[Closed] news item about petrol rises to £1:40

i think fuel prices have already gone beyond stupid, but it's not enough to change people's habits / desires.

if cars had just been invented, they'd never catch on - the fuel is just too expensive.

but we're addicted - we don't care about the price.

i work with guys who drive 100miles/day, they must be spending £250/month on fuel.

they could take a £5k pay cut if they got a job they could walk/cycle to.

In a minute some blinkered pillock will say 'that's still not high enough'

Wait and see.....

that's still not high enough

i'm here all week

the price is irrelevant.

we're addicts.

unfortunately, cars are brilliant.

it's already £1.37 at the petrol station I [u]pass[/u] every morning. 😉

PeterPoddy - Member
In a minute some blinkered pillock will say 'that's still not high enough'

Wait and see.....

Still plenty of cars and other vehicles being driven about on the roads, so the price is certainly not high enough to have a significant impact on car usage.

It would be interesting to split out the effect of the price rise on commuting and non-commuting journeys.

I know that I am cutting down on the number of trips I do over the weekend.

PeterPoddy - Member
In a minute some blinkered pillock will say 'that's still not high enough'
Wait and see.....

That, sadly, is TJ's stock answer...

Times like this I'm glad I've a company car & fuel card...

some don't have a choice, my folks live in a village that doesn't have a train station!, the bus comes twice a week! Wednesday & Saturday and being in a rural area, no choice where you want to work! they have to drive, the nearest supermarket is 18 miles away! and no they can't retire just yet, so what do you environmentalists suggest! diesel is already 139.9 where they are!

The price of petrol is rising a lot faster than inflation.
It makes sense to fill a load of drums and store them in your garage.

There's an ad just popped up over there >> about Red Diesel......hmmmm 😈

Once you have a car, its still massively cheaper/more convenient/quicker than the train unless your heading to a city centre so Im not too sure what the alternative is for journeys over 10 miles.

To be honest I love my bike for short journey mainly because its quick and convenient not because of the price.

On about price I get the train(combined with folding bike) to work every day and it costs me about £250 a month. Again the reason I get it is because going into central london the train is more convenient/quicker than a car.

I suppose people might start cutting down on non-essential journeys due to fuel prices but this would mean the roads will be clearer so making it even more convenient/quicker.

Prices are ridiculous and that's coming from someone that walks to work every day

if cars had just been invented, they'd never catch on - the fuel is just too expensive.

Don't be daft, they caught on when they were invented and I'm sure running costs were pretty high then.

My point is that personal independent transportation is an amazing thing. Tremendously liberating and also massively useful to the economy to be honest.

We could do without most cars, but we'd have to restructure society both practically and physically.

I seem to have noticed the roads a bit quieter when out for a ride on a sunday. maybe there has been a bit of a drop off in people going out for a scenic run in their car at the weekend. The roads in the city and towns seem as busy as ever though.

more and more cycle commuters too but that might just be with the lighter mornings

Teetosugars - Member

PeterPoddy - Member
In a minute some blinkered pillock will say 'that's still not high enough'
Wait and see.....

That, sadly, is TJ's stock answer...

Where is TJ these days, not heard from him recently. Can he no longer afford the petrol to get to work so he can log in here?

I hope it goes up even more.

That'll keep the poor off the roads and make it quicker for the rest of us.

Seriously though - given the amount of speeding I see every day, it's still not high enough to make some folk drive with a lighter foot.

Seriously though - given the amount of speeding I see every day, it's still not high enough to make some folk drive with a lighter foot.

I agree I was on the M40 the other week and I think I was just about the only car sticking to 70, just about everyone else was doing 80+. I think alot of people are actually quite stupid and don't realise how much more fuel they use doing 90 as opposed to 70. But then again I don't think it's possible to drive below 90 in a bottom of the range BMW 3 series or Audi A4...

