Forum menu
My neighbour drives his kids to school in a big 4WD truck thing. My son goes to the same school. We walk him. It's 10 minutes
Do they go on to anywhere else afterwards (ie a place of work?). Do you?
druidh - Member
That really. Fuel will be at the right price when the majority of drivers are trying to conserve it.
Relatively speaking, I think that a lot of people already are (trying to conserve fuel).
There used to be a constant stream of people coming past me on my way to work at ridiculous speeds. I don't really see that anymore. Sure, people are still going fast, but there aren't as many of them. More people are sticking to 70mph, which is perhaps still faster than ideal for economy, but relatively speaking is better than sitting at 80mph.
And when i used to drive to work at 70mph I hardly ever used to overtake people. Now even slowed down to 60mph, I do overtake a few people on my commute who are obviously thinking the same way as me.
I now sit at 60mph for my commute and am saving money.....although even at the mileage I do it's not a massive amount.
I reckon I am getting about 5mpg more driving like a real ninny. Over 600 miles/week that works out to £5.69/week (assuming 60 v's 55mpg, and current fuel cost of £1.38).
You could argue that £23/month saved isn't really worth the extra time it takes to get to & from work.....hmmmmm.
Walking primary and younger kids to / from school is utterly dependent on going back to the old days of one parent working / one parent staying at home.... so feasible for those who are very well off - [b]or on benefits[/b]
Yeah bloody child benefit/tax credit scroungers!
You could argue that £23/month saved isn't really worth the extra time it takes to get to & from work.....hmmmmm.
How long extra?
Walking primary and younger kids to / from school is utterly dependent on going back to the old days of one parent working / one parent staying at home.... so feasible for those who are very well off - or on benefits.
I walked to school alone from the age of about 6. Granted it was only a 1/4 a mile away, so only about a 5 minute walk assuming I didn't wander . Prior to that I would have been walked there by my single mum before she went to her part-time job. Not well-off, no benefits. Big school at 11 was a 2 mile cycle trip each way.
Of course life was a lot safer then because paedophiles and bicycle helmets hadn't been invented 😀
I have sympathy though, housing costs are a lot more now as a proportion of income, and people nowadays (including me) count as essentials a lot of crap that really isn't required to enjoy life, which does lead to a sort of learnt helplessness when looking at alternative choices.
3? - the age kids start school around here
You don't live in the UK? Plenty of 4yos walking to school (accompanied) here. 9yos riding their bikes to school unaccompanied - school policy says that's OK - and I certainly see various Y5/6 kids walking at least some of the way unaccompanied.
Walking primary and younger kids to / from school is utterly dependent on going back to the old days of one parent working / one parent staying at home.... so feasible for those who are very well off - or on benefits.
I'm struggling to work out whether lots of people round here are very well off or on benefits. I suppose we get child tax credits if that counts?
There is of course always the option of setting up a walking bus - you could get one of those lazy dole scroungers to lead it.
What happens if you buy a house in a nice village which has everything you need and a regular bus service to the nearest town, but the village shops go out of business because Tesco built a superstore ten miles away, and the local council cuts the subsidy to the local bus company so they stop the service?There are factors operating at scales beyond the control of individuals which mean adapting is not possible.
Well on the basis that no one will shop at Tesco if it works out more expensive, the cost of fuel + food must be less than the premium they were paying for the food localy.
Capitalism init?
We've been increasing duty on fuel for decades and yet people still pretty much drive whenever they want. They might have a good whinge about it but they still get in their vehicles, turn on the AC and settle down to an hour of Radio 4. It isnt going to change. You want a lesson in human nature go have a look at Singapore. A tiny country with a fantastic transport network, you can get anywhere in half an hour, most places in 15 minutes. Cars (due to taxes) cost FOUR TIMES what they do in the UK. Yet the roads are full, and getting worse, even as vehicles get more expensive.......everyone wants a car.
My next car is going to be a 60mpg version of the one I'm driving now that does 35mpg. The one I'm going to buy after that (say in 10yrs) I fully expect to be "driverless" and therefore hopefully massively fuel efficient.
I dont doubt that global warming is happening and that mankind is contributing, but I do think we might have lost our marbles tying ourselves in knots over it. We've had our industrial revolution, the Chinese and Indians are going to have theirs now.
But yeh, want a cut in fuel duty? Tell me what other tax you want to pay......and by you I mean YOU, not some other sucker.
3? - the age kids start school around here
You don't live in the UK?
The starting age for Welsh medium school in our area.
My point was, that walking to, and especially [u]from[/u] school is going to be largely dependent on a non-working parent being around. again, refereing to primary age and younger...
Multiple choice - which works best?
A - 6 YO walks home at 3:30pm (in the dark in winter), lets themselves in and waits in an empty house until parent gets home at 17:30-18:00
B - 6 YO gets picked up from after school club at 17:30 and driven home. Parent is driving because they have just driven home from work...?
FWIW I fully agree with the more economic driving I see on the roads. I do think fuel costs are too high - it's largely a fiscal measure and the tax revenues have to be balanced against the damage to the economy caused by high fuel costs.
