Fuel costs
Comments
-
yeehaamcgee wrote:Hmm,the 1.4 diesel might not save much, the engine will be being worked quite hard. 1.6 Seems to be a great sweet spot at the moment... Powerful enough to not struggle, so it runs easily, but far cheaper than a 1.9 or 2.0 to run.
I might be wrong, of course, and it depends a lot on where you're driving.
My initial thoughts too, but I was suprised at how easy it pulls. Plenty of torque for a little engine, and runs at pretty low revs at motorway speeds. Since we got it we've a few local miles and my missus drove to York and back today (80 miles round trip) and got 50+ mpg. lower than quoted figures, but far better then the old Swift.2014 Whyte T-129S0 -
It's the same old rip off they con us with utilities etc- "ooh go and insulate your home, use less electric and save money.."no, cos they put it up in price so get their cash anyway, same thing with vehicles- "ooh go and get an eco-bollox machine that does 80mpg(when you add all the confusing combined/urban/extra urban numbers together it makes 80, in reality-60 with a tail wind downhill), then the price rockets, still get their cash from us.
Public transport simply doesn't exist where I live and yet the UK rail network is still massively subsidised- stop that con(taking my money to subsidise commuters elsewhere) and maybe fuel wouldn't need to be so highly taxed?! (yeah dream on sonny!
) 0 -
That was one of my thoughts, With summat Bails said, I have been to DK they have the higher cost of living there fuel maybe a bit more adjusted but there public transport is way way way better than ours,
I work 7 miles from home, takes me 15 min to drive, if i cycled prob 25 min(though i wouldn't want o on and if i choose to try public transport well over an hour! And i live in one of the larger cities in Wales. I just can't agree with the taxation of private transport when there really isnt any solid alternative for alot of people0 -
MPG figures are a joke. As far as I'm aware they are calculated on a rolling road with half a tank of fuel and a set pattern of simulated driving.
Therefore no wind resistance, road resistance, hills, traffic jams etc etc
Crock of cack :evil:
If we had really gone into the fine details of cost, we would have probably kept the Suzuki Swift, but it was a good opportunity to get something nicer, quieter, smoother and more refined anyways. The swift was as hard as nails over the bumps. But then again it did have 17" wheels and fairly low profile tyres. I reckon we were only getting 35mpg as the vvt engine is a revvy little blighter. you've got to rev its tattas off to make it go :shock:2014 Whyte T-129S0 -
See i drove a 1.4 eco diesel and i only managed about 40 or so driving normally(not ecenocmically just staying with traffic as well not blasting it) while in my 1.9tdi 150BHP no less i get a smidge over 50. the whole eco thing is a crock the cars are not set up to be actually driven normally...
I actually foung the petrol one frustrating to drive! as it had 0 go
0 -
Its not car tax, the "Road Tax" was abolished in 1937 (an initiatuive started by Churchill). So "the government" you complain of for changing the name was in power quite a while ago :roll:Briggo wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
Call it what you want - in reality it's road tax. If you don't pay it, you can't drive a car on the road. Simple really.alfablue wrote:It is a shame to find that members of this forum use the "car tax" / "road tax" misnomer. VED (Vehicle Excise Duty) is an environmental tax, it is based on emissions.
Environmental tax? My backside its environmental, its the government renaming the old car tax when emmissions wasn't in the public eye to please the masses and make it look like they're doing something about saving the planet, when in reality as mentioned car emissions is a fraction of the problem.
They moved some tiny cars that cause no damage to the roads into a low or no tax paying threshold to make themselves look awesome.
As Stevo said its car tax and that generally pays for the wasted beaucracy in this country, plain and simple.0 -
If you get a band A vehicle you don't pay it and you can drive a car on the road, simple really.Stevo 666 wrote:
Call it what you want - in reality it's road tax. If you don't pay it, you can't drive a car on the road. Simple really.alfablue wrote:It is a shame to find that members of this forum use the "car tax" / "road tax" misnomer. VED (Vehicle Excise Duty) is an environmental tax, it is based on emissions.0 -
Don't make assumptions then claim that makes it a crock of cack.Rich9 wrote:MPG figures are a joke. As far as I'm aware they are calculated on a rolling road with half a tank of fuel and a set pattern of simulated driving.