Someone I know actually thought that you'd use less fuel by driving faster on the motorway as you'd get to your destination sooner and the engine would be running for a shorter time time!!!!

so what do you environmentalists suggest!

move house?

Last bit of research I heard about suggested it'd be £4/litre before most people started to think about other forms of transport.

I'm looking forward to a time when our society is built around people, not cars. Trouble is, most people won't like the transition and won't accept it's necessary until the markets decide. Then it'll be too late to take the transition stage slow and steady, actually it probably already is too late!

so what do you environmentalists suggest!

Well what most sensible environmentalists suggest is NOT just cranking up fuel prices as this clearly penalises everyone regardless.

TJ et al do not come into the sensible category.

Even if petrol were free, I don't think many people would actualy WANT to drive 100 miles each way for work, so that is something we can work with.

My first policy when elected PM would be to give companies tax breaks based on the proportion of employees working from home. And probably employees too. And I'd put in place programmes to help companies implement the infrastructure required with maybe free IT help and courses etc, maybe free consultations. I reckon that woudl have a massive impact on people's quality of life since a great many people would instantly be spending more time with their families, have more free time to do what they want and enjoy themselves. Most people would go to one car, saving money in the process.

Of course it'd be a very expensive policy. Not only would you haev to come up with the money for tax breaks but you'd have to somehow deal with the massive loss of revenue from fuel duty.

New housing developments are still being built in the same fashion, business parks on the edge of town in the same fashion. The planners don't seem to have joined the dots.

niloC - Member
some don't have a choice, my folks live in a village that doesn't have a train station!, the bus comes twice a week! Wednesday & Saturday and being in a rural area, no choice where you want to work! they have to drive, the nearest supermarket is 18 miles away! and no they can't retire just yet, so what do you environmentalists suggest! diesel is already 139.9 where they are!

Drive a smaller car,
drive more efficiently,
combine journeys,
car share.

"I agree I was on the M40 the other week and I think I was just about the only car sticking to 70, just about everyone else was doing 80+. I think alot of people are actually quite stupid and don't realise how much more fuel they use doing 90 as opposed to 70. But then again I don't think it's possible to drive below 90 in a bottom of the range BMW 3 series or Audi A4... "

My Mondeo diesel at 85mph indicates approx 47.5mpg at 70mph about 49.5mpg. Over 50 miles I prefer to get home quicker than save a bit of fuel.

My wifes Seat VAG Diesel 85mph about 37mpg at 70mph 48mpg.

So if I am in the Mondeo I will do 85 if its the wifes I'll drive quite a bit slower, but I wouldnt use it for my commute.

Oh and for why I commute 100 miles a day... blame the gorvernment for that one, we both used to live and work in Sheffield. Then as part of how the stupid NHS system works they relocated Mrs FD to a different region, even though they could have given her a job in the same region. Since then I have been trying to find a job nearer to where we now live (she couldnt commute every day with the hours she works)but nothing has come up as yet in the almost 2 years since she was relocated. This cost the NHS £6k in relocation, plus on going fuel claims of nearly £2k per year for her.

My first policy when elected PM would be to give companies tax breaks based on the proportion of employees working from home. And probably employees too. And I'd put in place programmes to help companies implement the infrastructure required with maybe free IT help and courses etc, maybe free consultations. I reckon that woudl have a massive impact on people's quality of life since a great many people would instantly be spending more time with their families, have more free time to do what they want and enjoy themselves. Most people would go to one car, saving money in the process.

I know this crops up everytime these threads arise, but I really don't understand why companies don't do this already. There are massive financial savings to be made by implementing flexible and home working. There is no need for tax breaks because the savings made from the reduction in office space and parking on site would easily provide a good enough business case.

The issue isn't financial, it's behavourial. It hasn't happened yet because people don't want it to happen because it involves a different way of living. The only way it'll change is if people (and employers) recognise that doing things "traditionally" isn't cost effective or efficient. At the moment that isn't happening despite the technology being available and cheap enough to make flexible working a reality.

