[Closed] Forget tuition fees, how expensive is Diesel now

Molgrips - yes easily but it would take a generation or more to make the shift - it cannot be done overnight. It took us 60 years to get here from a situation where most folk lived within easy reach of their work to the mass commuting now.

TJ, you talk about choice, its not always about choice and never as clear cut as how you make out. For some reason the stance you take on this subject winds me up.

TJ, at the present the alterntives are terrible though.
Public transport needs to be run as a public service rather then a profit generating business, before the personal car can be disposed of.

you still don't see it. over a generation - attitudes change - think of the difference between transport in the 50s and now

A link to a lefty website full of moaning and bleating and not a SINGLE suggestion for how to solve anything?

I'll pass on that one thanks.

Oh and no "proof" whatsoever.

Hey who needs facts when you've got TJ's opinions?

Public transport needs to be run as a public service rather then a profit generating business, before the personal car can be disposed of.

Moilgrips - [b]you still don't see it[/b]. over a generation - attitudes change - think of the difference between transport in the 50s and now?

Hey, easy there tiger! I'm not having a go at you, so leave out the criticism of my mental abilities please!

I am looking for discussion on the subject. Like for instance how to help people change their attitudes. I was merely posting a list of the major obstacles as I see them as a starting point.. I don't think that deserves an insult. I very much agree with you about car use in general, like I say.

Over a generation or more it is easy to do this - make private motoring more expensive

That's the simplest solution, and the one with the most flaws. For a start, it penalises people who genuinely need to use cars, and it would have a big negative impact on many people's quality of life (this is important still). Would you take a trip to Glentress or Afan if it cost £50-100 in fuel? Should travelling for leisure be discouraged this way?

Public transport can only go so far - it relies on population density and likely traveller density to be economically feasible (and by that I don't mean profitable).

The way I see it, cars should be available for people, but what we don't need is people spending half their lives in the damn things as now.

Oh and I work from home - the ultimate example of not relying on a car.
Molgrips, preacher of greeness has a very large commute and relies on extremely resource heavy hotels. He also flies a lot. No pious is going to offset that sort of giant footprint.

Christ alive.

You've got a twisted brain Mat.

I don't "preach".

I point things out.

We all need to try and cut down. I try to cut down but I don't always succeed. What's your point? You just having a personal dig? Or am I wrong about needing to cut down?

True, Mol, it's an absolutely crazy situation at present, and there is no simple answer.

si_progressivebikes - Member

things are sooo different now, and we could never go back to how it was...

wanna bet?

peak oil was 2006.

world population blah blah blah, oil production blah blah blah,

Jeepers - the thread gets resurrected after a week and immediately disappears up it's own backside again.

Yes some people Choose to drive when they don't have to. I chose to drive to a decent ride rather than cycle out of the door. Equally, most of my driving is to do with my job (a vet) - I challenge anyone to find me a way to do my job without a car.
Taking a different view, I don't have kids - that's got to reduce my carbon footprint by a huge amount AND I subsidise families everywhere via my taxes. Unfair?

Ok, so that's maybe a little off topic but so's all this ranting about non-drivers subsidising drivers.
The OP is still a valid point - rightly or wrongly fuel prices are rising at an alarming rate, and will continue to, more via taxes than true costs as it's a politically easy resource to milk.

Let's move on to suggestions.

First step for me would be to introduce a tax break for companies and individuals who work at home.

wanna bet?

I'll wager that we don't go back to how it was in the 50's and that we find an alternative given time, and it wont be public transport

I am one of those petrolheads - I love cars. However, I can see the arguments on both sides and I think too many people use cars too much of the time.

It would be far less annoying if the money from these "green" taxes, 'scuse me while I laugh, was actually used to subsidise public transport. I asked Nick Clegg about that too, while I was writing, and basically his was not to woo people out of cars by a cheap public transport alternative, oh no, the idea is to price people out of cars and keep public transport prices the same/higher. That's bloody annoying.

It's not as simple as saying 'Live near your job', that's just not realistic these days with our modern expectations and the way things are farmed/built/supplied/sold. Should we go back to the underpaid country bumpkin leaning on the farm gate sucking a straw and tugging his forelock at rich folk (passing in their cars) who can afford to live in town and thus work there for high wages? No, clearly not, and people do live in the country, far from their job (sometimes) and we can't say they shouldn't.

