.

I also suspect that you have not kept up with the latest scientific news if you're holding on to the idea that oil isn't running out.

Look around you - the signs are all there - even the oil companies are complaining now about escalating exploration and extraction costs. Environmentally they are costing more and more too - and we are now in the middle of the 6th great mass extinction in the world's history - this one induced by man.

Carry on walking around with your eyes shut - but please do not level your absurd psychological babble at the one movement that can see and acknowledge what is really going on.

lost_in_thought

Well, I love to bicycle, and in London it's the only way to get around.

However, out in the country it's harder. For example, today, I drove to near Norwich and back to collect something. Something big. Something I couldn't fit on the bike.

There was no public transport option, sure, a train goes from a station 14 miles away to a station 22 miles from where I need to be, and yes, I could cycle those distances, but see above about how I couldn't fit the thing on the bike. There are almost no buses round by 'ere.

So I drove. And countless others outside cities will do the same because they have no other viable option. What I find galling is that the focus of these discussions (not on this forum but in general) seems to be on city drivers and how they could use other transport (which they definitely could) and ignores country folk who actually need their cars/vans/4x4s.

*climbs back off soapbox*

nwallace

Porgy wrote:

However, we now live in Corporate post capitalist and post Democratic world, and I suspect that unless the "working man" wakes up from his sleepwalk - we're all going to go down the toilet together.
.

Going down the toilet would be returning en-mass to crofting.

Something Greenies seem to think is viable.

Until a combine harvester can be built that runs on the power of the moon, the internal combustion engine is the most efficient way of feeding the developed world.