Therefore no wind resistance, road resistance, hills, traffic jams etc etc
Crock of cack :evil:
Most (if not all) manufacturers have test tracks, which is where they work out MPG figures. But they DO find the absolute most efficient way to cover distance, and claim that, which is almost unachievable in real world driving, true.0 -
Semantics. every person I've ever met has called it "road tax". Don;t make a tit of yourself by proudly displaying your OCD.alfablue wrote:Its not car tax, the "Road Tax" was abolished in 1937 (an initiatuive started by Churchill). So "the government" you complain of for changing the name was in power quite a while ago :roll:0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:It's not taxed because the proceeds go to repair the damage or whatever, it's becuase the powers that be think they can get away with it (and use the excuse that it's what everyone else is doing)
PS: the number of people on here disagreeing with you should give you a hint....
I could walk into a local Tory party meeting and shout "WE SHOULD LOOK AFTER DISABLED CHILDREN" and I'm sure a lot of people in the room would disagree with me, that in itself doesn't make it right or wrong though
So what would you tax instead? Because we need to get the money from somewhere. And if you make fuel cheaper, more people drive more often, so the costs go up, while revenue has fallen. Just what we need.
As for smokers, the tax on tobacco more than pays for the extra costs to the NHS, so good for them.
And the breakdown of costs:
The annual costs attributable to road transport include:
Roadbuilding £6bn
Noise £2.6bn
Congestion costs £19.1bn
Road damage £1.5bn
Accidents £2.9bn
Health impacts £11.1bn
TOTAL £43.2-50bn
That was from 2000
The take from road tax last year was £48bn. Assuming a (low) 2% rate of inflation over the last 10 years, the costs would now range from £52-61 billion. Bear in mind that inflaiton in healthcare is always higher than the general inflation rate, normally around 7%.
I can assure you that air pollution has a very real financial costs, a dramatic example would be smog in the 50s where one spell of it in London killed 12,000 people. For a healthy person it's fine, but air pollution and COPD aren't a good mix. Those ill people need to be treated by the NHS. That costs money and inevitably, some people will die.
And as for the renaming of Road Tax being done recently.....Winston Churchill did it in 1936 . He said
Entertainments may be taxed; public houses may be taxed; racehorses may be taxed…and the yield devoted to the general revenue. But motorists are to be privileged for all time to have the whole yield of the tax on motors devoted to roads. Obviously this is all nonsense…Such contentions are absurd, and constitute…an outrage upon the sovereignty of Parliament and upon common sense
Yet again, nowhere have I said everyone should walk/cycle/bus everywhere. Just that people can choose to drive more efficiently (came to work on the motorway this morning, there were more cars doing 90mph than 60mph, which is more efficient? Same with planning journeys so that you do one trip with several stops, or getting your shopping delivered to home. MANY PEOPLE WILL HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE AND I ACCEPT THAT, I don't know how many times I can say that before people hear me saying it! But many people do have an alternative, but they choose to drive instead.
Perhaps 'convenience' was a better term for me to use than 'luxury'. It's not a luxury in the same way as a Faberge Egg, but it's more convenient for me to drive to work, when 90% of the time I'm in the office all day so could bike/car share/get the train. When I need to go somewhere out of the office, the car becomes a neccesity, when I want to go to the shop 5 minutes down the road, the car becomes a luxury.0 -
I'd start by spending less money on bullshite initiatives, quit spending money in totally ineffective and inefficient government systems, totally and utterly scrap MP expenses, and cut down on the vast army of civil service job creation workers.bails87 wrote:So what would you tax instead? Because we need to get the money from somewhere.
Noise? Noise costs?bails87 wrote:And the breakdown of costs:
Roadbuilding £6bn
Noise £2.6bn
Congestion costs £19.1bn
Road damage £1.5bn
Accidents £2.9bn
Health impacts £11.1bn
TOTAL £43.2-50bn
That was from 2000
Most of them are totally intangible costs.
