[Closed] TJ is right (again)

Agree with you 100% DJ.

If only we had PR, then we might have a few Green MPs in Government. Then you could give them jobs like Minister for Sustainable Working and let them get on with it - where they have all the contacts, the ideas and the desire.

1979-1980 was a bit of an aberration in terms of historical oil prices due to Iran-Iraq kick off.

[img] [/img]

What no hotlinking?

[img] [/img]

[url= http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm ]Oil Price stuff[/url]

You spanner.

People relocating their families for permanently and for generations is absolutely opposite to what we are talking about in terms of personal mobility. I suppose you consider Jews escaping pre WWII Europe as an increase in international tourism too?

my point is that we had population mobility without cars

And what about the fact that wages have not followed inflation?

These days you'd be lucky not to spend half the annual fuel costs in insurance alone

I was not talking about personal mobility I was replying to someone else about population mobility.

Eh what? You're weird sometimes. As if personal transport would apply in any way to population migration.. odd. I'd have thought it glaringly obvious what I was talking about. But you can't take much for granted when arguing with some folk eh? 🙂

Oh and how are those inflation figures calcualted? Since the price of fuel is intrinsically linked to the price of a large number of goods (transport costs) it's not accurate to use the general inflation figures to adjust fuel prices...

Speak for yourself, mine is a lot less than that, and less in actual (let alone real) terms than it was in 1989

Are you older? Do you have more no claims?

You're weird sometimes

I'd have thought it glaringly obvious what I was talking about

Why do some people find this simple concept so hard to understand?

Its not forced urbanisation. Its not about pricing people out of transport before putting alternatives in place. its not about punitive measures.

The profligate energy use for cheap personal transpoort in cars will become more and more expensive as oil will runout.

We have two choices - wait to be forced to act or prepare for this change. It has only been since the 60s that cheap cars were available, the change in society took 50 years. I suggest to change to a less energy intensive transport system will take 25 years.

So if we want to make this change in a planned and orderly way it has costs. I suggest that raising this money from private motoring will provide impetus and also is fair as personal motoring receives huge subsidy .

So slowly rack up the cost of motoring using the revenue gained to improve public transport. The more peoplethatuse public transport the more viable it is. This is why in the victorian era we had a far bigger rail network than we do now. So use the money raised from motoring taxation to subsidise public transport making it faster, cheaper and more convenient. More folk will use it thus less subsidy is required thus freeing up more money to develop public transport further.

Teh increased transport costs will also make the long car commute less viable driving down the cost of rural housing ( thus allowing rural workers to live in these villages) and will also make village shops more viable reducing another driver of car usage.

A village of a few thousand folk all using cars - public transport as a profit making venture is not viable. But provide cheap efficient public transport at the same time as motoring costs rise will encourage people onto public transport. Tehen as more folk us the public transport it needs less subsidy

other areas to help reduce our dependence on the car are such things as rural broadband, internet shopping, supermarket deliveries and so on

I am not advocating a year zero solution. I am advocating planning for and minimising the effects of an inevitable ever rising energy and motoring costs.

I believe this should occur over 25 years.

As for place that do this already. Try the Netherlands or Denmark

The Netherlands took a decision in the 70s to encourage bicycle use as it was reducing and traffic congestion increasing. This policy has meant ever increasing numbers of people cycling since the 70s. Denmark has IIRC nearly 50% of commuter journeys by bike. Both countries have integrated public transport systems that are efficient.

Transport policies can make huge differences to the way people do things over long timespans

I merely want us to approach the inevitable end of cheap personal transport in private cars in a methodical and planned manner

Teh scaremongering and bleating of those addicted to their cars is laughable. What do you expect to do when the oil runs out? If we wait until we are foced to act it will be too late

TJ - sorry to take so long to get back to you. I've just had a rethink. My wife gets free fuel, so our lifestyle is safe. Perhaps.
Lifestyle is an interesting word though. Both educated to Masters level in different fields, we can't easily work close by each other - and we both want to work. And there is no train between the two points that we could use without a similar ride before we got on it (30 miles each, each way) - not your point I know but someone said it.
I'm amazed no one mentioned hydrogen cars - pleased though, as the smart money says they don't work in the real world (hydrogen plumbing and storage is notoriously difficult).
Electric cars now, hmmm... now that's interesting. Someone was saying they are years away - well possibly for the mass market, but we're installing the charging points now (not many in yet but there'll be a lot more next year). Also it's looking like the electricity grid will require a good take up of electric cars for balancing purposes (otherwise your broadband might work, but your computer won't). So a lot of people have a lot riding on that one.
The predictions game is always difficult and even as a reasonably senior guy in the electricity game paid to write papers on these sorts of predictions, I certainly get more wrong than I get right.

