fuel,when will it stop.....

[MozzComm]

i never normally look at the price of fuel, its one of those things i dont check beacuse 'i have to have it, so i have to pay for it'

however i noticed this morning, not the cost in the first instance but the volume of fuel i got....26 litres for £40.

now that is shocking!

when will it stop though or will it?

surely there are others out there that think the same as me that ;im just going to have to pay it' it wont be long before its £2 a litre.

but we cant win, if the price is frozen on fuel it will be added somewhere else anyway as our fabulous government cant not have that extra little bit.

they wont reduce the tax on fuel but they must realize at some point everyone will throw down there keys....meaning they will be losing one hell of a chunk of revenue to them.

so why not cut or freeze there proportion?

 

The more expensive the better.

It will stop people buying gas guzzlers and make manufacturers find more efficient motors.

Not to mention a bit of walking is good for your health.

If petrol cars were banned that would cut our consumption by 50% in one blow.

The oil is going to run out ,so alternative need to be found and what we have conserved.

so bring on the £10 a gallon.

Earl

 

[MozzComm]

The more expensive the better.

It will stop people buying gas guzzlers and make manufacturers find more efficient motors.

Not to mention a bit of walking is good for your health.

If petrol cars were banned that would cut our consumption by 50% in one blow.

The oil is going to run out ,so alternative need to be found and what we have conserved.

so bring on the £10 a gallon.

Earl

i saw a programme a few years back now, that a company had invented a car that runs on.....water but the governament would not approve it to be manufactured.

why? because they would lose a fortune.

i dont care what fuels my car. but i care about the cost - and im sure the government do stop specific developments reaching us beacuse of this.

 

i saw a programme a few years back now, that a company had invented a car that runs on.....water but the governament would not approve it to be manufactured.

why? because they would lose a fortune.

i dont care what fuels my car. but i care about the cost - and im sure the government do stop specific developments reaching us beacuse of this.

what type of vehicle do you run and could you not use a push bike for some journeys.?

Earl

 

[MozzComm]

what type of vehicle do you run and could you not use a push bike for some journeys.?

Earl

probably not, 2 small children so too far for them to bike it if were going out and about and my office is 30 miles from my home and need it for day to day business ops to.

 

[123Simples]

The more expensive the better.

It will stop people buying gas guzzlers and make manufacturers find more efficient motors.

Not to mention a bit of walking is good for your health.

If petrol cars were banned that would cut our consumption by 50% in one blow.

The oil is going to run out ,so alternative need to be found and what we have conserved.

so bring on the £10 a gallon.

Earl

Which is fine, but unfortunately the price we pay is governed largely by the tax that the Government canes in to pay for other garbage - this website makes for interesting reading on how fuel prices have gone up http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/petrolprices.html since 1983, and particularly over the last few years too.

Oil will run out (or at least it will run low) probably about 40 years from now (at present consumption rates)

Science has invented lots of things that can make our life's simplier and easier! Unfortunately commercial greed means that we will never see half of these things EVER come onto the market.

 

[Mpg]

The more expensive the better.

It will stop people buying gas guzzlers and make manufacturers find more efficient motors.

Not to mention a bit of walking is good for your health.

If petrol cars were banned that would cut our consumption by 50% in one blow.

The oil is going to run out ,so alternative need to be found and what we have conserved.

so bring on the £10 a gallon.

Earl

Woah.... Hang fire sonny!

How many companies that rely on transport would go bust especially when transport companies are struggling now.

Our fuel costs now exceed £6k per month up from around £4k We're struggling to expand as our clients can't/won't pay extra. Which in turn means they're also not growing.

No problem with upping the price but businesses need better breaks.

 

[Esk247]

so bring on the £10 a gallon.

Earl

As mentioned, how are you going to get your food delivered without petrol? Even coasters (boats not the type under your coffee cup) need petrol to travel along inland waterways delivering products.

You know how it works Earl. The world depends on oil, thats why the government can use the 'Eco Stick' to beat us with and then collect all the coins that fall out of our pocket as we roll over.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

I live in a city and I wonder how many of those people here who "need a car" actually need one... or need to use it for half the journeys they take.

As for 2 small kids, my parents never had a car until I was around 10. That means my parents had years of ferrying around 2 kids via public transport.