Government after government in this country are spending money on stupid things, and fu**ing us up further and further. Then they cripple their own people to cover the cost.0 -
When you get abuse from our beloved car driving brethren for being on the road and not even paying f***ing road tax, the semantics become an issue.yeehaamcgee wrote:
Semantics. every person I've ever met has called it "road tax". Don;t make a tit of yourself by proudly displaying your OCD.alfablue wrote:Its not car tax, the "Road Tax" was abolished in 1937 (an initiatuive started by Churchill). So "the government" you complain of for changing the name was in power quite a while ago :roll:0 -
I'm with Yee those quoted costs are a joke and fairly intangeble.
Actually damn it i'm completely with Yee.0 -
Thewaylander wrote:I'm with Yee those quoted costs are a joke and fairly intangeble.
Actually damn it i'm completely with Yee.
Why are they a joke?
Whay are they intangible?
How is NHS spending on car crash victims, or DoT/Council spending on road building, intangible. You can't ask for evidence and then just dismiss it as a joke when it doesn't agree with your viewpoint. Check the sources, call up a problem with their analysis. Don't just call it a joke.0 -
Your insults are amazing! What a great contribution. Big Man!yeehaamcgee wrote:
See, there you go being a tit again. Most of us own cars and bikes, you utter clumpet.alfablue wrote:When you get abuse from our beloved car driving brethren for being on the road and not even paying f***ing road tax, the semantics become an issue.
Your comment doesn't actually make much sense. Maybe I expect too much.0 -
On a lighter note, I remember one commuter saying that a driver was having having a go at him, typical "You don't pay road tax, you shouldn't be on the road" stuff.
To which he replied "Well you don't pay fat tax but it doesn't seem to have stopped you does it" 0 -
Yeehaa beat me to it. They need to cut down on the massive amount of unnecessary costs incurred by the state rather than shafting us even more. It will take a long time.yeehaamcgee wrote:
I'd start by spending less money on bullshite initiatives, quit spending money in totally ineffective and inefficient government systems, totally and utterly scrap MP expenses, and cut down on the vast army of civil service job creation workers.bails87 wrote:So what would you tax instead? Because we need to get the money from somewhere."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Seriously? First of all, what the far are "noise" costs?bails87 wrote:Whay are they intangible?
Then how do you quantify the cost of "Congestion", and "health impacts"?
These are guessed, frankly. There is no way you can measure such things. I'm assuming these were figures released by the government, or a quango? From the same government that loves taxing the arse off us on fuel?
If you want to cut accidents, maybe teaching people how to drive is a step forwards. Our driving test system is shockingly basic. And don;t start with that "But other countries have far more simplistic tests" bullshite. Fact of the matter is we've all done it, we all know what a complete fricking joke it was, and we have tons of cars being driven by imbeciles.
Teaching people to drive properly, or shock horror, only allowing those who can drive to a high standard to actually drive, would reduce the risks of accidents, yes?
Whether you agree with such measures or not, it seems a far more direct way to REDUCE accidents, rather than just covering costs. Prevention is better than cure.
What about other things, like planning road layouts properly? A little bit more money spent initially, a ton of money saved down the line.
Same goes for road repairs. Don't go for the lowest bidder. Go for the highest quality. Build the roads to a very high standard, and the maintenance costs will be reduced.
It's all shite. It's all bollocks for supporting crippling fuel tax, and you're buying it, hook line and sinker.0 -
OK, we hear you on that bit, but there's the fatal flaw in your argument. You might put people off making some unnecessary trips (which will likely short ones like poppoing to the local shops). But the (many) people who have no alternative have to keep on using their cars and just get shafted. And a lot of these will be regular travellers/longer journeys because as said before, there isn't a workable alternative. So the damage done by pricing fuel too high outweighs what you think are the benefits.bails87 wrote:MANY PEOPLE WILL HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE AND I ACCEPT THAT, I don't know how many times I can say that before people hear me saying it! But many people do have an alternative, but they choose to drive instead.
Tell us a workable alternative to the car or your argument falls flat on it's face."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:
Seriously? First of all, what the far are "noise" costs?bails87 wrote:Whay are they intangible?
Then how do you quantify the cost of "Congestion", and "health impacts"?
Ever tried to sell a house under an airport flightpath, or next to a railway line or motorway?If you want to cut accidents, maybe teaching people how to drive is a step forwards. Our driving test system is shockingly basic. And don;t start with that "But other countries have far more simplistic tests" bullshite. Fact of the matter is we've all done it, we all know what a complete fricking joke it was, and we have tons of cars being driven by imbeciles.