However I will make one prediction. The human race so far has proven itself to be surprisingly adaptable, and I bet we will adapt. Same is true of rats of course.

Are you older? Do you have more no claims?

eh scaremongering and bleating of those addicted to their cars is laughable.

You know TJ, we were having a civilised conversation about this until you wandered along with what appears to be your stock in trade denigration of people who you neither know, or really understand. In real life, you may well be the reasonable, personable chap that people like Druidh affirm you are, but on here, you consistently come across as a total dobber.

If you actually took the time to comprehend the conversation above, you'll find there's general assent to the notion that we need to adapt our lifestyle to the realities of a finite supply of oil. The discussion has centred more around the current policy realities which [i]don't[/i] encourage alternative forms of transport. Your own example of the Netherlands makes the point that commuting by bike was encouraged at the policy level.

My point is simple enough - unless the political will exists to make it viable, people simply can't make the changes required without changes which will, for some, be unacceptably disruptive to their existing patterns of living. This is not just about being personally inconvenienced - it's about the unwillingness of other key decision makers, like employers, to accept these changes as well.

On a personal level, my wife's employers are a good example - she's demonstrated the ability to be highly productive on the rare occasion she's been forced to work from home, but they still won't sanction it on a regular basis. They're a global company, who use the internet to service their customers across national boundaries, but they still want her sitting in their office in Glasgow when she talks online to people in the US and Europe. They have no facility for bike storage at their city centre offices, and no changing facilities, so it's difficult for her to commute by bike. wherever possible, she travels by bus or train, but if there's any disruption to the already basic service, we have no choice but to get the car out.

If you want progress on this, then 'bleating' on here won't effect meaningful change - you need to engage with the people who make policy and influence them. Get them to think beyond the silos of their specific remits and you'll make a significant step forward in achieving your aspirations.

Ditch jockey - some folk might have been having a civilised conversion. However some just have their head stuck in the sand or attack the messenger such as

ditch_jockey - Member

What TJ is proposing, although he may not realise it, is the urbanisation of almost the entire global population. ................, living in vast shanty towns like Kibera. Having been there, it's not a prospect I relish in the same way as TJ.

I have not proposed anything like that nor is that implicit.

igm - Member

TJ - Nice theory on pushing us to public transport, but my wife's job and mine are around 60 mile apart. I suppose we could cycle (and do the TdF for light relief) but I think it actually make one of us unemployed or we only see each other at the weekends (and likewise our sons for one of us)

Or this - someone who refuses to see that their actions are unsustainable and who will not countenance any alternative

People are addicted to their cars and refuse to countenance any alternative to them. LIke this

That's not a very social policy though is it? It'll make a lot of people very depressed and miserable as they struggle to adapt. It's the policy of the breadline again - if you make things people want progressively more expensive people will only change when they absolutely cannot afford it any more, which means that most people will be hovering around that threshold ie be strapped for cash all the time.

And in this case you have the additional issue that it's often very difficult for people to move. You're forcing them to either a) take a crappier job and/or b) move away from their friends or family, both of which can have serious negative implications for quality of life.

It's all stick, no carrot. I think it's much better to provide incentive for change by making the alternative better in real terms FIRST, not just making it appear better by making the original worse.

People will have to give up their cars and easily availanble cheap personal transpotrt. This is inevitabvle

However on this thread as on may other on here people will make any excuse that the slightest compromise for them is impossible and nothing must interfere with their right to cheap personal transport

TJ - I wouldn't have this forum without you. I sometimes agree with you sometimes disagree, but unlike some others I would say that most of the time you come across as reasonably intelligent and always passionate about your chosen subjects.

However, and you knew there was a however coming, I think you are crediting me with views I do not have - or at least have not espoused in this thread.

igm - Member
[i]TJ - Nice theory on pushing us to public transport, but my wife's job and mine are around 60 mile apart. I suppose we could cycle (and do the TdF for light relief) but I think it actually make one of us unemployed or we only see each other at the weekends (and likewise our sons for one of us)[/i]

[b]Or this - someone who refuses to see that their actions are unsustainable and who will not countenance any alternative[/b]

I am pointing out the options that would be realistic to my wife and I, given where our jobs are located (and current public transport - but we can't use improved public transport until after it exists; Catch 22) - and there are very few places in the country that do what I do to the level I do it; my wife might have a little more flexibility.