Investment in public transport is only a small part of the answer. Our working lives (as well as social & domestic) are largely governed by the need for individual mobility. What is required is R&D to develop and bring to market viable alternatives of alternative transport and for Govt to put the fiscal measures in place to encourage the uptake of greener transport.
Blaming the "school run" is old school roustabout political point scoring
Well on the basis that no one will shop at Tesco if it works out more expensive, the cost of fuel + food must be less than the premium they were paying for the food localy.
No. This model doesn't (currently) work. It's down to economies of scale - largely for purchasing power, but also on transportation costs...
My mother used to run a small village shop. The shopkeeper has to pay more for the wholesale goods than are oftern charged retail by the supermarketss!!!
And the shopkeeper still has to pay for the fuel / transport costs to get the goods out to the rural location.
Just doesn't work.
I think his point was, if transport gets so expensive that it's cheaper to shop at the local shop (with inflated prices) than drive to tesco and do your shopping, people will shop at the local shop
Until then, the fact tesco opened has made life cheaper for you/your village
I'd say option C - parent gets home at 4.00. 🙂
Not for transporting goods it's not. Along side other factors it's pushing the price of a weekly shop through the roof.
What percentage of the cost of your weekly shop is down to fuel prices?
As others have said, when people stop making unnecessary journeys, drive more economical cars, and obey the speed limit, then I will be convinced that fuel is the correct price.
I've just worked out that my 400-mile round trip last weekend cost £14 for each of the three of us - that's very cheap. But then my car does over 60mpg if driven within the 70mph limit.
Lifer - Member
How long extra?
Good question and to be honest I don't know exactly.
On the way into work it doesn't really matter, as my official hours mean I don't need to start until 9am, but I leave with ample time or I get stuck in too much traffic.
On the way home it's probably 10 mins, although that is purely a guess....I can't give any real figures, but it does seem to take longer to get home from work.
Of course, when I drive into Peterborough at the weekend, there is no point going above 60mph, as there are frequent roundabouts and it soon goes down to 50mph. When doing this drive I keep my speed down, lift off on the approach to roundabouts a lot sooner etc. and it makes very little difference to the journey time but can easily give an extra 5-6mpg.
Walking primary and younger kids to / from school is utterly dependent on going back to the old days of one parent working / one parent staying at home.... so feasible for those who are very well off - or on benefits.
Or where one parent works days, and one parent works nights, which is what my parents did, my mum dropped us off and dad picked us up, and we started walking to/from school by ourselves from the age of about 10.
A - 6 YO walks home at 3:30pm (in the dark in winter), lets themselves in and waits in an empty house until parent gets home at 17:30-18:00B - 6 YO gets picked up from after school club at 17:30 and driven home. Parent is driving because they have just driven home from work...?
I'm not sure I see the connection between whether your 6yo goes to after school club and how they get transported to school. Neither do I see the connection between how they get transported from school and how they get there in the morning. The school run is an issue, and plenty of parents could walk their children but [b]choose[/b] not to.
If it helps at all, I did mention in my first post that I have no issue at all with people picking up and dropping off on their way to and from work (I'd be hypocritical otherwise). Neither is picking up from after school club really "school run" in that it doesn't impact on the amount of traffic movement around school at kicking out time (which along with making children think it's normal to walk rather than drive is the real issue rather than any environmental one IMHO).
Oh yes, and as already alluded, plenty of people can afford to go part time and so be there to walk there kids. Plenty of people go part time, yet still drive.
Walking primary and younger kids to / from school is utterly dependent on going back to the old days of one parent working / one parent staying at home.... so feasible for those who are very well off - or on benefits.
Yes, yes, we all know there are perfectly valid [s]excuses[/s] exceptions, but I didn't think I'd need to spell out every possible permutation.
Im future I won't make the mistake of assuming STW-ers are even vaguely intelligent.
I dont doubt that global warming is happening and that mankind is contributing, but I do think we might have lost our marbles tying ourselves in knots over it. We've had our industrial revolution, the Chinese and Indians are going to have theirs now.But yeh, want a cut in fuel duty? Tell me what other tax you want to pay......and by you I mean YOU, not some other sucker.
Absolutely spot on. Put it on income tax and watch everyone whine.
"I want decent services and private mode of transport. WHAT?? I have to pay something towards them? Outrageous! Get the Tories/Labour/Whoever out!"
..There are factors operating at scales beyond the control of individuals which mean adapting is not possible... (in a few hypothetical scenarios which in reality affect almost nobody)
FIFY
🙂
come on, there was an oil-crisis thing in the 70's, we've known since then, if not before, that the age of expensive transport was coming.
(this is all very easy for me to say, i live and work in the same city, i'm a clueless gobby tit)
So I’ve read some of the arguments (but not the stuff that says “walk to school – at what age??”)
You’ll never make me change my mind on this, all the arguments about it only costing “a few pence more” are irrelevant in my eyes. I see the continued taxation on movement (on whatever, be it food, consumer goods, people, fuel, etc..) wrong and limiting in a society which should have the right to come and go and choose what to/where to whatever they wish.