The people who make the policies have company (government) cars, high salaries and a fuel allowance. The people who pay for the policies are at the other end of the earnings scale and it hurts.

I shall look at those links when I get back from the launderette/shopping (travelling by car!)

molgrips - Member

Let's move on to suggestions.

ok, how about a tax efficient scheme for purchasing bicycles, in the hope that some of them get used for 'transport' rather than leisure.

oh...

Subsidise public transport. Non profit making yet, as Mol suggests economically viable. Routes that could make profit ofset not so popuar routes.

TJ - I lived in rural norfolk for most of my teenage years, my family have lived there for generations (i dont have 6 toes either....). Up untill i was about 12 (about 20 years ago) we did not have a car, we had no need. However, the need became more apparent when it was proving more and more difficult to get the day to day things, thanks to the gradual erosion of local amenities (butchers, bakers, etc) and a transport system to connect them. The current situation is that the local shops are now 9 miles away, with a bus service that runs a bus to the village once at 8 in the morning and once more at 5ish in the evening (might be a bit later). He tried to ride a bike there some years ago, however arthritic joints make holding on to the bars painful/dangerous and he gave up.

Now, your right he could move closer to the local services, but he cant afford too as the prices of housing around the amenities is disproportionate to the rest of the area.

I have no love for cars, generally think the time spent in them is dead time and commute some 30 miles a day by bike, but for many they essential, having lived in Londaon for a while i was amazed at the choice of transport options, but equally puzzeled by many residents opinion that public transport is just as good in the rurla areas (with the exception of the tube obviously). It just isn't.

Mol - if you call someone an idiot, you can expect them to answer back. Or don't you realise that?

And you constantly preach - you jump on every 4x4 thread, you attack every fast car thread, etc, etc. If you worked from home, had no cars and never flew then maybe your arguments would carry a little more weight?

However your first suggestion for what to do is a very good one.

First step for me would be to introduce a tax break for companies and individuals who work at home.

IMO we will all use cars until they are too expensive to do so and or a viable alternative is found. A viable alternative won't be easily available until oil use starts to slow.

just carry on as we are.

oil is running out, prices* will rise, behaviour will change.

(*oil, transport, food, clothes, more or less everything)

if you believe the saudi's and the americans**, there are about 3trillion barrels of oil left to pump out of the ground, we're using 80million barrels a day, that's 100 years of consumption left.

(**and they're totally lying)

almost everyone at my work has a lift-sharing arrangement with a friend or 2, attitude/behaviour is already changing.

i'm an optimist, i'm sure we'll find most of it fairly painless.

rememebers why he avoids car threads and what an utter utter swear word that there surf mnat is - how on earth can you work in PR when you present yourself as such a charmless fop on here?

So any proof for these bold claims?

No, I thought not

Mol - if you call someone an idiot, you can expect them to answer back. Or don't you realise that?

Sure, you can call me an idiot back. But you need rational grounds I'd have thought.

And you constantly preach - you jump on every 4x4 thread, you attack every fast car thread, etc, etc. If you worked from home, had no cars and never flew then maybe your arguments would carry a little more weight?

Does it matter what I do? I'm still right, aren't I? The thing is - this just is not about me or you personally. It's what we all need to do.

I don't think tax incentives work, ut it might be part of the solutuion.

That's why I said 'a first step' not 'the only thing required for a complete and effective solution' 🙂

Second step - nationalise public transport. All of it.

Junkyard - i gave an example above, admittedly im not a "charmless fop" though

It's too late now anyway, but, we could just make fewer journeys by car.

I think 'green' people have frightened 'non green' to an extent, by suggesting that they cycle resolutely on in the teeth of a gale, laden down with shopping, in the dark, frozen, the idea lacks appeal!

How about starting by leaving the car at home on a nice day, for a short journey? Just do a couple of trips by foot/bike a week if you can, encourage your partner/children to do the same.

Oh, just looked at the links TJ, I find Monbiot is initially compelling but insubstantial on closer inspection, so the exchequer receives £x per year directly from the motorist and 'may' pay £x+ to the NHS in lung damage, but how much indirectly from higher productivity? Too vague.

Gosh, I really must go to the launderette. I'll come back later.

clong 8)
Missed it and have just read it
As I said it is easier with a car but not impossible - that not impossible may mean quite difficult - but not having a car is not like not having food,water ,warnth etc . It can be a big pain in the rear and very difficult but not life threatening

"Again, what rubbish, in the 50's would you have been sayng that we should stick to the horse and cart?"

