Fuel costs
Comments
-
So, are you suggesting people don't drive to high street shops?0
-
yeehaamcgee wrote:So, are you suggesting people don't drive to high street shops?
People drive everywhere. I drive to my high street shops, despite the fact that they're only a mile away. I could easily walk. And if diesel prices keep going up, I'll probably start. Which would be a good thing, yes?0 -
No0
-
In my case, the highstreet is roughly 7 miles away. And I'm not far away from the main towns here. There are one hell of a lot of people living further away. THEY, are getting slammed, basically, every time they leave their house.rhext wrote:yeehaamcgee wrote:So, are you suggesting people don't drive to high street shops?
People drive everywhere. I drive to my high street shops, despite the fact that they're only a mile away. I could easily walk. And if diesel prices keep going up, I'll probably start. Which would be a good thing, yes?0 -
alfablue wrote:No
Well, it would free up one parking space, and there would be one fewer car queuing at the traffic lights. It would also reduce demand (albeit fractionally) for fuel and reduced demand => reduced price. So while me doing it would have no effect generally, if a million people decided to do it then maybe the answer's different.
Increased fuel prices have had a noticeable effect on congestion on my morning commute. That certainly feels like a good thing to me!0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:
In my case, the highstreet is roughly 7 miles away. And I'm not far away from the main towns here. There are one hell of a lot of people living further away. THEY, are getting slammed, basically, every time they leave their house.rhext wrote:yeehaamcgee wrote:So, are you suggesting people don't drive to high street shops?
People drive everywhere. I drive to my high street shops, despite the fact that they're only a mile away. I could easily walk. And if diesel prices keep going up, I'll probably start. Which would be a good thing, yes?
Unlucky! They could move.0 -
rhext wrote:yeehaamcgee wrote:
In my case, the highstreet is roughly 7 miles away. And I'm not far away from the main towns here. There are one hell of a lot of people living further away. THEY, are getting slammed, basically, every time they leave their house.rhext wrote:yeehaamcgee wrote:So, are you suggesting people don't drive to high street shops?
People drive everywhere. I drive to my high street shops, despite the fact that they're only a mile away. I could easily walk. And if diesel prices keep going up, I'll probably start. Which would be a good thing, yes?
Unlucky! They could move.
great argument...well done........
i was actually enjoying reading this thread, there's some quite good arguments on boths sides and then you pipe up with that utter turd :roll:0 -
Has anyone looked at these.
www.deverdenorthwales.co.uk
They guarantee a 20% increase in MPG or your money back. I have had it done and got a 35% increase. Works on petrol, diesel and LPG cars.
Apparently the way it works is that it increases the efficiency of the engine to burn all of the fuel you inject into the system, rather than some of it being sent straight out of the exhaust (hence reason for CATs and EGRs)
Have a look and see what you think. It worked for me and many other (by all accounts)0 -
Gizmokev, that looks very promising indeed!0
-
Worked for me.....a geat improvement and well over the 20% they guarantee. Add to that they say virtually no emissions (so I save the polar bears) and improved engine performance (you can feel it immediately) I cant say it was a bad decision in any respect to go for it.
My thoughts were what have I got to lose....if it dont work I get my money back....if it does then I am saving money....win win situation as far as I could see.0 -
welshkev wrote:rhext wrote:yeehaamcgee wrote:
In my case, the highstreet is roughly 7 miles away. And I'm not far away from the main towns here. There are one hell of a lot of people living further away. THEY, are getting slammed, basically, every time they leave their house.rhext wrote:yeehaamcgee wrote:So, are you suggesting people don't drive to high street shops?
People drive everywhere. I drive to my high street shops, despite the fact that they're only a mile away. I could easily walk. And if diesel prices keep going up, I'll probably start. Which would be a good thing, yes?
Unlucky! They could move.
great argument...well done........
i was actually enjoying reading this thread, there's some quite good arguments on boths sides and then you pipe up with that utter turd :roll:
There is a serious point underneath it. If I were living in a large house which I could no longer afford to maintain, I suspect there'd be a lot more support for the 'unlucky, you should move' line. But if I live in a remote house from which I can no longer afford to travel, that's somehow different.