Steve

 

[internetspaceships]

I live in a city and I wonder how many of those people here who "need a car" actually need one... or need to use it for half the journeys they take.

As for 2 small kids, my parents never had a car until I was around 10. That means my parents had years of ferrying around 2 kids via public transport.

Steve

It's actually not the price of petrol that causes me the concern. It's what we are funding by paying the tax.

Steve whether people really need a car or not isn't the issue. If they want a car they are entitled to one Sir. We can't change that.

As to Earl's comment about £10 per gallon. You really didn't think through the ramifications of that one and the knock on effects did you?

 

[Richie N]

More increases coming in August...

 

[MikeJ]

i saw a programme a few years back now, that a company had invented a car that runs on.....water but the governament would not approve it to be manufactured

No, you didn't. You really didn't, did you?

Because, let's face it, the country is a net importer of oil, so if we could produce "free" energy, then we would. Arguments about lack of tax revenue don't make sense, in the real world.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

It's actually not the price of petrol that causes me the concern. It's what we are funding by paying the tax.

You're funding government spending.

Steve whether people really need a car or not isn't the issue. If they want a car they are entitled to one Sir. We can't change that.

... which would be a reasonable thing to say had I said otherwise.

Like it or not, this country seems to have decided it agrees with the global warming theory. Which means it's quite reasonable that the immense perceived cost of people driving is borne by the drivers.

As to Earl's comment about £10 per gallon. You really didn't think through the ramifications of that one and the knock on effects did you?

Or perhaps I did. See, there are some who realise the cost of petrol isn't the only cost of driving.

Steve

 

[internetspaceships]

Apologies if you read my posts wrong Steve, I wasn't looking for a scrap here.

 

Which is fine, but unfortunately the price we pay is governed largely by the tax that the Government canes in to pay for other garbage - this website makes for interesting reading on how fuel prices have gone up http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/petrolprices.html since 1983, and particularly over the last few years too.

Oil will run out (or at least it will run low) probably about 40 years from now (at present consumption rates)

Science has invented lots of things that can make our life's simplier and easier! Unfortunately commercial greed means that we will never see half of these things EVER come onto the market.

Well like the aircraft,farming and shipping industry essential users vehicles should be duty free.I doubt if the aircraft industry would exist without the huge subsidies they get.

Its the stupid people who drive range rovers.e.t.c that use as much fuel as an artic that should be targetted off the roads.

Earl

Earl

 

[internetspaceships]

Its the stupid people who drive range rovers.e.t.c that use as much fuel as an artic that should be targetted off the roads.

Earl

Earl

Lol!! We're back to your never ending theme of jealousy then?

 

[MikeJ]

Forget it.

You're trying to argue with someone that thinks a busines can operate with 200% margins.

You may as well try and catch the wind.

 

[internetspaceships]

Haha of course. My mistake.

 

So basically people don't give a jot about the long term ramifications?

We had better start breeding horses for our grandkids.

The only viable alternative I see is electric vehicles,but the technology to generate electricity is not up to its use.IMHO

For most cars provide the basis for there way of life.

Ever thought how stupid that is.?

Earl

 

[internetspaceships]

Why electric vehicles? They cost a fortune in carbon to produce and as you quite rightly pointed out they require a three pin plug to operate. This os something the loony leftie greenies carefully elect to forget.

The batteries also have a shelf life and need replacing.

 

[Wasworkinallweek]

£10.00 a gallon thats a healthy chunk of money going to the government eh
so if they produce a non oil based car what will they tax to make up the shortfall ?

 

[internetspaceships]

£10.00 a gallon thats a healthy chunk of money going to the government eh
so if they produce a non oil based car what will they tax to make up the shortfall ?

There's nothing they could tax sufficiently in order to recover that level of lost revenue.

 

[amac]

There's nothing they could tax sufficiently in order to recover that level of lost revenue.

This is correct, taxation from North Sea Oil will be extremely difficult if not impossible to replace in the short-term.

 

[internetspaceships]

It's not North Sea oil tax it's petrol tax sir.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Apologies if you read my posts wrong Steve, I wasn't looking for a scrap here.

That's funny, because when you write stuff like:

You really didn't think through the ramifications of that one and the knock on effects did you?

it sounds extraordinarily patronising.

A bit like you thinking that someone seeing things differently to you couldn't have "though through" their position.... because you couldn't possibly be wrong.