Now I am not you note excluding those options - merely highlighting them. And if I gave the impression that I don't like the options very much, then that is probably a fair reflection.

Will oil run out, yes.

Will we be able to run cars in their current form forever - no.

Has society got a reasonable answer to transport in Britain - as you say, and I agree, not yet.

But your statement on inevitability - well only death and taxes fall into that category.

And my arguments would have been more convincing if I had spell checked my first post.

hang on,

petrol cost 28p/litre in 1980.

just following inflation, that would be 79p today.

(plenty of online inflation calculator correctors available - i haven't cherry picked)

i've just checked, and petrol costs £1.35ish.

?

Now go and read the article.

i did thanks.

modern engines are definitely more efficient, burning less fuel. But modern cars weigh more, burning more fuel.

i could get 70mpg out of my Grandpa's old fiesta - which would be about 30years old if it was still going.

my mum's family went on a driving tour around europe about 50 years ago, she kept track of all the fuel and mileage, and their fully loaded morris traveller got 40-something mpg over the whole trip.

and a little more digging suggests that 1980 was a really expensive year for fuel, at $37/barrel, the price dropped pretty sharply after that, and didn't go as high until 2004.

(in 1978 it was $15, in 1982 it was $32 and falling, by 1986 it was down to $15 again, and it wobbled around the $15/20 price until 2003)

[url= http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/historical_oil_prices_table.asp ]data here[/url]

but, in contrast, fuel accounts for less than half of my annual driving costs, which isn't so bad...

i could get 70mpg out of my Grandpa's old fiesta

How? You can get 115mpg from a Prius if you are being silly about it.

she kept track of all the fuel and mileage, and their fully loaded morris traveller got 40-something mpg over the whole trip

Again nowt special. You can get 80-90mpg from a Polo nowadays and it's still stacks better. These cars are available, we just don't choose to buy them very often because we'd rather (and can afford to) pay the extra on fuel.

i bet you can't get 90mpg out of a polo once it's fully loaded and being driven over the alps...

(like what my mum did with her parents)

it'll probably drop to something closer to 40ish, give or take a bit.

all i'm trying to say (clearly badly) is that i'm not convinced there's a massive difference between old-car mpg numbers, and modern-car mpg numbers.

obviously depends a bit on the cars in question.

(modern cars are obviously better, what with crash protection, more space and comfort, etc.)

the 70mpg-fiesta was achieved on a not-rushing-home run from st agnes to sheffield, with a 7'6" mini-mal just about squeezed into the passenger seat.

i try not to complain about the price of petrol, it's only going to go up, and before we know it we'll be talking about the good old days when petrol was only £1.40/litre...

i'm not convinced there's a massive difference between old-car mpg numbers, and modern-car mpg numbers

70 mpg from a 30 yr old Fiesta - assuming a 950 - unless you were doing 30 on a motorway I think 40-50 may be a more accurate claim having owned one of these. the current model with a 1.2 engine does 60 mpg ecxtar -urban so it has improved.

i bet you can't get 90mpg out of a polo once it's fully loaded and being driven over the alps

No? 80 I'm sure, if you factored in the journey down there. Even at 65mpg that'd be a 50% improvement on a similar sized car. I'm seeing 52-54mpg on winter diesel from my Passat on our weekend trips in the Alps right now, and not only is it not the Bluemotion version it's auto and the 2.0 140bhp version.

it'll probably drop to something closer to 40ish, give or take a bit.

Based on what? Pure guess work?

all i'm trying to say (clearly badly) is that i'm not convinced there's a massive difference between old-car mpg numbers, and modern-car mpg numbers.

And I am saying that there is. A full sized car that could do 70mpg was a total fantasy 30 years ago, today it's a reality. My point is that very economical cars are clearly available if you look for them, they are just not common because people are not buying them. People still think 45mpg is acceptable so they buy a faster/bigger car that'll do 45mpg, rather than going for more economy still. Which is relevant to the topic in some way 🙂

Btw I learned to drive in a 950cc Fiesta that was D reg so 1986, and it never did more than 40mpg.

i would suggest there's a little cherry picking going on.

i have personal experience (via my mum and her note-book in the case of the morris) of an old fiesta, and a morris traveller, these were hardly unusual cars of their day.

i shall leave it ... here.

see you in the next topic/bun fight!