I strongly believe that we're entering a transition period where we're going to have to move from a fossil-fuel based energy supply to a much more diverse one. That transition is going to be difficult and expensive, and all we're seeing at the moment is just the first stages. In most cases, there's loads of things you can do to reduce your energy consumption - maybe better to start thinking about that now than carping about how it's all too expensive and 'the guvverment' should just sort it all out for you.0 -
Was gonna, say i've never lived near a town center or local shops, alot of the country don't.
I see the people argueing for public transport are generally the people in bigger cities, where it is easy to get around with out a car, but if your not in the city this is not the case.
And Bails intagible means you can't put a real value on it ,intagible assets like goodwil for us accounts types. So most of the costs you were saying were intagible as you can say they have a cost but you can't really put a direct cost to, so as Yee said there head inthe air figures, and to be honest they look like crap pulled out of the air, because i bet the goverment can not support them in any single true way.
Simple fact is public transport outside of cities is pretty unreliable and unusuable for any thing you have to reliably turn up for. so it's not a clear option of use. I agree to many people use there cars when they shouldn't but alot don't and you can not punish the majority of responsible people for the minority of fatties.
Simply at the moment we pay for people to have babies, we give free housign left right and center, and until things like this are resolved the idea of fuel Taz as it is, is really a bit silly.0 -
just to start, i myself am not carping on about anything. i've actually done quite a few confrences where people have openly said they're out to basically make driving too expensive so people have to take public transport/walk/whatever but that's a different story.
see, you put yourself across far more intelligently there than just - unlucky, move!! - i'm not sure where you live but for the likes of me and yeehaa nearly everyone lives out of town...yes my nearest shop is walking distance, but my job is 34 miles away...it's really not an acceptable alternative to just say "move". i like where i live, it's near the hills where i can quite happily ride my bike, it's near my family, my son has friends here and a good school lined up...at the moment, i can afford to travel when i want but i may see this change, who knows? perhaps an alien race will deliver us some new technology to power our hoverboards or something?
0 -
Snake oil. Note no actual scientific proof, independent dyno tests (or any for that matter), just promises and platitudes.Gizmokev wrote:Has anyone looked at these.
www.deverdenorthwales.co.uk
They guarantee a 20% increase in MPG or your money back. I have had it done and got a 35% increase. Works on petrol, diesel and LPG cars.
Apparently the way it works is that it increases the efficiency of the engine to burn all of the fuel you inject into the system, rather than some of it being sent straight out of the exhaust (hence reason for CATs and EGRs)
Have a look and see what you think. It worked for me and many other (by all accounts)
Would breach the first law of thermodynamics (ie will take as much energy to crack water as you could get from the H).
These 'systems' have been around for years under different names.
Some info:
Not scientific but correct non the less http://www.cracked.com/article_16484_6- ... ng_p2.html
Bit more scientific - http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho.shtml
Pretty scientific - http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho_scam.shtml
Some equations - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_waterI don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
I have a feeling that the government accept that things need to be a painful at the moment, because without that, people won't change their behaviours.
I own a 2.2 litre which does about 35 mpg. If fuel prices were the same as they were 5 years ago, I'd probably replace it for another similar. As things are, I'll almost certainly replace it for one which does 60mpg. I already use it a lot less today than I did three years ago.
The problem is that if the government tries to protect people now, then if the energy prices do continue to rise eventually we'll get to a point where they can't. And the adjustment we'd need to make at that point would be even more painful than we're finding it at the moment.
They do need to find a way of recovering excess profits from the oil companies though, because they're raking it in at the moment......maybe they could use that to reduce VAT or income tax or something.0 -
we just had a reduction in basic level income tax, we all get a bit mroe tax free thank you very much
And VAT doesn't hit as badly as you think, For most food and so on there is no VAT. And anyone who tries to tell me an increase in VAT will increase the shipping costs for food and so i will poke you in the eye.