I'm just saying...

Steve

 

[internetspaceships]

It wasn't aimed at you Steve it's an ongoing thing me and Earl have got going. I even said it to Earl (pop back and read it if you like it'll become clear for you)

Alternatively you can just be an arse about it. I really don't mind either way but in future I'll just not even bother attempting to engage you in polite debate if you prefer?

 

Lol!! We're back to your never ending theme of jealousy then?

Not at all .

My concern is for the saftey of myself and other road users and the huge amount of scarce resources they use.

Would anyone want to drive round in an agricultural vehicle that guzzles 3 times the fuel of the average car and has a major inherent design fault for passenger transport.

Range Rovers with a 4.4-litre engine have an urban mpg of 12.2 and emit 389g carbon dioxide per kilometre. In contrast, a Ford Mondeo 2-litre fuel-injected saloon has an urban mpg of 25 and emits 190g carbon dioxide. A Smart car emits 138g carbon dioxide.


Alliance Against Urban 4x4s
Urban 4x4s are involved in 25 per cent more accidents than saloon cars and do far more damage.


Churchill Insurance
4x4 drivers are 27 per cent more likely to be at fault in the event of an accident than saloon car drivers.


Admiral Insurance
If a pedestrian is hit by a 4x4 they are twice as likely to be killed than if they were hit by a saloon car.


New Scientist
Only 5 per cent of 4x4s are ever taken off-road.


Alliance Against Urban 4x4s
Sales of 4x4s grew by 12.8 per cent in 2004, to 179,000, more than double the number sold a decade ago.


Department of Transport, 2005
Drivers of 4x4s are most likely to have been in an argument with traffic wardens (22 per cent), compared with 6 per cent of saloon car drivers.


RAC Foundation, 2004
The risk of a fatal roll-over crash is twice as high for 4x4s as it is for a saloon car.


Earl

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Alternatively you can just be an arse about it.

So, you make an incredibly patronising remark and, if someone doesn't appreciate it, they're "an arse"?

I guess, in the world you live in, you could go up to a random stranger, tell him his wife is a whore and, if he tells you to go "f" yourself, it just shows what an "arse" he is?

Maybe you should take some responsibility for the way you talk to people?

but in future I'll just not even bother attempting to engage you in polite debate if you prefer?

If you ever learn how to engage people in polite debate, I'm up for it. If you want to be patronising to anyone who doesn't see things your way... that's not "polite debate".

Steve

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Alliance Against Urban 4x4s
Urban 4x4s are involved in 25 per cent more accidents than saloon cars and do far more damage.

Churchill Insurance
4x4 drivers are 27 per cent more likely to be at fault in the event of an accident than saloon car drivers.

Speaking as a cyclist, neither of those things surprise me.

Based on my experience, drivers of 4x4s are, as a group, far worse than the drivers of other types of car.

Steve

 

[willitbe]

Earl.
What is your beef with the world? And I notice you quote figures for petrol engined cars, how many people really choose a big engined petrol 4 x 4 nowadays?
Steve.
Parents not having a car until you were 10 was probably due to them not being able to drive more than anything.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

Speaking as a cyclist, neither of those things surprise me.

Based on my experience, drivers of 4x4s are, as a group, far worse than the drivers of other types of car.

Steve

yes they are Steve they are proper *******s !!!!

This is not just a city issue (Chelsea Tractor !!) but in the last ten years here in the country side 4x4 drivers have gone from those that need big trucks to those that pose with big trucks .The ones that used big 4X4s for a living have gone over to more economic means of transport van based pickups ect

One fool decided to wave his fist the other day at 3 boxers running on the hillsin Bradnich Devon .This fat boy took alot of effort to climb the stairs yet he felt so powerfull in his 4x4 that he fought he could take on 3 boxers around the age of 20 ....Provided he did not leave his car !!

The electric motor is probably going to be the answer for the future even though we think its a joke at he moment !!! They used to laugh at the man that built a horse carridge with a combution engine !!!

About 12 years ago I drove through France then over to here I had to battlle fuel protest in France then when I got to Portsmouth it was happening here . This was when fuel was a smaller precentage of income than it is now yet nobody has done anything about it so I guess we are more tollerent now and probably care less !!!

 

[Mpg]

Not at all .

My concern is for the saftey of myself and other road users and the huge amount of scarce resources they use.