The future is rarely like the present but more so.

Reducing car use is not going backwards. You can not keep on having more people having more cars travelling more.

You can not keep on having more people having more cars travelling more.

Tell that to the Chinese and Indians

Junkyard - you could say that about many things, clothes for example. You don't need clothes to keep warm, but try and live without them....

Mind you, living near the fens there appear to be a few people that have adopted just that kind of lifestyle.

The plus side is the amout of daily mail readers that would implode through indignant rage.

Karinofnine - Member

"Why do people bash car drivers but not folk who live in great big (use lots of resources to heat) look-at-how-much=money-I-earn houses? and folk who crank up the heating so's they can wear a t shirt indoors in the winter? Why aren't they criticised?"

They are. Just not in threads about the price of diesel.

In fact most people need a car. Oh how the naive and self righteous make me giggle.

Let's admit it shall we oh car bashers - you all live in cities, you all have no idea.

Over 80% of the UK population live in urban areas. Of those 80%, probbly around 90% don't ultimately 'need' a car. They just have them because they can. They will then find any excuse to justify having one.

The actual number of people who 'need' cars in the UK is pretty low really.

It's not about being 'sanctimonious' or 'self-righteous', it's about taking responsibility for our actions, and collectively looking at ways we can reduce our consumption of precious resources. Owning a car just because you feel you 'need' it is simply selfish. For the majority of urban dwellers at least, a car is a luxury, nothing else.

We're all hypocrites in some way or another. I have my heating on probably higher than I 'need', because I want to feel comfortable. I concede that's a luxury. Generally though, as I don't drive, am very careful with my energy use otherwise, cycle where I can, use public transport etc, don't fly around the World every year, look after my clothes, bikes, other stuff etc so that I don't replace things needlessly all the time, don't have tellies on all over the house and that, I probbly have a much smaller carbon footprint than a lot of people in the UK. And if everyone did similar to me, then we'd save an awful lot of energy and resources.

But then, if we all lived in mud huts and caves, we'd save even more.

So we need a compromise, but one which suits people's [i]needs[/i], rather than their [i]wants[/i].

I'm offsetting my excessive carbon output with your savings Fred
So please keep up the good work, it's appreciated

For the majority of urban dwellers at least, a car is a luxury, nothing else.

Right. So how much luxury are we allowed? This really is the big question.

Clong - Member

TJ - I lived in rural norfolk ............

I fully accept and understand that that is what has happened. What I want is policies to reverse this trend over a similar time period.

It cannot be reversed overnight. It could in a generation. I will have to in 2 generations.

How would you encourage such reversal?

Elfinsafety - Member
...I probbly have a much smaller carbon footprint than a lot of people in the UK. And if everyone did similar to me, then we'd save an awful lot of energy and resources...

you're consumption of energy and resources is WAAAAY above average, if everyone did similar to you we'd still be using too much.

It's not about being 'sanctimonious' or 'self-righteous' ... if everyone did similar to me, then we'd save an awful lot of energy and resources.

you sir, are hilarious! - well done!

Molgrips. I have said it a zillion times.

slowly rack up the cost of motoring over a 25 year span. This makes commuting less viable. Its commuters that kill local services as they buy the houses but don't use the services and they push up the price of rural housing. Meaning in many parts a two way commuter - rural workers live in the towns and commute to the countryside / villages and urban workers go the other way.

Public transport can be subsidised with the money raised and as private motoring costs rise it also becomes more viable

As transport costs rise and customer base rises ( less commuters) local shops become more viable.

Our way of living has changed massivly in the last 50 years - it will have to do so again in the next 50. We simply cannot afford to use all this energy shifting folk around.

my parents live in the middle of nowhere, just past the back of beyond.
(they consider pickering to be a large busy metropolis)

life without a car really would be quite tricky.

i'm very curious to see what happens to these places as it becomes increasingly hard to manage with rising fuel costs / reduced travel

It'll evolve in whichever way all on it's own anyway, just like it's always done, so just do your own thing & sit back & let it

exactly - good point, well put.

as i said, i'm just curious to see what will happen - i'm not worried about it, just curious.

slowly rack up the cost of motoring over a 25 year span

I don't think that'd be good.

