Farewell, then, sub £1 a litre fuel :(

[fredfelt]

The figures from the Sun are wildly different to figures from the EU.

According to the EU the UK's fuel prices are below the EU average

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/observat...tin_with_taxes/2010_03_08_with_taxes_1498.pdf

I guess the Sun are using Diesel prices, rather than petrol prices.

But fuel is just one cost of motoring. If you added things such as, the Toll motorways in France for instance, the UK is plenty cheaper to drive than most of Europe.

 

[co-op]

as well it should be limiting the freedom of movement of a population is a ludicrous idea.

Hmm. "Freedom of movement" eh? Whose freedom of movement?

To take just one example; in Lambeth we know that 30% of school children would prefer to travel to school by bicycle (this would, incidentally help tackle childhod obesity and improve academic results but that's just by the by). But only 3% of children actually do cycle to school. When parents are asked why they don't let their children cycle to school, the reason - of course - is because it is too dangerous.

Cars giveth freedom and they taketh it away.

In areas like Lambeth, where I live, car owners are a fairly small minority (in some wards as few as 11% of households have a car registered) - in that situation it is absurd to talk about cars conferring "freedom"; they massively reduce freedom of travel, and quality of life for the large majority of people.

I am afraid that you are retailing tired old car-ad myths with the freedom line. Interestingly even the car ads I see these days don't bother with the open roads schtick any more - they seem to have gone full-on hallucinogenic in fact.

In some circumstances cars are a logical part of the transport mix (car clubs, van clubs, taxis, small tradesmen etc etc) but this "freedom" argument is just silly tory nonsense, reminiscent of the gun lobby's equally stupid freedom line in the States.

 

[fredfelt]

Rory wouldn't link to the Evening Standard, and now I'm going to have to link to the 'current bun', which is arguably worse. Anyway, here we go http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/money/2893820/Freeze-fuel-tax-or-20000-jobs-go.html

Forget the SCREAMING BANNER HEADLINES about 20,000 job cuts. Look at the table. You can see that the UK actually has the cheapest petrol price before tax, but the dearest after tax.

Now I'm wondering what countries may have been left out, possibly Norway but other than that, it is a pretty good indicator of what people are talking about.

If you are interested (and you'd have to be quite a nerd to be I expect) you can compare European petrol prices, taxes and costs here - also in spreadsheets so you can do what you will with them

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/observatory/oil/bulletin_en.htm

I'm almost interested enough to look more closely - but I should really earn my wages

 

[fredfelt]

co-op - I think it must be something about owning a car that makes some people feel hard done by. It's clear that the prices of public transport have gone up far more than that of owning a car - and if you believe annual AA cost of car ownership surveys in real terms driving has actually got cheaper in the last 10 years. Despite having to pay more for public transport I have never felt so free to go where I want since I addressed my car dependency.

I wonder if Garf starts to address his apparent car dependency he'll realise that attempting to reduce car use will not necessary "be limiting the freedom of movement of a population"

 

[kyser_soze]

Fill your car up with something else the, oil companies tell public

 

[weltweit]

... In areas like Lambeth, where I live, car owners are a fairly small minority (in some wards as few as 11% of households have a car registered) - in that situation it is absurd to talk about cars conferring "freedom"; they massively reduce freedom of travel, and quality of life for the large majority of people. ...

I don't live in Lambeth.

Where I live a car is essential transport.

Public transport is virtually non existant and taxi fairs extortionate and distances too far for a bicycle.

And if only 11% have a car, how can they reduce freedom of travel for everyone else?

 

[co-op]

And if only 11% have a car, how can they reduce freedom of travel for everyone else?

Firstly, the borough-wide figure for car registration per household is just under half, so the 11% figure is for one ward. Just fyi.

But actually it's less than 11% who "have" a car in that ward (or who can be meaningfully described as having access to one) since it appears that the average number of people living in households with a car registered is smaller than the average numer of people living in households without one.

But 11% of people acting anti-socailly are perfectly capable of ruining other peoples' freedom, I don't see what's so contradictory about that.

But of course it's probably the case that the real problem is people who live outside the borough but who have defined their "personal feedom" as including the right to drive through the borough, thus massively reducing the personal freedom to travel of the local majority (by blocking the roads to buses, intimidating cyclists and pedestrians etc), as well as hugely impacting on peoples' ability to enjoy their local neighbourhood free from noise, pollution, aggressive driving and of course the hundreds killed and seriously injured each year.

I totally take your point about much of the UK by the way - although I would still argue that a car-dependent society doesn't offer much "freedom" to many people, rather a source of continual financial stress. But the poster who was lauding the "freedom" yielded by cars (who I was responding to) has as his location London, where we have the best and cheapest public transport in the country and where the vast majority of car journeys are unnecessary.

 

[co-op]

co-op - I think it must be something about owning a car that makes some people feel hard done by. It's clear that the prices of public transport have gone up far more than that of owning a car - and if you believe annual AA cost of car ownership surveys in real terms driving has actually got cheaper in the last 10 years. Despite having to pay more for public transport I have never felt so free to go where I want since I addressed my car dependency.