And the fuel companies are international not national so making them pay isn't really an option hugely bar there corp tax returns... We all know that things have to be painful at the moment, due to the terrible wellfare state we have giving alot people summat for nothing. But cut back the wellfare state! there isnt enough housing close to peoples work placing for everyone to live close enough to work to cycle or use the public transport system.0 -
Thewaylander wrote:we just had a reduction in basic level income tax, we all get a bit mroe tax free thank you very much
And VAT doesn't hit as badly as you think, For most food and so on there is no VAT. And anyone who tries to tell me an increase in VAT will increase the shipping costs for food and so i will poke you in the eye.
And the fuel companies are international not national so making them pay isn't really an option hugely bar there corp tax returns... We all know that things have to be painful at the moment, due to the terrible wellfare state we have giving alot people summat for nothing. But cut back the wellfare state! there isnt enough housing close to peoples work placing for everyone to live close enough to work to cycle or use the public transport system.
Fossil fuel is a finite natural resource of which we already consume far more than our share. But now the rest of the world want to drive to work too, and are developing the financial muscle to compete with us. If you were in government, how would you prepare us for a world in which 500m Chinese and Indian households also can't think of a way of getting to work without driving there - and there's maybe enough fuel for half of them to do so.....
You're saying that as a society, we don't have the capability or imagination to get people around unless each is accompanied by a tonne of steel. That's just rubbish. The transition is going to be painful, but that doesn't mean we don't need to do it.0 -
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.
So it's a tax on driving a car on the road. It's not a tax on using the road.0 -
No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying RIGHT NOW, there are no workable alternatives available. So you're not forcing people to abandon their cars, you're forcing them into debt.rhext wrote:You're saying that as a society, we don't have the capability or imagination to get people around unless each is accompanied by a tonne of steel.0 -
bails87 wrote:
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.
I don't see how anyone can disagree with this. The fact that a lot of people are a long way away form their nearest supermarket/train station/work/
whatever doesn't change the fact that a lot of people aren't, and an awful lot of them could be doing something different.0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:
No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying RIGHT NOW, there are no workable alternatives available. So you're not forcing people to abandon their cars, you're forcing them into debt.rhext wrote:You're saying that as a society, we don't have the capability or imagination to get people around unless each is accompanied by a tonne of steel.
It's not as simple as that though. Alternatives are there: more efficient cars, journeys that you can take using public transport etc. They're just not very attractive to people, which means they're low volume, which means they're inefficient. It's almost catch-22: people won't switch until there's a 'workable' alternative, but the 'workable' alternatives are all either too expensive or too inconvenient until loads of people start using them. Increasing fuel prices helps to change the balance. If more people find themselves forced to use busses, bus company profits rise, and it's worth re-investing those profits in putting on more busses because more people want to use them. But if you protect people from the effects of rising prices, they'll just carry on doing what they find comfortable and nothing will change. Until we reach a point where for whatever reason it's impractical to continue sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that fossil fuel supply will always match demand. And then it gets ugly pretty quickly.0 -
No, busses are not a workable alternative. A buss ticket round here, for example, costs more than a car journey does, takes five times as long, and you lose the ability to carry your luggage, or travel when you want to.
They also only cover certain routes, so you're left with a few miles to walk. Not ideal if you have kids, shopping, the weather's horrendous, etc.
People WILL NOT sacrifice their standard of living for things. Solutions need to be found that fit around people's current expectations of comfort and convenience.0 -
rhext wrote:Thewaylander wrote:we just had a reduction in basic level income tax, we all get a bit mroe tax free thank you very much
And VAT doesn't hit as badly as you think, For most food and so on there is no VAT. And anyone who tries to tell me an increase in VAT will increase the shipping costs for food and so i will poke you in the eye.
And the fuel companies are international not national so making them pay isn't really an option hugely bar there corp tax returns... We all know that things have to be painful at the moment, due to the terrible wellfare state we have giving alot people summat for nothing. But cut back the wellfare state! there isnt enough housing close to peoples work placing for everyone to live close enough to work to cycle or use the public transport system.