The distribution of jobs and work is not the same as the distribution of people. To make that the case, most people would have to live in a few ginormous cities.

It would also prevent people from enjoying quality leisure time. It'd be like the 1920s again with people staying in their home town all their lives apart from two weeks at the seaside once a year.

I'll not be voting for you in the next election.

You don't need clothes to keep warm, but try and live without them....

I see your point but we have bulit this dependencey because we own cars. Peole think they would die without them but they wont. Clothes - well I need them this time of year but I se eyour point

Molgrips - it is going to happen. Like it or lump it it will happen

Eoither we do it in a controlled manner or we react to circumstances. In 50 years time there will not be the oil to power cars.

Anyway it does not mean what you say. Towns and villages could easily be viable. People either work via the net or near their home or commute by train / bus.

MOlgrips - you cannot adopt a green ethos and think we can continue as we are. Our current lifestyle is unsustainable

I know it will happen, but it'll only end up in political unrest unless steps are taken to wean us off car dependency by means other than brute force.

MOlgrips - you cannot adopt a green ethos and think we can continue as we are. Our current lifestyle is unsustainable

You're really not reading carefully. I've been saying for years that the current setup is unstainable. I hate this aspect of modern society, and dearly wish it were otherwise.

I am not arguing against change, what I am arguing against is your idea of how to make it work.

I'm surprised that a leftie such as yourself (not an insult) seems to have such faith in the free market. I do not, which is why I favour intervention.

I am no0t of the left as you have been told many times.

I am a pragmatist. Of course it will need a lot of policies to make it happen but you need a driving force and financial is easiest. Fart easier than attempting to alter people behaviour by de#cree.

TJ - Bang on. I think the cost of motoring is starting to rise, slowly but surely. For instance, my first car was a 3.5ltr petrol guzzler. If i got more than 20mpg, i'd be surprised. And yet i could afford to run it then, whilst now, despite now earning many multiples of my salary then i ceratinly couldn't afford it now. The VED has changed, which i think is a bit of a con linking it to emissions, but ultimately its is more expensive for the average joe. The price rises may not be crippling at present, but the infrastructure is in place to make it so. The polices may not be upfront, but i believe its happening at a very sublte level. For instance, in a very general way that more people are commuting by bike, im seeing more on the roads, particulary in the summer. More people are looking at diesels, rather than petrol cars (which is a bit of a false ecomomy) but at least poeple are thinking about it. 20 years ago, and i'm willing to bet that the MPG of a car wasn't at the forefront of most peoples minds, but now.....How many people are having ask themselves wether a hour commute by car is really worth it (theres been a few threads on here i believe). Most teenagers now buzz around on mopeds/scooters, i cant think of any of my freinds during school that used scooters.

As you said the change can't happen overnight, it took gererations to build this dependancy, it will take the same to remove it. Remove the car over night and people such as my dad mentioned above will have a very tough time indeed.

Junkyard - Dammit, given the game away. Oh well, now you know, could you leave the light next time, night vision goggles are dammed uncomfortable, Ta.

Hey, I'm a pragmatist too!

Of course it will need a lot of policies to make it happen but you need a driving force and financial is easiest

But cruellest. By beating people with a financial stick you end up with a lot of people being very miserable straining to live on the breadline.

Plus people will just use the ballot box to bring down the cost of motoring (when it becomes a serious issue) and then you'll not get anywhere.

More people are looking at diesels, rather than petrol cars (which is a bit of a false ecomomy)

Not in CO2 terms it's not. At least, possibly not.

Bear in mind it only took maybe two generations to get like this. Maybe even only one. There's a lot govts could do RIGHT NOW to take a lot of traffic off the road without harming the economy, and I don't know why they aren't. Seems like an easy win if you ask me.

The [u]true total cost[/u] of motoring is far more than is raised thru all the motoring taxes. Thus non car owners subsidise car owners ( and road transport in general)

Hahahahahha! yeah, just make it up why don't you TJ - no figures as usual, just made up etheral feelings of "well, if you include the cost to then NHS of obesity caused by motoring then its more expensive" which of course ignores the value of a commerce and transportation structure brought about by car ownership, for example if you offset the value of tourism from mountainbiking to rural communities, which realistically would be impossible without car ownership, then any calculations of "real cost" become so wildly inaccurate and "fag packet" as to be impossible.

to put it in proportion, the govt reckons they'll raise 26 billion quid with a further £4 billion from the VAT on top of that (HMRC figures), plus the VAT on car sales, and licence funds, etc... thats over ten percent of ALL tax revenues, by way of comparison the govt spend about 6 billion on roads and repairs, not a bad deal really!