Teaching people to drive properly, or shock horror, only allowing those who can drive to a high standard to actually drive, would reduce the risks of accidents, yes?
Whether you agree with such measures or not, it seems a far more direct way to REDUCE accidents, rather than just covering costs. Prevention is better than cure.
What about other things, like planning road layouts properly? A little bit more money spent initially, a ton of money saved down the line.
Same goes for road repairs. Don't go for the lowest bidder. Go for the highest quality. Build the roads to a very high standard, and the maintenance costs will be reduced.
Please don't assume I would start any "other countries have easy tests bullshiite". I completely agree with what you've written there, the only other tests I know of are the Finnish one where you have to do a skidpan and have loads of lessons before you're allowed to drive. I'd like to see mandatory retesting. As well as junctions being redesigned with safety in mind rather than traffic flow.
Roundabouts are a good example of this. In Europe, lots of them are built with quite sharp entrance angles, to slow traffic down, here they're built in a way that encourages you to carry speed onto them and 'straightline' them.It's all shite. It's all bollocks for supporting crippling fuel tax, and you're buying it, hook line and sinker.
Fine, think that. I'd think that you've fallen for the populist newspaper (And Eric "humpty dumpty" Pickles')view of millionaire public sector workers living it up on the taxpayers money.
I admit fuel tax isn't ideal, it's very regressive. The millionaire in his Bentley pays the same amount as the brickie in his knackered old van, trying to make ends meet. But the same goes for VAT. Maybe we should increase income tax and get rid of the flat/regressive taxes, I don't know.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
OK, we hear you on that bit, but there's the fatal flaw in your argument. You might put people off making some unnecessary trips (which will likely short ones like poppoing to the local shops). But the (many) people who have no alternative have to keep on using their cars and just get shafted. And a lot of these will be regular travellers/longer journeys because as said before, there isn't a workable alternative. So the damage done by pricing fuel too high outweighs what you think are the benefits.bails87 wrote:MANY PEOPLE WILL HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE AND I ACCEPT THAT, I don't know how many times I can say that before people hear me saying it! But many people do have an alternative, but they choose to drive instead.
Tell us a workable alternative to the car or your argument falls flat on it's face.
Bus, train, tram, bike, plane, feet, roller skates. And, perhaps not quite alternative, but pretty viable for a lot of people, motor scooter, vastly more efficient car, car share.
My view is that as a society, encouraging people to use less fossil fuel is a good thing. And as a society, one of the most effective ways of encouraging people to do less of something they like is to tax it. It's kind of like rationing, but we don't do that any more so we jack up the price so that the less well off can't afford to do it. And raise revenue at the same time so we don't have to tax other things so heavily.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Tell us a workable alternative to the car or your argument falls flat on it's face.
The train, the bus, the bike, walking, a motorbike, car sharing.
Again, I'm not saying everyone can do it, but there are people who can make the change. you can't be seriously claiming that every single car journey is unavoidable?
We don't need an alternative to every journey. Just some people to change some of their journeys. I don't think that's a particularly mad view, is it? To suggest that next time you're on the motorway, leave a little earlier and drive at 60 instead of 80, to pull away more smoothly at junctions, to share journeys with a colleague who lives down the road from you, to walk the mile into town rather than driving and sitting in traffic, to go to the shops at 10am on your day off, rather than getting caught in the rush hour traffic. That's what I'm talking about. Simple changes to make small differences which add up.
Not everyone can do all of these, but some people will be able to do some of them, that's all I'm saying.0 -
Oh I'll assume that just as much as I want. One of your first defences for the fuel tax was as simple as "But other countries do it too".bails87 wrote:Please don't assume I would start any "other countries have easy tests bullshiite"
So, explain to me why I should believe, that such an argument would be below you?
And for the record, I don't read newspapers, because I can't be arsed, and I have better things to do with my time. But I will also not swallow any old crap the government feeds me about the necessities of such things as fuel tax. I will question things.