It's always the case that carrots need to be backed up by sticks. The carrots are already there, The sticks need to be bigger and harder.

Sensible environmentalsts would recognise this.

There are massive financial savings to be made by implementing flexible and home working

Yeah but they are not obvious. If you have a big company, having a few home workers means a saving of a few PCs and that's it. You already have an office and car parking, IT staff etc etc. Overall, if a big effort were made then you could save significantly, but it's not obvious to most.

There are also other advantages like for example you could employ anyone in the world, thereby giving you a much larger choice of job applicant. And it'd be easy as a wink to ensure say 24 hour coverage for your phones - just employ people in the UK, USA and Australia.

A tax break would simply focus people's minds, I feel.

Hmmmm,

What confused me this morning was the report that due to the trouble in the middle east the oil being pumped from the North Sea was going up per barrel.

No-one really explained how that worked - unless my geography is really bad and the North Sea is now in Libya.

Supply and Demand innit

it's still not high enough to make some folk drive with a lighter foot.

I've been doing it for years now. Many reasons, but I need to drive for work so can't afford a ban, I've grown up and I don't see the point, and it's cheaper on fuel being the main ones.

I workes out that if you can raise your average speed by 10mph for 1 hour (Which is a tall order) you'll save 4 minutes. I just relax at 65mph now, which is just fast enough to be out of the way of the trucks, but slow enough so everyone else passes you and keeps out of your way 🙂

I spend about £3,000 a year on train fares to get to work (London to Kings Langley - about 22 miles and 26 minutes each way).

With petrol at £1.40 £3,000 buys me 2,143 litres. Assuming 40 mpg that is 18,854 miles.

18,854 miles is about 429 return journeys which means that it would still, at £1.40 a litre, be much cheaper for me to drive (I don't I get the train).

niloC - Member
some don't have a choice, my folks live in a village that doesn't have a train station!, the bus comes twice a week! Wednesday & Saturday and being in a rural area, no choice where you want to work! they have to drive, the nearest supermarket is 18 miles away! and no they can't retire just yet, so what do you environmentalists suggest! diesel is already 139.9 where they are!

I suggest they move. The village they live in quite clearly isn't sustainable. They've made the choice to live there. I'd be all for taxing people more the further they live from their main place of work.

My Mondeo diesel at 85mph indicates approx 47.5mpg at 70mph about 49.5mpg. Over 50 miles I prefer to get home quicker than save a bit of fuel.

My wifes Seat VAG Diesel 85mph about 37mpg at 70mph 48mpg.

FunkyDunc, that difference in economy for your Mondeo is very surprising. My petrol Octavia 2.0 vRS does about 37 mpg at 70 and about 28 mpg at 80.

I think the extra speed effects the mpg more on petrol cars as they have a lower top gear than a diesel.

I suggest they move. The village they live in quite clearly isn't sustainable. They've made the choice to live there. I'd be all for taxing people more the further they live from their main place of work.

What the f............ Oh you were joking! Haha, got me there.

Yeah but they are not obvious. If you have a big company, having a few home workers means a saving of a few PCs and that's it. You already have an office and car parking, IT staff etc etc. Overall, if a big effort were made then you could save significantly, but it's not obvious to most.

The problem is (from my point of view, working in a team distributed across EMEA, on EMEA wide projects often in yet another part of the region) no matter what tools you have, team work is better or easier when you're sat next to your team. In theory I could/should work from home, but the chance to work face to face with at least some of my colleagues is just plain better.

That and less toddlers being sick on my laptop of course.

My Belgian colleagues main problem is that he doesn't have someone across the desk just to chew over problems with.. sometimes jabber/skype et al just aren't the same.
But I only have a 17 mile commute in a 15 year old 1.6 so the fuel changes are noticeable but not problematic as of yet.

@sharkbait - no, not at all. they've made a personal choice to live somewhere that is 18 miles from a supermarket, has no station, no choices where to work and only has buses twice a week. there are plenty of other places they could live that don't have these "inconveniences". either that or they could get a one of the no choice jobs locally and stay there.

