Petrol Price - 1st April

simonaspinall

zanes wrote:

So basically, anything that affects you/you use should be given an exemption?

I don't drive, well I don't own a car - I scrapped it last year to solely get about by riding.

I also don't drive for my job, however even I realise that businesses need help - look at what happened during the petrol strike when businesses were pushed to the brink - This includes haulage transport, reps etc

There's a strong difference between the importance of driving for a job and driving to a job which I made quite clear in my orginal post.

disgruntledgoat

simonaspinall wrote:

zanes wrote:

So basically, anything that affects you/you use should be given an exemption?

I don't drive, well I don't own a car - I scrapped it last year to solely get about by riding.

I also don't drive for my job, however even I realise that businesses need help - look at what happened during the petrol strike when businesses were pushed to the brink - This includes haulage transport, reps etc

There's a strong difference between the importance of driving for a job and driving to a job which I made quite clear in my orginal post.

So what should I do then, given I live 30 miles away from my place of work, which is the only real employer in the county? Just suck it up? Do a 60 mile commute on the bike each day? Double my travel time by riding 10 miles to the nearest station? Move house?

chunkyboy

simonaspinall wrote:

I hope not - They get what they deserve.

Admittedly it is sh*t for business - Maybe a tax-concession could be claimed back as the economy can not operate without motorised transport.

But to commuters, 'leisure' drivers, 4x4 school runs et al - AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I start work at 4.30am when working day shift. I finish work at anytime between 2.00am-4.00am when working a night shift. At these times there are no buses/trains for me to catch to and from work and if there was i would have to catch 2 buses and a train each way. I live 12.5miles from my place of work so i NEED my car. People like you really p*ss me off and i agree with other people that left earlier posts saying your an ASS!!!!

simonaspinall

disgruntledgoat wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

zanes wrote:

So basically, anything that affects you/you use should be given an exemption?

I don't drive, well I don't own a car - I scrapped it last year to solely get about by riding.

I also don't drive for my job, however even I realise that businesses need help - look at what happened during the petrol strike when businesses were pushed to the brink - This includes haulage transport, reps etc

There's a strong difference between the importance of driving for a job and driving to a job which I made quite clear in my orginal post.

So what should I do then, given I live 30 miles away from my place of work, which is the only real employer in the county? Just suck it up? Do a 60 mile commute on the bike each day? Double my travel time by riding 10 miles to the nearest station? Move house?

rhext

disgruntledgoat wrote:

So what should I do then, given I live 30 miles away from my place of work, which is the only real employer in the county? Just suck it up? Do a 60 mile commute on the bike each day? Double my travel time by riding 10 miles to the nearest station? Move house?

I think the point is that as time moves on, we can expect the oil price and hence the petrol price to continue climbing. Like it or not, oil is a finite resource. Perhaps more importantly, the rate at which it can be extracted is also finite. And when demand starts to outstrip supply, as it's clearly doing at the moment, our preferred rationing system automatically kicks in and the price starts to go up.

So the answer to your question is 'you have to choose'. Suck it up, get a more efficient car, or a moped, limit your mileage, move closer to your work, lobby for decent and efficient public transport systems. What you can't do is assume that you have a right to as much cheap fuel as you like for anything you choose to do with it!

simonaspinall

chunkyboy wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

I hope not - They get what they deserve.

Admittedly it is sh*t for business - Maybe a tax-concession could be claimed back as the economy can not operate without motorised transport.

But to commuters, 'leisure' drivers, 4x4 school runs et al - AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I start work at 4.30am when working day shift. I finish work at anytime between 2.00am-4.00am when working a night shift. At these times there are no buses/trains for me to catch to and from work and if there was i would have to catch 2 buses and a train each way. I live 12.5miles from my place of work so i NEED my car. People like you really p*ss me off and i agree with other people that left earlier posts saying your an ASS!!!!

So what are you going to do when petrol is properly high in price in future years? 12.5 miles is commutable on a bike.

A shift in Public transport policy is needed to accomodate more people. This is easier said than done, but that's (supposedly) why we have a department for transport.

AidanR

I think simonaspinall's first couple of posts were unnecessarily provocative, but he's hardly a troll. He probably expected to find people whose initial reaction was the same as his - I don't think he came here to sh!t-stir. Asking him for answers to all of this, and then crucifying him when he unsurprisingly can't deliver solutions to what is going to become one of the biggest problems of our lifetimes is hardly fair.