Fuel duty in it’s limited blunt instrument is wrong att he very first instance, should never have been put in place and should be scrapped. At best we’ll never be able to do that, so my first point raised to limit it to £1.00 pre litre hold true as a compromise between supplying the fuel to the pumps, running the pumps and roughly half in duty. This should be the model to go forward with and nothing else, ever.
If you want move tax raised, cut the NHS outlay, MOD, Subsidies to EU, Local Councils, all the other expenditure we don’t see on projects like CERN and the like.
IMHO.
Next
as consumers generally use unleaded and businesses, deisel.
I dont get this bit. (spelling corrected)
I see the continued taxation on movement
It's not a tax on movement.
If you want move tax raised, cut the NHS outlay, MOD, Subsidies to EU, Local Councils, all the other expenditure we don’t see on projects like CERN [b]and the like.[/b]
I can see you've thought this through.
So, we have to pay for other's lifestyle choices then?
Its like having children - coincidentally another lifestyle choice - why should I have to pay extra taxes to pay for you?
You’ll never make me change my mind on this
Why are you here then? Perhaps you've convinced yourself that there's a magic place where roads build themselves, and costs to society such as emergency services, air pollution and congestion are all paid for by the money trees.
are all paid for by the money trees.
it could be argued that quantitative easing is doing just this..
I'm here to see what you think, I see it now thanks.
Whats all this nonsense about children having to be escorted to school - its a new phenomenon mainly developed since the nonsense "choice" agenda in schools increased journey lengths.
children always used to walk to school unaccompanied and still should do so. No one was accompanied to my secondary school. Crime was significantly higher then than now.
Bikebouy - so you think driving should have a massive subsidy - how are you going to pay for all the costs of motoring? Is this not rather unfair on non drivers?
petrol is far too cheap - taxes raised of motoring doe not cover teh costs to the country of motoring by a long way.
The costs of all the dead and injured - both directly and indirectly
the cost of enforcing motoring law
Myriad other costs
Two years ago a colleague moved house. Petrol was as/more expensive then than it is now.
There's 36 miles between where they both work. They bought a house in the middle, so he has a 21 mile drive to work and she has a 27 mile drive. As a result, they have to run two cars and they're apparently spending £500 a month on fuel.
There are no public transport options for their commutes from where they live.
If people know fuel is expensive, but they do nothing about it and seem to accept paying it then that's their problem.
Nope I don't think it should have a subsidy at all, nor a tax on it, but I see I'm in the minority here, we're all cyclists afterall and for some it's thier only form of transport, which is great. But not everyone lives like that. Some don't want to, don't care to or look down on those that are in the rightious cause.
But it's ok to have an opinion thats different.
it's not [b]that[/b] blunt an instrument if you have an efficient car you pay less tax on fuel same as you pay less VED. If they government could sort out cheap efficient public travel they could tax the hell out of fuel with my blessings, unfortunatley public travel is sadly lacking and downright shit in certain areas.Fuel duty in it’s limited blunt instrument is wrong att he very first instance
bikebouy - Member
Nope I don't think it should have a subsidy at all
Duty needs to go up a load then.
pretty sure TJ has got some cost driving vs cost of public transport over the years driving IS subsidised
So if I understand correctly.... lets all subsidise fat bastards who can't be arsed walking, and want to drive everywhere in huge cars, by doing away with such unnecessary crap as the NHS
Christ! You're onto something here. Why had this never occur to me before. Tell you what, it'll have a serious impact on the whole over-population thing. You're clearly a visionary 😀
Nope I don't think it should have a subsidy at all, nor a tax on it,
Out of interest, how would you see it paid for?
Income loss from lower duty could be replaced by congestion charging in town centres and tolls on the motorways.
bikebouy - Member
Nope I don't think it should have a subsidy at all
Road transport isn't subsidised at all. It's "invested in".
Public transport is subsidised.
Remember: roads = investment; railway lines = subsidy.
😀
You tell me why the need to tax it in the first instance.
You tell me why the need to tax it in the first instance.
You really have to ask why tax has to be raised?
Are you Greek?
I'm hoping he's troll.
What car do you drive bikebouy?
You tell me why the need to tax it in the first instance
Well until roads are built and maintained from charitable donations, what else do you suggest?
Taxation massively restricts economic growth
why no just suspend all taxation and borrow enough money to cover [b]all[/b] government spending for the next five years and pay it back afterwards?
Basic Keynsian economics, innit 😉
You tell me why the need to tax it in the first instance.
Perhaps a more thought provoking question would be
You tell me why the need to tax it at over 100% in the first instance.
Are there any other products in the marketplace that attract such a high tax levy?
I'm not suggesting that the price / tax is right or wrong - but we do seem to have become locked in to this system with no reasonable alternative.
There was talk on the BBC website the other day about increasing taxes on electric / low emissions cars - because of the simple imperative to bolster falling tax revenues from declining fuel sales...
... Now that truly is bonkers.