Right, back to more of your bizarre claims. You're now stating that it makes sense to tax FUEL, which in this context, we're talking about road vehicles (and frankly I personally have no idea what the taxation is on AvGas / Kerosene), because living under a flightpath makes your house cheaper? Okay. Cars are not planes. Neither are HGVs, busses or vans.
Aaaanyway.... I will ignore that totally insane line of thought, and move on to housing near motorways.
How does raising fuel tax, make houses near motorways keep their value?
And that's ignoring my belief that housing has become monstrously expensive, and that the asking prices for houses in no way reflects their actual value any more.0 -
As far as current alternatives to cars go.
Busses use fossil fuels. In reality, so do trains, since even electric ones are powered from the grid which has a very high percentage of it supplied by coal and gas.
Biking/walking/skates etc are simply not an acceptable replacement for cars. How would you go about doing the weekly shopping for a family, for example? Or take your children to the doctors? Or if you're working, and need to drop your toddler off at day care on your way to work, is that feasible if the day care takes a substantial detour from your journey to work?
Some of the alternatives you suggest are fine if you're free and single. Not so fine when you actually have a complex life to lead.
This is also ignoring people, like I mentioned earlier, who HAVE to use their vehicles, for business, to earn a living, so they can afford their damned taxes in the first place.
Forcing people out of their cars will potentially have a knock on effect on high street commerce, since potential shoppers will (eventually) be forced to stay at home. What value would you place on high street workers? High street businesses?
Imagine if you will a future where people can no longer afford to drive TO the shops, to spend their money, because it is not financially viable. We will either end up with a nation of people getting in to debt to buy things they want and need, or we will end up with shops closing, putting more people out of work, leading to a greater demand again on our taxes, to support them.0 -
Yeehaa: You asked what noise costs were, I gave you an example of noise costs. I was showing how noise has a cost. That was all and you know it, please don't deliberately misunderstand my posts, I know you're cleverer than that.
Car use on motorways=noise=costs. These are called externalities, us drivers use an excessive amount of fuel because we don't bear the burden of the externalities, by putting a tax on fuel, the gov't "internalises the externalities" and passes the true cost of fuel use onto the people who are using it, thus reducing use down to a socially optimum level.
E.g. I want to do something that will make me £10 richer, but make the rest of society £5 poorer. The gov't puts a tax on that to internalise the externalities, so now I pay a £5 duty. Which means I do less of whatever it is I was going to do, and the cost to society is reduced.
When I referred to other country's fuel duty rates/prices I was giving a frame of reference to show that in actual fact our tax rates aren't high compared to other people. If you can give another way to judge if a tax is 'too high' then suggest it. It seems sensible to me that we either look at social costs and externalities, to establish an 'optimal' level of fuel use, or we look at what similar economies are doing. Otherwise the 'too high' statement is completely arbitrary.0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:Forcing people out of their cars will potentially have a knock on effect on high street commerce, since potential shoppers will (eventually) be forced to stay at home. What value would you place on high street workers? High street businesses?
I think in reality the effect is the opposite, people go to their closer local shops rather than driving to out of town superstores.0 -
Bails, Sorry, that still doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Taxing more on fuel doesn't solve house prices going down does it? None of that is handed BACK to people who sell houses near motorways.
Here's a few thoughts on the matter.
Houses by motorways are cheaper to buy in the first place. Houses that have motorways built next to them later on are rarer, but they do get cheaper.
Is cheaper housing a bad thing? not really. The current state of affairs means that most are totally unaffordable.
Most road noise does not come from engines, it comes from tyres on surfaces.
Enforcing speed limits would reduce road noise.
Building roads with modern surfaces, instead of opting for cheapest bidding contractor would reduce road noise.
As for engine noise, cars can be built quieter, and this is actually quite easily done. Why not enforce quieter cars? modern effective silencers can even be retrofitted to exisitng cars.0 -
What closer local shops? You mean the village shops that are disappearing?bails87 wrote:yeehaamcgee wrote:Forcing people out of their cars will potentially have a knock on effect on high street commerce, since potential shoppers will (eventually) be forced to stay at home. What value would you place on high street workers? High street businesses?
I think in reality the effect is the opposite, people go to their closer local shops rather than driving to out of town superstores.0 -
A major threat to the survival of high street shops comes from out of town retail parks that people drive to. I guess the village shops are affected in the same way.0