The fact is he raises some good points. Like it or not, oil supplies are dwindling. How fast production rates will decline, I do not know. Not even the experts agree. But it will happen. Demand from rapidly developing countries like China will also factor in to the equation. Inevitable prices will rise, whether we like it or not; whether it's fair or not. Yes, the government takes a lot of tax, but the simple fact is crude oil prices are around 4 times what they were 10 years ago and fluctuations aside, the long term trend is only going to be up.

We've built our economy and our way of life around the car, and that is going to have to change, at least to an extent. Like any change it won't be easy and there will be many losers. People will have to get jobs closed to them, some people who drive for a living will lose their jobs. People will have to retrain. The poor will lose mobility. It's gonna suck, and it's going to require a wholesale change in expectations and attitudes. It's not anyone's fault in particular; it's the system we have collectively built. One day we will look back and wonder how and why we ever lived with such wasteful excess.

dg74

It's a never ending argument this. Asspinal got what he wanted (a debate and riling people) and will never alter his stance due to him thinking he is far more superior to us with his views of cycling everywhere is what we should all do.

The guys a holier than thou arsehole.

Smokin Joe

Moving closer to your work is an unworkable idea for most people. Jobs are no longer for life, we'll all have many employers in our lifetime and when it comes to job hunting few of us have suitable companies waiting with open arms and sitting a bike ride away from us.

I am self employed, have to use my car to do my job which involves about 250 miles per week and the rise in prices has a big impact on me. I'm sure if the OP's circumstances changed in a way that cut his living standards he wouldn't be too hapy at the rest of us posting HaHaHaHaHa in reponse to him.

And being a cyclist does not mean you become an orange haired car hating tree hugger with a chip on your shoulder, most of us are quite normal.

zanes

Smokin Joe wrote:

And being a cyclist does not mean you become an orange haired car hating tree hugger with a chip on your shoulder, most of us are quite normal.

And this is the point many miss.

disgruntledgoat

Smokin Joe wrote:

Moving closer to your work is an unworkable idea for most people. Jobs are no longer for life, we'll all have many employers in our lifetime and when it comes to job hunting few of us have suitable companies waiting with open arms and sitting a bike ride away from us.

I am self employed, have to use my car to do my job which involves about 250 miles per week and the rise in prices has a big impact on me. I'm sure if the OP's circumstances changed in a way that cut his living standards he wouldn't be too hapy at the rest of us posting HaHaHaHaHa in reponse to him.

And being a cyclist does not mean you become an orange haired car hating tree hugger with a chip on your shoulder, most of us are quite normal.

Quite so, a point I've often wondered about when some idiot has a go at me usign the words "you cyclists" as if none of us has ever sat in a car.

simonaspinall

Smokin Joe wrote:

Moving closer to your work is an unworkable idea for most people. Jobs are no longer for life, we'll all have many employers in our lifetime and when it comes to job hunting few of us have suitable companies waiting with open arms and sitting a bike ride away from us.

I am self employed, have to use my car to do my job which involves about 250 miles per week and the rise in prices has a big impact on me. I'm sure if the OP's circumstances changed in a way that cut his living standards he wouldn't be too hapy at the rest of us posting HaHaHaHaHa in reponse to him.

And being a cyclist does not mean you become an orange haired car hating tree hugger with a chip on your shoulder, most of us are quite normal.

Ok, I was wrong maybe to see such glee - Out of order, particularly on a site which indeed advocates the bike. For that I take it back and apologise.

But seriously now, the issue still stands - And as a businessman, what plan have you made to address rising fuel costs aside from passing them on to your customers? I don't know what business you operate but it could be a very real problem in the near future.

One solution is a business tax-break as the economy is dependant on motorised transport but what happens when the raw commodity price is sky high?

Maybe I should have posted this on a motoring website...

Chip \'oyler

This is all bollox anyway. I'm inventing a car that runs on hot air.

It's a resource that will never dwindle. Just look at the amount that's been generated on here.

Seriously, don't you think that the car companies are pouring vast amounts of research into alternative fuel sources for cars? They don't want to go out of business. So I'm afraid we're all going to have to get used to more cars on the road!

shockedsoshocked

rhext wrote:

Always worth getting the Daily Mash perspective on it:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soci ... 003162560/

I preferred this one:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/index.php ... &Itemid=59

nwallace

Stagecoach haven't raised the price of a day ticket in Dundee since they introduced them 4 years ago.
Amazing really since the single fare has gone up by 15p in that time.

Still petrol is cheap here at £1.12 a litre.

As has been demonstrated high prices don't take cars off the road, all it does is push up costs, which pushes up inflation which pushes up wage demands, which pushes up costs...

Cressers

It's the same argument that can be applied to alcohol, tobacco, fats...