Fossil fuel is a finite natural resource of which we already consume far more than our share. But now the rest of the world want to drive to work too, and are developing the financial muscle to compete with us. If you were in government, how would you prepare us for a world in which 500m Chinese and Indian households also can't think of a way of getting to work without driving there - and there's maybe enough fuel for half of them to do so.....
You're saying that as a society, we don't have the capability or imagination to get people around unless each is accompanied by a tonne of steel. That's just rubbish. The transition is going to be painful, but that doesn't mean we don't need to do it.
We do need to do it, We are making progress on the power front as I'm well aware being in the industry thank you
But as for public transport I don't think we have the drive or care as a nation to come up with another way. How many alternatives have you seen? I mean we have failed at a solid rail service for the last 100+ years so thats not really very good.
Electric cars for commuting i can see happening expecially with the new preposed smart grids. But as for a long distance transport there just not functional.
The human race in numbers is almost incapable of change stick 3 people in a room ask for decision you may get one, put 100 people in a room watch the chaos.0 -
This is why I believe that fuel cell cars, or a very similar technology is the way forward. People don't need to change their ways, they still drive their car as normal, and when it runs low on gas, they go to a filling station, and fill it up.Thewaylander wrote:Electric cars for commuting i can see happening expecially with the new preposed smart grids. But as for a long distance transport there just not functional.
If there's no change to their behaviour required, there will be little opposition.0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:No, busses are not a workable alternative. A buss ticket round here, for example, costs more than a car journey does, takes five times as long, and you lose the ability to carry your luggage, or travel when you want to.
They also only cover certain routes, so you're left with a few miles to walk. Not ideal if you have kids, shopping, the weather's horrendous, etc.
People WILL NOT sacrifice their standard of living for things. Solutions need to be found that fit around people's current expectations of comfort and convenience.
But people's current expectation is that they walk 10 yards to a car, climb in it, and drive anywhere that they like. If there's not enough fuel for everyone who wants and can afford to do that, there comes a point where people have to change.
I think that most of the solutions are there, but they're not very attractive primarily because not enough people are using them. The more people use them the better and cheaper they'll be. As people are forced from one to the other, initially it's going to be uncomfortable. My position is that change is inevitable and that it's better to do it sooner and gradually than later and explosively.
Perhaps the government could step in to subsidise services which are inherently inefficient until enough people start to use them that they become attractive. Oh, hold on though, that would require that we pay more tax to subsidise inefficient state intervention, and apparently we already do far too much of that......0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:
This is why I believe that fuel cell cars, or a very similar technology is the way forward. People don't need to change their ways, they still drive their car as normal, and when it runs low on gas, they go to a filling station, and fill it up.Thewaylander wrote:Electric cars for commuting i can see happening expecially with the new preposed smart grids. But as for a long distance transport there just not functional.
If there's no change to their behaviour required, there will be little opposition.
I agree. Now then, how do we encourage everyone to go out and buy one, do you think?0 -
Thewaylander wrote:But as for public transport I don't think we have the drive or care as a nation to come up with another way. How many alternatives have you seen? I mean we have failed at a solid rail service for the last 100+ years so thats not really very good.
Electric cars for commuting i can see happening expecially with the new preposed smart grids. But as for a long distance transport there just not functional.
The human race in numbers is almost incapable of change stick 3 people in a room ask for decision you may get one, put 100 people in a room watch the chaos.
I agree with this too. Similar question: how do you think we could start to instill the necessary drive into the nation?0 -
Well, first of all, we could really do with a government that had the balls to back a hydrogen infrastructure NOW, instead of spending money on such things as (for example) nuclear arms.
No point buying Hydrogen cars until we can actually fill them.0 -
No, they're not attractive because people have to sacrifice what they have come to expect as "normal" expectations, in order to use them. They have to decide to reduce their standard of living, which, as a while, people don't, and won't do.rhext wrote:I think that most of the solutions are there, but they're not very attractive primarily because not enough people are using them.0