People either work via the net or near their home or commute by train / bus.

Yeah, I'm sure that the NHS is going to continue to function on that basis... TJ in townie with no understanding of country ways outside of his little Edinburgh inner city bubble shocker (by the way, hows that Tram system working out TJ? - whats the current "real" cost of that?)

Can I ask why almost all the urbanite STWers here that preach on and on take part in mountain biking? Surely it's a waste of resources to go all that way for no reason other than leisure. What selfish sods you all are.

Junkyard - your vitriol is like acid. You get so damn uppity and resort to insults that something must be sorely wrong. For that. I'm sorry and I hope it doesn't spoil your Christmas too much.

Just drove to the beach (SHOCK HORROR WE DIDN'T NEED TO), had a lush cliff run with the dog (DO WE REALLY NEED A DOG?) in the sun (HEY - I BURNT UP VALUABLE AIR), then lunch at a beachside bar (WE SHOULD HAVE HUNTED OUR OWN BURGERS) with the family. Utterly lovely.

I can tell many of you are feeling a bit cooped up in the snow. No need to take it out on others.

Hey when cars stop being viable, we'll just adapt. Hardly a tragedy. For now cars are about 234534345345 times more viable than public transport for those who don't live in some stinking, overcrowded city where it would appear getting "sanctimonious" tattooed to yourself is mandatory.

No wonder some of you get so uppity.

You've answered your own question there molgrips, its all to do with the ballot box. Thanks to the gutter press, the impression given is that the motorist is targeted as a cash cow and is hard done by, any direct measures that openly targeted motorists would be seen as another attack on the motorist. Since most of the voters are motorists, that would easily sway the ballot box come voting time. For the same reason, i doubt we will see a constructive policy on reducing car use from any goverment, at least not one that is long lived (Goverment or policy).

Mat, turn it down a bit for christ's sake. We're trying to have a proper discussion so wipe the foam from your mouth.

Honestly, the stuff you are writing right now is pointless garbage.

Right, Clong. Which is why being encouraged to work at home with incentives would help a lot. Many people would love to get rid of their nasty commutes, they'd save money, spend more time with their family and be all the happier for it.

It's not going to clear the roads of cars but it's a start.

What Mol, because we don't all agree with the endless waffle you spout?

No of course not...

Do I tell you to stop posting when you talk BS? No. Yet you feel qualified to have a go at me.

You are hypocritical beyond comparison.

Junkyard - your vitriol is like acid. You get so damn uppity and resort to insults that something must be sorely wrong. For that. I'm sorry and I hope it doesn't spoil your Christmas too much

I just occasionally wish you could answer a direct question. Alas your awesomeness has declined once more it is like you cannot back up what you say without rather tired and cliched insults.

What Mol, because [b]we[/b] don't all agree with the endless waffle you spout

I'm not a hypocrite at all, you just don't understand what I am trying to say.

Your post was just angry insults, which is why I said it was garbage. Not all your posts are, but that one was. Seriously, I could not find anything in it that contributed to the discussion.

Yet you feel qualified to have a go at me

Criticising your post, not you!

I just occasionally wish you could answer a direct question. Alas your awesomeness has declined once more it is like you cannot back up what you say without rather tired and cliched insults.

Ooh sorry, did I not grace you with enough attention to answer your question? Hey I was so disinterested in your little spat that I didn't even notice a question. Sorry Junkyard, my life does not revolve around answering to your every bitter little swipe. You've got it real bad, I simply don't give a stuff.

Now there's something for you to froth over while you pen your next barrage of abuse.

Mol - now you are someone that has a bit of sense, a certain grounded nature. My post was in response to the laughably idealistic goons on STW; the ones who simply lack a single ounce of realism and while preaching to everyone they can, probably cause as much, if not more environmental "crime" than those of a more realistic standing.

And I enjoyed writing it, even if no one else appreciated it 😉

Good point molgrips, a step in the right direction for sure. Its something that is encouruaged at my wifes work (Enviroment agency), but not mine (Multinational Oil company) despite a majority of my work easlily carried out at home. Again, there might be a generation thing, my bosses are mostly old school and tend to frown on home working, despite having the ability and the specific budget to allow people to do this. Maybe its the companies that are resisting the initiative to move to home working?