I/we don't think you ought to be doing (insert here) so I/we will make it more expensive for you to do so, in effect, fining you for a non-criminal activity, in the hope that I/we can alter your choice even though it it is none of my/our business.

That way lies a patronising dictatorship...

finchy

Chip \'oyler wrote:

Seriously, don't you think that the car companies are pouring vast amounts of research into alternative fuel sources for cars? They don't want to go out of business. So I'm afraid we're all going to have to get used to more cars on the road!

Just because they're putting a load of money into research doesn't mean they'll find a solution. Oil is the most cost-effective fuel supply out there, so even if we are all driving about in hydrogen-fuelled cars in 10 years time, it'll still be more expensive. There will also be other knock-on effects of oil-based products (such as plastics) becoming more expensive, other areas of our lives will become more expensive, meaning even less money to put fuel into cars.

The car companies will survive, and car ownership may remain unchanged, but people will just have to use them less.

finchy

Cressers wrote:

It's the same argument that can be applied to alcohol, tobacco, fats...

I/we don't think you ought to be doing (insert here) so I/we will make it more expensive for you to do so, in effect, fining you for a non-criminal activity, in the hope that I/we can alter your choice even though it it is none of my/our business.

That way lies a patronising dictatorship...

I can't agree with this one. You have to raise taxes somehow to pay for schools, hospitals, police, etc, so why not tax the harmful activities more? You surely don't want to see carrots taxed at the same rate as cigarettes, do you?

DonDaddyD

redddraggon wrote:

I find that in the countryside where people need their cars there's a lower traffic density anyway and vehicles don't cause much of an issue.

It's the lazy fcukers in cities, that live and work within a rather short distance that could be done by other means, and cause loads of congestion that are the problem.

This. Petrol in a car costs more to use when in traffic than when moving along an empty road. This is why I get more mpg when out in Essex doing 10 - 20mile journey's than when in London stuck in traffic trying to drive the same distance.

Personally, I think the OP is right in saying that long distance commuting/hypermobility (seems to be teh current buzz word) isn't sustainable. It's not wrong to want to live outside a city and commute into it. It's possible and in a Country where a flight costs less than a train journey maybe the system is wrong and not the people using it?

Charging over the odds at pumps isn't fair and laughing at peoples forthcoming difficulties regarding this isn't funny.

The car or more accurately the combustion engine in some capacity has been around for 100years (maybe more). Society has built itself around it. Our World and way of life is dependant on it. To suddenly say and make it too expensive for the average man to use, without a viable alternative is a failure on societies part as a whole.

To simply deny the usefulness and reliance we have on the engine is taken steps backwards in my opinion.

Cressers

How about honest taxation rather then thinly disguised attempts at social control?

lateralus

DonDaddyD wrote:

To simply deny the usefulness and reliance we have on the engine is taken steps backwards in my opinion.

That's exactly the OP's point, which a lot of you are missing. Just because we rely on it doesn't mean it's always going to be there for us. The longer we take to face up to that fact, the more difficult it's going to be to adapt.

Cressers

But adapting as a society that has had it's infrastructure designed around the car is a long-term shift that has nothing to do with short-term opportunistic tax grabs.

Ho hum

Cressers wrote:

But adapting as a society that has had it's infrastructure designed around the car is a long-term shift that has nothing to do with short-term opportunistic tax grabs.

Very true.

However, any political party that admits to this will be committing political suicide

AidanR

But the raising of fuel duty isn't a short term opportunistic tax grab - it's been a stated policy for years. It's part of weening society off cars. The problem is, it isn't working, at least not on its own. The trouble with simply raising fuel prices is that it hits some people disproportionately hard - those who drive for a living, those living in rural communities, the poor etc. The trouble with not raising fuel prices is that they will rise anyway, extra tax or not, and if people haven't had time to prepare for this the consequences for many livelihoods could be devastating.

I'm not sure what the answer is. Possibly variable road pricing - vehicles pay to use the road, like the toll roads and congestion charges we have now, but much more sophisticated. GPS tracking and pricing of roads depending on congestion, rural, urban, near schools etc. could be a flexible and powerful traffic management system. But it's a bit Big Brother and could be open to abuse, e.g. by removing the GPS chips.

Better public transport is another one, but has its limitations, particularly in rural areas.

Personal transportation will always be with us because it's so embedded in our culture and is so useful. But many will be priced out of it and as a society we will need to shift out of a mentality of hyper-mobility, at least for those who can't afford it. It'll feel like a step back. There will be resistance by those whom it affects. I don't think there's an easy political solution to it (not that this will stop people blaming politicians) because it will require a huge change in expectations. Higher tax on fuel is part of that expectation change.