Yeah but they are not obvious. If you have a big company, having a few home workers means a saving of a few PCs and that's it. You already have an office and car parking, IT staff etc etc. Overall, if a big effort were made then you could save significantly, but it's not obvious to most.

Yes, this is kind of true. Although I find the larger companies are more accepting though. Finance Directors should have this kind of thing flagged up to them regulalry so when a relocation/reorganisation is taking place, suitable changes in policy and IT can happen at the same time. It's really not rocket science and any Fin. Dir. worth their salt (in the blue chips) at least should know this.

No company needs a tax break for this, they just need to be informed. A decent targeted marketing campaign would be cheaper than across the board tax-breaks.

A tax break would simply focus people's minds, I feel.

You could be right, but is it really enough to justify such a measure? I'm not convinced.

@sharkbait - no, not at all.

So we should all live in cities then? Have you considered the possibility that they lived/moved there before the nearest supermarket opened (and forced the local shops to close)/the price of fuel went through the roof?
Being taxed for living in a rural community is possibly one of the most 'intersting' ideas I've heard in a long time.

Oh, and if I lived 18 miles from the nearest supermarket I'd use home delivery.

the price always goes up in February/March, just before the Budget in fact, then the government makes decisions about fuel duty. coincidence?

no, if you live [u]and[/u] work in a rural community then that's fine. however if you make a choice to live in a rural community and then work in a built up area, then you've made an unsustainable living choice.

Also I'm not convinced a supermarket 18 miles away would have a significant impact on local shops.

no, not at all. they've made a personal choice to live somewhere that is 18 miles from a supermarket

For old folk, it's not hard to imagine that they lived there when there were jobs, shops, a station and busses and now are stranded.

But in any case it raises a deeper point - do we have a right to a location we call home? Or should we be forced to move to other busier places, away from family and friends to make it cheaper to provide services?

Price rises are due to speculators, same as with wheat and all sorts of other commodities.

Noting wrong with companies making profits but British Gas and Shell seem to be doing very very well at the moment.

You mostly chose at some point where to live. It's been obvious for many years that fuel prices would escalate steeply.
It's also clear that fuel economy is still very low on the list of most drivers priorities, yet they still feel it's OK to whinge.
Almost everyone with a car could have bought a more ecomonical one than they did, or could drive more carefully than they do, but they decide not to. - It's their choice.

I'd object strongly if the Chancellor intervenes, that just subsidises car drivers with the taxes of the frugal.

I decided to buy a house with 1/2 hour cycle to work about 8 years ago just for that reason.

Price rises are due to speculators, same as with wheat and all sorts of other

Sounds like the sort of excuse trotted out by BP / Britsh Gas whilst the make record profits. I don't deny that people getting wise to the Market has an affect on prices but don't agree that you can wholly lay the bame at the feet of speculators. All very well pointing to wholesale prices but you can bet energy companies have their exposure to market risk properly hedged (ditto airlines etc)

I'd be all for taxing people more the further they live from their main place of work.

Unfortunately back in the real world people take jobs wherever they can get them. And what do you suggest for couples, people with kids etc?

At what point does a commute to work become too far by your standards?

I only live about 7 miles from work , but work some horrendous shifts 4.03am and 21.25pm book on times to name but a few. Im sorely tempted to start commuting at least twice a week which would probably make up a bit of the petrol increases. i also noticed whilst heading from Edinburgh to Elgin to see my folks the A9 was basically a convoy of cars travelling at 60 -70 miles per hour and there wasn't the mad dash on the Dualled parts to overtake every car possible.

Price rises are due to speculators, same as with wheat and all sorts of other commodities.

[i]Some[/i] of the oil price at present is due to uncertainty in the middle east and speculators but the days of $10 oil are well and truely over. This is of course fairly irrelevant as the price of petrol in the UK is determined by the tax and has nothing whatsoever to do with speculators.

