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

Why do people bash car drivers but not folk who ... etc.

because people are stupid.

very, very stupid.

Because car driving involves such conspicuous consumption, allows people to be selfish, showcases such displays of impatience and antisocial behaviour? And costs the non car driving folk thousands a year to subsidise?

What about working? I can't work without a vehicle!!

What do you do that requires you to use a vehicle to work?

What do you do that requires you to use a vehicle to work?

What a ridiculous question.

Here's a starter for 10 - my mum is a Community nurse. With no car, she can't get to people that need daily help.

That's one of MANY jobs that NEED a car.

Get over yourself surf matt.

I merely asked Edric a civil question. What does HE do that requires a car.

Most people who say they need a car for work actually choose one as a result of lifestyle choices.

Of course their are exceptions.

I'm with fbk on this one, I'm self employed and do about 30-40k a year so it really hurts the finances when it goes up. So much for helping small business when it seems so easy to raise revenue via fuel

Here's a starter for 10 - my mum is a Community nurse. With no car, she can't get to people that need daily help.

TJ, I don't know what you mean about non car owners subsidising car owners. Can you explain please?

Oh, my friend is a kitchen fitter. He is a big strong lad, but couldn't possibly get his tools to work without his van.

What, and a massive house is not conspicuous consumption? (arrogant and the other things you said?

Dunno maybe bus/cycle/train? Maybe she doesn't NEED to OWN a car. I know a bloke who's a nurse and who goers to people (mainly older) to take car of them.

Try that in rural Cornwall. 😆 😆

She DOES NEED to own a car.

As do many people in rural areas. 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. And why the hell do you mountain bike anyway? Think of all the resources you waste pursuing what is merely a LIFESTYLE CHOICE.

Your argument makes a sieve look watertight.

Alright, I've stayed out of this one so far but...

Serious question for TJ: Do you think the UK economy could function as productively as it does now without such widespread use of personal transportation?

(not having a go - I agree that we have far too much car use but I don't agree with your simplistic idea of a solution)

Surf matt - you just confirm your narrow minded stupidity.

Most people need a car.

Karine of nine.

The true total cost 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)

For example local roads are paid for out of council tax / by local government. There is a huge cost of death and illhealth from car ownerhip - that cost the country millions, the cost of enforcing motoring law- these sorts of thing

Its a whole can of worms that will get me an apoplectic attack from the hard core petrol heads on here for even mentioning it

Mat you're being an idiot again. Someone makes a valid point, and you choose SOME exceptions to that to rubbish the whole point. Terrible reasoning.

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.

I'm keen to see what TJ says about this "non car owners" subsiding the car owners, although a realise that by asking him to substantiate this claim its handing the saop to him.

And im with Surf on the rural commuities, for some places there just isnt a choice about car ownership this day and age.

don't forget that car manufacturers are not unknown to receive generous financial assistance from taxpayers...

assistance that isn't necessarily quite so generously extended to manufacturers of 'not-cars'.

Clong - of course there is a choice - you made the choice to live there in that situation.

In fact most people need a car

for some places there just isnt a choice about car ownership this day and age.

I agree it could be done but not at all easily.

1) it's mentally easier for people to do things when they are physically present at work
2) it's also logistically easier
3) it'd be impossible to tell people that they could not take that lucrative job that's 40 miles away because car use is bad, mkay, and they have to stick with the crap poorly paid one they have.

Three very difficult issues here.

Like TJ - I think we should all follow the Amish way of life

oh, & no one is allowed a dog that barks either, coz it's scary

The true total cost 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)

For example local roads are paid for out of council tax / by local government. There is a huge cost of death and illhealth from car ownerhip - that cost the country millions, the cost of enforcing motoring law- these sorts of thing

So any proof for these bold claims?

No, I thought not.

Yes I get what some of you are trying to say - a lot of people live too far from where they work, rely too much on their cars, etc but a dose of reality is needed.

In a big city, public transport is generally good enough to get you almost anywhere you need to, when you need to. In rural communities you have one bus a day if you're lucky and that is literally it. No trains or any viable alternatives.

Hey, maybe no one should live in the countryside?

As for taxes - the last figure I heard was that road taxes made the Government almost £40bn of which £5bn was ploughed back into the road network. I very much doubt that cars "cost" the government £35bn....

TJ - in the spirit of genuine discussion:

Got any figures?

Non car owners also use the roads (in buses, which, by the way, TOTALLY trash roads, see the bus lanes around the Elephant & Castle for example), on bicycles, horses (but not often and not really for transport, to be fair).

Car owners not only pay road taxes, but income tax too, from which road upkeep comes.

Car owners pay council tax, so are contributing there also.

Car ownership may cause accidents and illness but also brings great joy, being able to go to events, shopping (whatever you like), which makes people happy. Happiness is very important indeed.

On the other hand, I believe that most/many drivers are not skilled enough, do not pay attention properly, have completely the wrong attitude, have no notion of the responsibility that ought to go with propelling so many tons of metal at speed. Driving used to be a privilege and something one took pride in - I see very little of that nowadays. (God, that makes me sound old! lol)

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

Over a generation or more it is easy to do this - make private motoring more expensive ( as it will become anyway as oil runs out) but do it in a controlled and planned manner using he money to subsidise alternatives.

One thing is commuting becomes less attractive / feasable / cost effective. Youa re not telling hem they cannot have that job with the 40 mile commute tbut that the various factors that people weigh when they make that decision are rebalanced - and you can also use teh revenue raised to improve public transport.

I take the train to work because its cheaper and faster than a car. All the shops I need to survive are within walking distance of my house too.

But I still have a car that does 20mpg, it's great fun and if it riles up a few hippies then I'm just that little bit happier.

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.

Karine / surf matt - if yo want to see some numbers here is a good place to sart. A bit of counter propaganda to the petrol heads.

Karine - what did I tell you about the attacks

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000/08/03/drivers-are-undertaxed/

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/category/transport/

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