Bunneh

Prices will increase on pretty much everything to cover the extra cost on the fuel. Everyone suffers, even cyclists.

rick_chasey

Just because you've grown up with cheap fuel does not mean that you have a right to cheap fuel.

Oil is an in-demand comodity globally, and as such you need to pay for it.

As for the tax - it's pretty simple. The gov't feels, probably rightly, that people use oil more than they should, since it is a big pollutant, and, if you're not a climate change denier, that it is a significant contribution to excessive C02 levels.

Also, more expensive petrol will increase the incentives for investment in alternative fuels, which is benficial to everyone.

People do not have a right to low cost fuel, despite your gut instincts.

Escargot

You're right. We don't have a right to cheap fuel but it would be nice if the rise in fuel ran parallel with greener alternatives.

As I mentioned in a previous post I'm an engineer and since the government killed industry in this country I've had to go where the work is. I could move nearer to my work but in this day and age there is no guarantee that my employer will be there in years to come. So I commute 60 miles a day to spare my wife/kids the upheaval.

Unfortunately there is no train route or bus so I can only drive or cycle. Sadly the route is a death trap for cyclists so is not practicable.

So my options are either to retrain or potentially move every time I change jobs However to cover my bases I live centrally, in a place where I can access a number of companies across England, should my employer go under.

Oddly enough I accept that fuel prices must rise but where are the alternatives ??

Ho hum

I agree.

The big switch over is going to take a long time and careful planning.

It will really annoy a lot of people, but has to be done before we rape the planet of resources.

However, to get people on board with the idea they should be incentivised and given viable alternatives rather than hit with a big stick!

simonaspinall

Escargot wrote:

You're right. We don't have a right to cheap fuel but it would be nice if the rise in fuel ran parallel with greener alternatives.

As I mentioned in a previous post I'm an engineer and since the government killed industry in this country I've had to go where the work is. I could move nearer to my work but in this day and age there is no guarantee that my employer will be there in years to come. So I commute 60 miles a day to spare my wife/kids the upheaval.

Unfortunately there is no train route or bus so I can only drive or cycle. Sadly the route is a death trap for cyclists so is not practicable.

So my options are either to retrain or potentially move every time I change jobs However to cover my bases I live centrally, in a place where I can access a number of companies across England, should my employer go under.

Oddly enough I accept that fuel prices must rise but where are the alternatives ??

This is the downside of the petrol price increase - be it of taxation or commodity price rise.

The government in theory, according to their policy at least has to lower the total number of driving miles.

I'm not sure of the rural/urban split - But I would think a significant proportion of people live within either bus route, walking/cycling, train commuting distance to get to work.

I would assume that the government are trying to target this group of people with their taxation policy, however this spills over to those people who live miles from anywhere with no transport infrastructure.

People who have genuinely no other option and absolutely no choice but to drive must be in the minority - Simply because very remote rural areas with no other alternatives are not that populated.

Trying to address the people who do have the alternative is the objective - It is this group of reluctant drivers who do not want to get out of their cars as we can see on the roads which one would assume the government is trying to pressure. For every driver who insists they have no other option there are 20, 20 50 or 100 drivers who do - You can see long lines of traffic in pretty much every major town and city in the country - They don't all live on a farm commune in deepest rural cornwall/norfolk!

Yes there are people who will need cars - People who are not 'physically' able to manage without one due to a disability, temporary injury etc. or commercial traffic or rural residence who don't have a local bus service.

As a percentage how much of the traffic does this account for? Probably an impossible statistic to find out but it can't be very high.

Can you imagine the possibilities if people got out of their cars and took an alternative form of transport? The economies of scale for the buses, strength in numbers for cyclists, pedestrians actually being open and not in a metal box!

rick_chasey

Escargot wrote:

Oddly enough I accept that fuel prices must rise but where are the alternatives ??

It's the gov't's responsiblity to create an environment for innovation in that area, not to actually provide the alternatives.

Hence the fiscal policies on fuel consumption in the automobile industry.

So far the alternatives that have been researched are still inferior to petrol, despite the price rise. Otherwise more people would be switching to that alternative already.

The green sell isn't an easy one however, since there are quite a few people, who, like Cressers, can't see the wood through the trees and see that the fiscal and other policies on fuel and other green/sustainability issues as some horrible way to shaft the general populace. It's a difficult political sell, especially when people are so keen to ignore sunstability issues, largely because those issues aren't slapping them round the face.