I feel like a adult having to have a parent to parent conversation over shouty kids. Play nice or i'll tell you father when he gets in, then there will be trouble...

"Mat, turn it down a bit for christ's sake."

+1 (and I've not contributed yet to this thread).

I think an important but subtle change that is very important is to shift the culture in this country that someone is somehow superior if they're in a car and second or third class if on a bike / public transport / or on foot. There are a lots of these unspoken attitudes - eg those cycle lanes that give way to every little road, pavement parking, general attitude of cars etc etc. In say Holland or Germany you really notice how non-car drivers are treated as equals. I do believe that these attitudes here need to change before we get anywhere; this odd car superiority thing (so beloved of The Daily Mail and that twunt in The Times who was banging on about knocking cyclists off their bikes) is a strange sign of insecurity to me.

OK I'm done. Carry on ranting, Mat!

Sorry folks, incentives aren't enough to win the battle against congestion. Any Social Marketer will tell you that behaviour change using incentives will only hit about 10 - 15% of the population. You can see this with the current anti-obesity campaigns, people are still getting fat... ...people are still driving silly distances despite the benefits to business of flexi and home working being tangible and the cost/benefit analysis being relatively simple to work out.

Nope, the only way you'll get folk out of their cages is by using financial penalties, either through higher fuel prices, higher parking prices or higher VED/insurance. History has taught us this with smoking, it's ridiculously expensive to by a pack of 20 fags now, so people have started to quit in more significant numbers.

Social Marketing does work, but you need sticks 'cos the carrots alone won't work in the kind of quantities we need them to.

Is there something in the Cornish water that makes those who live there a bit paranoid? s_m - you really do take things to heart don't you and get awesomely aggressive when your lifestyle choices are questioned.
Anyway I broadly agree with TJ, I own a car, I don't need to I don't use it very often. quite a few people I know are uterly dependent upon their cars to the point where they'll drive 300m to go to the shops and be surprised that I'll have walked there, been served and got back home before them. All those moaning about having to drive for 50 miles to get to work, it's only because you choose to drive that you have to do that journey so stop moaning.

Sorry folks, incentives aren't enough to win the battle against congestion

Depends on the incentive. You could give the incentives to employers - they are often pretty switched on about their bottom line, and they HATE paying corporation tax. Corporation tax linked to proportion of permanent office workers perhaps?

History has taught us this with smoking

Not sure it has to be honest. In many cases people still smoke so the high cost of fags just takes up money that could be spend on their kids or good food etc etc.

you really do take things to heart don't you and get awesomely aggressive when your lifestyle choices are questioned.

Yeah and I'm not even questioning his lifestyle choices this time.. merely the quality of his posts 🙂

oh deary me mat you joined a discussion forum then won’t answer reasonable questions but you have the time to insult people instead

your next barrage of abuse

Depends on the incentive. You could give the incentives to employers - they are often pretty switched on about their bottom line, and they HATE paying corporation tax. Corporation tax linked to proportion of permanent office workers perhaps?

The incentives are already there. The money can be saved if employers trusted their workforce and took the time to look into the savings to be made. 40p a mile is a lot of money when the meeting could've been done via a conference call (to pick a rather trite example), multiply that by the millions of business miles being carried out and that's significant savings. Govt. interventive and tax breaks aren't even necessary!

Not sure it has to be honest. In many cases people still smoke so the high cost of fags just takes up money that could be spend on their kids or good food etc etc.

The exception that proves the rule! (always loved that oxymoron, assuming it is one!)

Seriously though, I think on a population level it is accurate.

Let's admit it shall we oh car bashers - you all live in cities, you all have no idea. And why the hell do you mountain bike anyway? Think of all the resources you waste pursuing what is merely a LIFESTYLE CHOICE.

Well first I do live in a rural area. Second I do mountain bike because I like it. But then I use my bike for some shopping and I did commute to work using bike + Train.

But then maybe I am not looking at things the way they are. If I was to be as awesome as you (world champ in surf/triathlon/streetfighting) maybe I would actually reduce CO2 by driving my car. You mum doesn't need a car. She is just trying to justify her lifestyle one way or another. Maybe she could have less client but use a different form of transport to visit then. Maybe she could just reduce the number of people she is visiting full stop. She could re-train and do something else.