🙂

i would suggest there's a little cherry picking going on.

dammit, i cracked, i'm a weak person, so soo me.

cherry picking: choosing 1980 as the year for comparison.

(it's exactly the same as choosing 1997/8 as a starting point, and then saying that global warming isn't happening)

fiesta: 1.6 diesel, 70mpg = easy.

(imagine putting a modern diesel engine in a car that light and simple - maybe it will happen when fuel prices actually start to bother us, rather than cause us to moan a bit)

awhiles - you are quite right. However there are good reasons for much of the weight gain, like safety.

My point (which is relevant to the thread and not about bickering) is that yes the technology exists to achieve maybe 80-100mpg in normal use but that comes with compromises that most people do not want to make. Which could indicate that fuel is not expensive enough. The problem is that people who need cheap fuel (ie the rural poor) also don't have the money to go out and shop for a modern eco mobile, which leaves them with few alternatives.

IIRC the development of diesel in passenger cars was as a direct result of the 70s oil crisis, when fuel economy suddenly mattered a lot more than it had done.

i think we're agreeing with each other...

blimey!

🙂

i do wonder what will happen to places like what where my parents live, as there are no jobs there, and surely the price of fuel has to be a consideration for people who might like to move there and commute (20miles each way to nearest job).

the old people die or get bundled into care homes, but few young working people want to move into a house they can't afford to commute from.

interesting times...

i do wonder what will happen to places like what where my parents live, as there are no jobs there

Rural depopulation has been happening since the industrial revolution, and I suspect that only the widespread use of the motor car has retarted it in recent decades. It was far worse at first, then it seems to have plateaued but who knows what'll happen if fuel gets very expensive.

My guess is that telecommuting will save the countryside but not its indigenous population... A lot of people already seem to run their businesses from small villages in London's hinterland, I reckon this has already massively altered the demographic of places like rural Surrey and Hampshire.

So use the money raised from motoring taxation to subsidise public transport

Erm, TJ, do you know how many billions the taxpayer actually subsidises the rail industry already? Bit harsh to paint cars are the total evil.

How much 'subsidy' does motoring actual have? The large percentage of fuel cost goes to the government already, plus insurances taxes and, of course, car tax.

So if we want to make this change in a planned and orderly way it has costs. I suggest that raising this money from private motoring will provide impetus and also is fair as personal motoring receives huge subsidy.

of course it's chicken and egg. No-one will commit to spending public money on public transport until people use it. People won't use it until it is viable. How to break out of that vicious circle is the problem. And hopefully will be done by education in some respects, even at school level if we have time for the next greener generation to come along.

Then again we're just doing the proverbial into the wind in this country when you realise India and China are just getting to points now where they all want cars to drive....

No-one will commit to spending public money on public transport until people use it. People won't use it until it is viable. How to break out of that vicious circle is the problem

The population density issue won't go away unfortunately. Viable public transport in many cases will never be profitable and is consequently going to be a huge burden on public finances.

private motoring gets huge subsidies from the public purse.

TJ - can you back up this claim with some figures please, I'm calling you on it because I think its utter bollocks!

breathesay.

Yes - massive subsidy. Each death costs a million pounds. All the deaths and ill health from pollution as well as in crashes.

The cost of enforcing motoring law

The value of the land used for roads and parking

The cost of local roads - paid for by council tax payers

The damage to buildings from vibration and from polution

And loads more

One set of calculations here
http://www.igreens.org.uk/great_road_transport_subsidy.htm

So, Rail does not impose any of those costs I presume?

No rail deaths, costing millions to investigate, public enquiries, things like that? Trains and buses cause no pollution I presume?

in fact, even your own later suggestion is contradictory:

I suggest that raising this money from private motoring will provide impetus and also is fair as personal motoring receives huge subsidy ....
... So use the money raised from motoring taxation to subsidise public transport

How can you do that? completely contradictory bullshit as usual! Private motoring raises about 30 billion quid a year for the exchequer, (fuel tax, VED, VAT on fuel and vehicle sales) it pays out a fraction of this in maintenance, and only a fraction on other costs.