Would anyone want to drive round in an agricultural vehicle that guzzles 3 times the fuel of the average car and has a major inherent design fault for passenger transport.

Range Rovers with a 4.4-litre engine have an urban mpg of 12.2 and emit 389g carbon dioxide per kilometre. In contrast, a Ford Mondeo 2-litre fuel-injected saloon has an urban mpg of 25 and emits 190g carbon dioxide. A Smart car emits 138g carbon dioxide.


Alliance Against Urban 4x4s
Urban 4x4s are involved in 25 per cent more accidents than saloon cars and do far more damage.


Churchill Insurance
4x4 drivers are 27 per cent more likely to be at fault in the event of an accident than saloon car drivers.


Admiral Insurance
If a pedestrian is hit by a 4x4 they are twice as likely to be killed than if they were hit by a saloon car.


New Scientist
Only 5 per cent of 4x4s are ever taken off-road.


Alliance Against Urban 4x4s
Sales of 4x4s grew by 12.8 per cent in 2004, to 179,000, more than double the number sold a decade ago.


Department of Transport, 2005
Drivers of 4x4s are most likely to have been in an argument with traffic wardens (22 per cent), compared with 6 per cent of saloon car drivers.


RAC Foundation, 2004
The risk of a fatal roll-over crash is twice as high for 4x4s as it is for a saloon car.


Earl

I'd guess those stats are misleading. 4x4 is a generic term for 4 wheel drive so will include Subaru impreza, Audi A4's porsche 911's, the new BMW 5 series. I once had a subaru 4 wheel drive sooty van.


It's also a fuel tax so even if we could use water to power our vehicles the government would still tax it. They'll just change it to a mileage tax

 

[MozzComm]

Speaking as a cyclist, neither of those things surprise me.

Based on my experience, drivers of 4x4s are, as a group, far worse than the drivers of other types of car.

Steve

oh no...your a cyclist, this explains the direction of your debate.

i do think though, that cyclist shoud pay insurance aswell.

 

[vvaannmmaann]

All this faux "rage" about 4x4's!
During our last period of ice/snow we had,who was it that went to fetch shopping for his neighbours,pulled cars out of ditches,took a vet to a sick horse?
Aye it was me,in my battered 25 year old Landy.
Hypocrites.

 

[Beachcomber]

There's nothing they could tax sufficiently in order to recover that level of lost revenue.

Legalisation of cannabis would more than make up for lost fuel revenue.
Might chill some of you buggers out as well.

 

[Mpg]

oh no...your a cyclist, this explains the direction of your debate.

i do think though, that cyclist shoud pay insurance aswell.

I think thats the 1st ever post anywhere, That has a dig a cyclists without mentioning that they shouldn't be on the road as they dont pay road tax.

Your right about insurance though. I have an expensive mountain bike with specialist insurance which has 3rd party insurance.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

oh no...your a cyclist, this explains the direction of your debate.

Or the direction of my debate could explain why I'm a cyclist.

Or the two things might have nothing to do with each other.

Who knows?

I've said it before (in a thread a few weeks ago), if oil is a scarce resource, then the model of people using that oil to get around in individual tin cans doesn't make sense.

I do have this image in my head that, if global warming turns out to be right, of a parent explaining to his early-20s children, "Listen, it was a choice between destroying the planet or taking public transport... and there's no way I was going to take public transport..."*

Steve

* Homer Simpson once said, "Public Transportation's for jerks and lesbians."

 

[directmarketingadvice]

Steve.
Parents not having a car until you were 10 was probably due to them not being able to drive more than anything.

Yes. It was.

But it's an example of how people can survive in a city without a car.

Public transport isn't any worse in Edinburgh than when I was a kid. The same things aren't further apart from each other.

Of course, as a 5yo kid I had the horror of walking half a mile to school (and most of that was up a steep hill).

But we managed to survive this. (And, coincidentally, weren't as fat as kids are today.)

Steve

 

[bdw]

People can survive in a city without a car but this is a small business forum and the fact is that most of us small business people need cars to run our businesses. The discussion is about what we are paying for petrol.

(Being largely home based I don't really need my car by the way. I could always use my wife's.)

.

 

Earl.
What is your beef with the world? .

I don't think UKBF is big enough.

I don't have a beef with the world.

But the people on it.

Now thats summing else.

Earl