My Mondeo diesel at 85mph indicates approx 47.5mpg at 70mph about 49.5mpg. Over 50 miles I prefer to get home quicker than save a bit of fuel.

I would suggest one or both of these figures are inaccurate. A 21% in crease in speed for only a 4 % increase in fuel would be a marvel of engineering. Unless the efficiently of you engine improves massively in the range 70 - 85 mph I don't think it is possible.

off in people going out for a scenic run in their car at the weekend

I think that happened in the 60's?

I drove to work this morning, not because of some addiction but becasue I just couldn't be bothered to cycle. A day's petrol is probbaly £4?

Other things I'll spend more on today......

Bike parts or bike related tat - just bought a portable 'jet' wash

Food - do I need to spend £4 on steak when 99p value mince is essentialy the same, or even 25p of when protein?

Bessides, I like the smell of petrol almost as much as I like the smell of steak and burning break pads 🙂

Unless the efficiently of you engine improves massively in the range 70 - 85 mph I don't think it is possible.

Hmmm, mines a bit like this as well though.

65mph - 55mpg
75mph - 45mpg
85mph - 48mpg (which does surprise me)

So it's cheaper to go faster (or slower)......

Don't know why it does this - gear ratios, revs, dunno.

DrRS**** - Member
Unless the efficiently of you engine improves massively in the range 70 - 85 mph I don't think it is possible.
Hmmm, mines a bit like this as well though.

65mph - 55mpg
75mph - 45mpg
85mph - 48mpg (which does surprise me)

So it's cheaper to go faster (or slower)......

Don't know why it does this - gear ratios, revs, dunno.

I think the computer is lying to you. Something in inaccurate.

Very roughly the drag on a object moving through the air is proportional to v^3 where v is the velocity.
So increasing the velocity by 13.33% (10/75) would result in 69 % more fuel being used.

If we let you engine be x_1% efficient at 75 miles an hour with a given fuel energy density d then the energy available to us at 75 mph and needed to move the car one mile

E(75)=(1/45)*d*(x_1/100)

now at 85 mph we will assume an efficiently of x_2% we have

E(85)=(1/48)*d*(x_2/100)

energy available to us, which also must equal the amount of energy to move one mile at 85 mph.

We know that the energy required to move at 85 mph is 68% more than at 75 mph so

E(75)*1.68=E(85)

(48/45)*1.68*x_1=x_2

1.79*x_1=x_2

So your cars efficiency would have to improve by 79% at 85 mph than at 75.mph.

E.g it was 31% efficient at 75 mph and it becomes 55.5% efficient at 85 mph.

To gain this must efficiently would be amazing, and for a manufacture to place that imprisonment in efficiency in the range 75-85 mph, when cars are sold on urban mpg and extra urban mpg of 62 mph would be very strange.*

*Unless I have made some very silly mistakes.

[i]Supply and Demand innit [/i]

Why would that change the price?

*Unless I have made some very silly mistakes.

just wondering if 6 gears makes a difference here?

I don't think it could account for the massive increase in efficiency. I'm not sure how efficient engines are but I bet it's not very with all that heat being blown out.

Until public transport becomes cheaper and a nicer way to travel then people will continue to use cars :uber fact:

Diesel would have to rise to £3.10/litre before it would cost me the same to drive as it would to use South West Trains for my daily commute.

And that's not taking into account the benefit of not sharing a space with window lickers and people with no concept of social etiquette.

Oh and the Libya/North Sea thing is surely just profiteering when boiled down.

sharkbait - Member

So we should all live in cities then?

I don't live in a city but I've got a train service (crap) and a bus service (decent) which I can use to get to an international airport and national train links. Plus local mini supermarket, off licence, butcher, post office. I own a car but only for convenience and for biking.

It's a big step from "I live in the country in the arse end of nowhere" to "I live in a city", that should be pretty obvious.