Private motoring is a [b]massive[/b] net beneficiary for the treasury - in fact, although the money is not hypothecated, its fairly reasonable to claim that it pays for all the costs of public transportation subsidy (about five billion a year for the rail network alone) many times over!

zulu - pointless as it is to debate with you you simply are wrong. Private motoring costs far more than the money raised in motoring taxes. This is an absolute fact. When you include the total costs of motoring to the country.

Have a read of the link I just posted Motoring costs to the country are around 100 bn a year. So the subsidy is around 70 bm a year

But TJ, is that lot really all more than tax revenue? If you're going to be thorough about it, you have to include:

Fuel duty receipts
VED
VAT/tax on new cars and on spare parts
Economic contribution from car companies, car parts suppliers, garages, tax from their employees etc (I suspect this bit is absolutely massive, and the economy would have to do a hell of a lot of growing to take up that slack)

I struggle with long sentences in that badly worded and formated article, but what's that about 'true cost of car parking?'

EDIT after a further skim they seem to be counting the asset value of all the land used as roads. This is bloody ridiculous since even if there were no private cars you would not be able to rip them all up would you?

I like the idea of "absolute facts". Other people have facts. TJ has absolute facts.

TJ's article is 15 years old btw.

zulu - pointless as it is to debate with you you simply are wrong.

GAH!

It's stuff like this that makes you absoultely insufferable, TJ.

If he's wrong, all the more reason to debate with him, isn't it? He is rebutting your input, you rebut his. And I'm talking about constructive argument not simply repeating yourself:

TJ, earlier (on the right)

[img] [/img]

And with that I bow out of this contentious argument again. Its simply pointless.

TJ what happened to the list of absolute facts that was there a moment ago?
I hope there's no Stalinist conspiracy to erase the truth going on.

TJ standard flounce 🙂

Flouncetastic! I consider my work here done, however if he bounces back, I [i]was[/i] going to say:

Private motoring costs far more than the money raised in motoring taxes. This is an absolute fact. When you include the total costs of motoring to the country.

But, you haven't included total revenues to the country of private motoring have you, you see if you want to play with ethereal "total costs" then you have to think about the effect of tourism on local areas, the effect of mental health of people being able to do stuff in their cars, like visiting family for example, you need to include the expansion of sports like mountain biking, since people use private motoring to go to trail centres and things - if you want to play the "total cost" then you cannot only include "money raised in motoring taxes" you have to compare it to "total beneficial value to the country of private motoring" which goes far, far beyond fuel duty and VAT

TJ, you might have been having an argument, but Molgrips and i were having an interesting discussion about the affect high and increasing fuel prices might have on rural populations.

as M-G pointed out, there was an exodus during the industrial revolution, for nearly similar reasons; mechanisation of farming meant that jobs dried up, forcing people to leave for the towns and the jobs, i hadn't thought of this...

and that's why i keep coming back to this place, cos of the interesting interactions with clever people like M-G, i can take his comments and put them in my head with my own thoughts and let them simmer nicely for a few hours while i attempt to do some work.

for example, during the industrial revolution, people left the countryside because there were fewer jobs, this time round people will be moving closer to the jobs they already have, or accepting less money to work close to home. or something.

so it's similar, but not the same. I'm not clever enough to foresee the implications of it all, but i'm sure someone will say something interesting and intelligent.

awhiles - on that one. We have a situation in fife where the urban workers live in the villages and commute to the towns and the rural workers live in the towns and commute to the villages. This is because the urban workers have priced the rural population out of the villages.

so actually a pricier commute will see a shift in the relative price of these homes allowing the rural worker to live in the villages again

Its simply pointless

Cos you made it that way by refusing to take anything on board that anyone else has said..!

Almost every single contributor on this forum ridicules the way you argue and your attitude on these threads. Surely that should tell you something?

🙂 awhiles.. likewise I come here to discuss and learn.

Molgrips - its pointless as no one listens and no on will have their mind changed.

I've had 4 pals recently take up or look seriously into cycling/motorbikes as a transport alternative. 5 years ago they would have thought of bikes as toys/daft/too much like hard work. One has even asked me about electric bikes.

I reckon change has started...slowly...but confidence is high.

Also TJ has only been wrong once and it wasn't even important. 😉

TandemJeremy - Member
Molgrips - its pointless as no one listens and no on will have their mind changed.

Brilliant 😉

FWIW, I fundamentally agree with you TJ, just your way of debating/discussing is so counter-productive that it's simply not worth getting involved and it's far funnier to poke fun. YMMV.