Bash him as much as you want but TJ is right in one thing. Owning a car is very cheap, and people have built a lifestyle around it.

People are not looking to live close to work anymore. They all find a 50 minute drive as a commute acceptable. Well fair enough, but then as you choose your lifestyle according to the car well assume all the choices, including the rising prices of petrol/diesel.

One problem is that human being is selfish and lazy, everyone is willing to do something for the planet as far as it doesn't changes their nice little comfort. Then when faced with the inevitable truth, very few keep a stiff upper lips bite the bullet and accept it. Most are looking for lame excuses to justify the lifestyle they have build around a car.

Mat SUV is a god example, as he apparently need one to tow is boat. Because obviously he can't keep the boat in a harbour/marina as boat are well know to sink if kept in the water too much.

But hey what would i know this is STW after all 😉

Why are some people so quick to assume that anyone who suggests gridlocked town centres and commutes measured in hours are not great ideas is advocating going back to the horse and cart?

The car-centred society we have now is bad in many ways, not to mention unsustainable. Unfortunately it's coupled to many different things (house prices, dual income families, the decline of local infrastructure etc etc.) so pulling the rug out overnight is clearly not on.

But there's a lot of middle ground in there and that's where change will happen, not at the extremes- there's no need to ignore that by getting all defensive.

I do agree with Peyote in that I think change will have to be (gently) forced on people though to get the ball rolling.

I doubt I can compete with the nonsense you just spouted to be fair but I have little need to compete. You are spectacularly unaware of how you present yourself on here and to think you do all this and work in PR.

Hey would you like to use that little PR line again? Are you upset I've ignored it? Hey yes I do work in PR - and it's a pretty successful business. Does this somehow upset you? I suspect it does.

Something's up with you Junkyard. You seem to like "stalking" me - you jump on almost everything I post. You insult me. You get upset when I don't answer your ranting moans. Come on, you are just attention seeking aren't you? Well you'll have to latch onto someone else.

This is a forum where people can CHOOSE what they respond to and what they ignore. 95% of your posts just make my eyes glaze over and I simply cannot be bothered to respond. The occasional post is slightly interesting.

You're boring Junkyard. Don't try and hide that by trying to appear "controversial."

As for Juan - a lost cause. Your post is so stupid and so full of complete lunacy that I will not even bother to respond.

Why are some people so quick to assume that anyone who suggests gridlocked town centres and commutes measured in hours are not great ideas is advocating going back to the horse and cart?

It's called a [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man ]straw man argument[/url] and is very popular on internet forums 🙂 And in life actually - so much so that I don't think people realise they are doing it and how ridiculous they are being. It's how arguments degenerate quickly into slanging matches, because to build a straw man for someone's position is to insult that position. My sister used to do it all the time when I argued with her and it drove me bloody bonkers 🙁

That was a bit of a rhetorical question 🙂

To say that Surf_Mat mums car is a lifestyle choice is a bit of an oversimplification of the problem. The increased use of the car has allowed poeple to scatter far and wide, If you were deny the use of a car to poeple such as care nurse who go out on visits, you going see a lot of suffering and i dont mean not having someone to open a jar of picles for them when they need it. The commnuity spirit has long been lost, so you cant say "change your job" as someone would need to step in. Course you could move the poeple closer to the support, but thats feels/sounds a bit draconian.

mat are you paranoid *? tbh I have said little to you in the last few months iirc - do you have an excel spreadsheet where you keep count?
Ignoring me would be much more convincing argument if you did not keep replying 🙄 Yes you can choose to ignore me but you choose to ignore the question and then isnult me instead which does not reflect well on you. You keep doing this insult and they are not getting any better and I am still not trying to compete with them
I would clam down if I were you

* I missed delusional "stalking" you oh get a grip like I care enough what anyone says on here to track them. Mat that is realy rather tragic that you think you are that important that someone would do that.

Have the thread back people I am sure mat is big enough to walk away and leave the thread alone now as well

you're consumption of energy and resources is WAAAAY above average, if everyone did similar to you we'd still be using too much.

In global terms, definitely, but in UK terms, I'm actually consuming a lot less than the average person. Still some way to go though. I accept that.

[b]It's not about being 'sanctimonious' or 'self-righteous' ... if everyone did similar to me, then we'd save an awful lot of energy and resources.[/b]

you sir, are hilarious! - well done!