Drive at 85mph, take your foot off the accelerator and voila, 100+mpg - you cant give accurate MPG unless you average a large number of miles.

I'm sure the fuel prices have affected the way people drive their cars already. I'm not talking about driving to work and shops etc, I'm talking about leisure driving. I'm sure the price of a journey around the country roads, or trips to friends houses is taken into account more now that the prices of fuel are so high.
Also number of cars per household may well be dropping. We went 1 car about 4 years ago. I know of a couple of mates who have done the same since

Even if petrol were free, I don't think many people would actualy WANT to drive 100 miles each way for work, so that is something we can work with.

I think many people don't care how far they drive.

A mate of mine commutes 42 miles (over an hour) each way every day and has done for about 15 years. He has (he readily admits) a fairly dull job (he worked in a room with no windows for 10 years!) but has made no effort in all that time to find anything else closer to home, despite living in a city and commuting out every day.

In fact he looks forward to the hour he spends in the car as a stress free hour away from family life (2 small kids) and work to listen to music.

Now, I don't blame him for feeling like that, but it is a pretty sad state of affairs really.

Similarly my wife commutes 16 miles each way to work as a teacher, while another teacher she knows is at the same time commuting in the opposite direction! Madness. But that is what has happened because of our historical disregard for the value of oil - instead of treating it as a precious and finite resource we've been completely gung-ho in the way we use it.

Personally, I think that if we take this current crisis as a hint to start to give a bit more thought to the way we organise ouselves now it might do us all a favour in the long run.

It took the planet 100 million years to turn all that energy into oil. The Human race will burn through it in a few hundred years. Cars, trains, planes, domestic heating, it's all just ridiculously unsustainable.
10MPG or 100 MPG, it doesn't make any difference...we are going to use it all up in no time regardless, and will have to live with the consequences.

I am totally part of it, and so are you.

There is no answer. Just enjoy it while it lasts.

As an addendum...The only people I know personally who do not pollute the planet are on the Dole. Flat broke, carless, and pitied by society.

Diesel would have to rise to £3.10/litre before it would cost me the same to drive as it would to use South West Trains for my daily commute.

Except that by then the wider social/economic effects of fuel at that price would have thrown the country into turmoil. Maybe you wouldn't have a job anymore to commute to?

Drive at 85mph, take your foot off the accelerator and voila, 100+mpg - you cant give accurate MPG unless you average a large number of miles

Duh. That's the instant mpg. Press the button to switch to AVERAGE mpg since the last time you reset it 🙄

There is no answer. Just enjoy it while it lasts.

Yes there is. Reduce the amount of journeys we have to make until we can power them all via sustainable means.

Re cars being more efficient as they get faster - there is some basis for this although I too dispute the actual values discussed here.

Both petrol and diesel engines are more efficient at wider throttle openings, but for different reasons. I've heard people report slightly higher mpg at 80 than 70 but only in huge petrol engined cars with stupidly high gears (ie big American ones).

18,854 miles is about 429 return journeys which means that it would still, at £1.40 a litre, be much cheaper for me to drive (I don't I get the train).

Well yeah but only if you have a car anyway - depreciation, road tax, insurance - and then there's wear and tear for the miles you would do - parking too probably. Cheaper to get the train.

"Why would that change the price?"

On Radio 4 last night they were talking to lots of foreign national oil people trying to get out of Lybia asap as gunmen were running riot through their drilling sites.

So Libian oil production drops = less oil available in the world = north sea oil can be sold at a higher price.

I commute 100 miles per day and tbh petrol would have to triple in price to equal an hours pay, and thats in my gas-guzzler - so no brainer for me.

I commute 100 miles per day and tbh petrol would have to triple in price to equal an hours pay, and thats in my gas-guzzler - so no brainer for me.

"no brainer" - are you saying that you don't mind spending 2 hours sitting in your car + and wouldn't mind spending another hour working to pay for the privilege, every day?

I also consider that a "no brainer" but I have the opposite view to you.