No you see what you've done is try to look clever by making me look silly but you've employed a sort of selective deafness, then taken my comments out of context, therefore you fail.

As a relatively low consumer of energy and resources,if everyone in the UK consumed only as much as me, then our collective consumption would be a lot lower. It's not sanctimony, it's just fact. Of course, this would mean that no-one drove cars or anything, and our society would collapse. I accept this. It's simply not viable as things stand. But we do all need to collectively look at ways to reduce out energy consumption.

Or we can bury our heads in the sand then our grandchildren will be fighting wars over stuff like clean water and that.

Not actually interested in the rest of this argument because it's silly and I'm right anyway. It's good to be right; saves an awful lot of unnecessary stress and bother. 🙂

Absolutely no problem with nurses driving around to visit people, it would be stupid to complain about that. Likewise no problem with people driving short distances in a truck to get their boat out or whatever.

But those things are clearly not the same as couples taking jobs 200 miles apart*, commuting from London to a chalet in the Alps or using a Range Rover for their 15k/year daily commuter.

* This is a thorny issue as the jobs in question may represent people's chance at things they really want very deeply. Cutting people off from their dreams is a pretty drastic thing to do.

As for Juan - a lost cause. Your post is so stupid and so full of complete lunacy that I will not even bother to respond.

Then I'm afraid you lose. Sorry, but there it is. The facts can't lie.

I don't make the rules, I merely remind others what they are.

Junkyard - it's a deal.

Mol - excellent post.

Your post is so stupid and so full of complete lunacy that I will not even bother to respond.

There's two views being expressed here and both are too simplistic.

Juan, Elfin and TJ's "no cars ever" (though Elfin is taking the softer "no cars in teh city" approach)- the world has changed. The economy depends on people being able to travel distances and rural communities especially are let down by modern bus services and rail networks where they used to be provided for. We do need less cars on the road but not a total eradication. They are a bit of a luxury, but so's central heating and the internet. Can you imagine what the world would do without the internet these days? It's the same with the car whether you like it or not I'm afraid.

The car heads- we don't need to depend on cars for everything, but the answer isn't carrying on as normal. We need to accept alternative lower emission fuels such as hydrogen fuel cell. While we've not reached peak oil yet as previously claimed we aren't far off it and constantly burning oil that we will need for plastics in the future isn't a great idea, regardless of your opinion on "green" lifestyles. And we do need better public transport so the majority of people in towns of a medium size (Huddersfield, Dumfries, Swansea) do have a genuine alternative to the car for day-to-day use.

So, yes, we do need cars in the modern world, and we can't go back, but we need to change how they work to sort out the problems associated with them.

Elfin and TJ's "no cars ever" (though Elfin is taking the softer "no cars in teh city" approach)

No I'm not. Again, my comments are taken out of context. I'm simply saying too many people use cars unnecessarily.

We live in a reasonably free society, therefore it's up to individuals to make choices and that. But don't blame someone else when it is in fact you yourself who are part of the problem too. We all are. Hence the need for collective efforts to decrease our consumption.

Spokes - If that was what I had said. You could start by actually reading

it will take a generation to remove the dependence on the car. It will have to be done. The days of cheap energy are going fast. Make commuting non viable, invest in public transport.

Surf matt - you really are a horses arse. classic bluster from the stupid and selfish. Beneath contempt. Ignorant, stupid, selfish

Jeremy- we don't have to lose dependance on the car, just the oil that fuels it.

Yes we do spokes - we simply will not have the cheapo energy in the future. Energy will become expensive and scarce. Moving vast numbers of people around individually is a huge waste of energy that we will not have.

Zulu - I'll just come back to you on one thing. What about the rest of the costs of motoring you forgot in your analysis. From the cost of enforcing motoring law to the cost of the thousands of dead and injured to the costs of local roads to the cost of ill health from pollution to the cost of - oh you get the point. Or rather yo won't as usual.

*adds surfmatt to ignore list*

Surf matt - you really are a horses arse. classic bluster from the stupid and selfish. Beneath contempt. Ignorant, stupid, selfish

Still worth six insults though eh?

Still if it makes you feel better oh lord of "opinion backed up by zero facts" (you've just spouted more nonsense with nothing to back it up) then do carry on.

*adds TJ to the "just leave him be dear, he's just a bit confused" list.