I wonder if Garf starts to address his apparent car dependency he'll realise that attempting to reduce car use will not necessary "be limiting the freedom of movement of a population"

To be honest I think a significant proportion of car-addicts are functional agoraphobics. I have certainly known some people who "can't go out, the cars broken down", and they really mean it.

For others, it's either genuine arrogance - when they talk of "personal freedom" they mean their own personal freedom and they really don't give a crap about anyone elses, or it's a series of unwitting assumptions that amount to arrogance; the belief that car-ownership is 'normal' and never requires justification - indeed that to question that assumption is taboo. Certainly some people dissolve into over-emotional eactions very rapidly when they are questioned about their driving.

 

[XR75]

But of course it's probably the case that the real problem is people who live outside the borough but who have defined their "personal feedom" as including the right to drive through the borough, thus massively reducing the personal freedom to travel of the local majority (by blocking the roads to buses, intimidating cyclists and pedestrians etc), as well as hugely impacting on peoples' ability to enjoy their local neighbourhood free from noise, pollution, aggressive driving and of course the hundreds killed and seriously injured each year.

Build cyclepaths and hand out valiums for the overly sensitive.

Cars aren't the only form of personal transport,something which is hampered by the multitude of silly laws, and public transport's fairly rubbish.

 

[Oswaldtwistle]

Cars giveth freedom and they taketh it away.

In areas like Lambeth, where I live, car owners are a fairly small minority (in some wards as few as 11% of households have a car registered) - in that situation it is absurd to talk about cars conferring "freedom"; they massively reduce freedom of travel, and quality of life for the large majority of people.

I agree. However most people do not live in Lambeth.

 

[Oswaldtwistle]

I guess the Sun are using Diesel prices, rather than petrol prices.

That isn't made clear in the article, is it, although I suppose it *is* about truckers. In France the majority of cars (not surprisingly) are diesel.

But fuel is just one cost of motoring. If you added things such as, the Toll motorways in France for instance, the UK is plenty cheaper to drive than most of Europe.

You can choose not to use toll motorways. You can take the slow road, or take the train and sometime you can simply decide not to travel so far if it is a 'discresionary' journey like a weekend away or a day trip somewhere.

Often (not always) you can choose alternatives with journies up to a couple of miles (walk or cycle) and with journies over about 50 miles (train, or stay local)



It's journies in between where the choice is often less clear cut.

 

[fredfelt]

Oswaldtwisle - You may find this 'interesting'

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtran/103/10304.htm

It's about relative taxes for vehicles across Europe looking at car ownership and usage...

29. In terms of total taxation on both ownership and use, British drivers are taxed at the European average and pay, in relative terms, similar amounts to drivers in Finland, Denmark, Ireland, Italy and France. However, in respect of car ownership, British drivers pay average or below average amounts of tax, depending on engine size; and in respect of car use, British drivers are amongst the most highly taxed in Europe.

35. The British driver is sometimes portrayed as uniquely highly-taxed. Yet, taken overall, the taxes and charges paid by drivers in comparable European countries, such as the Netherlands and Germany, are not so different to those in the UK. We support the UK emphasis on car-use taxes, as opposed to car-ownership taxes. It is more equitable that those who consume more should pay more. Such taxes are more likely to incentivise less fossil fuel consumption and therefore lower CO2 emissions. The fact that it is 18% cheaper to run a car now than twenty years ago combined with increases in the real level of bus and rail fares over the same period, makes it more difficult to encourage modal shifts from cars to public transport. The basis of Government policy should be to reverse these trends.

 

[stupid dogbot]

Just got the latest e-mail telling me the best prices for fuel in my area. Lowest is 113.9p!!!

This is going to be an expensive summer when it comes to those weeked rides

Innit. £18 to full, 100 miles a tank...

 

[Oswaldtwistle]

Oswaldtwisle - You may find this 'interesting'

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtran/103/10304.htm

It's about relative taxes for vehicles across Europe looking at car ownership and usage...

Comparisons with Europe are interesting, Big Phil. Although I guess people over there are going to be calling for fuel duty freezes also.

Again, to repeat. I am not calling for a fuel duty cut. Just no further increases for a while.


****
It's a bit off topic, but I'd like to challenge this "The fact that it is 18% cheaper to run a car now than twenty years ago "

I'm not so sure it is. Quite rightly, the MOT test has got stricter, both on safety and environmental grounds. Combine that with modern cars that are pretty much impossible to repair at home, and it has pushed running costs up.

 

[deadringer]

A car with 4 people in it will still be way cheaper than the train for a medium length journey.

A car with one person is less efficient.

But it is hard to beat the convenience of door to door travel which you only get with a car.

this is the problem with getting people out of their cars and onto trains. travel on your own a fair distance and the price is comparable, maybe slightly cheAper by train, so it can be very attractive to do so in exchange for not having to drive, even though its a bit more inconvienient. howerever, as soon as 2 share the costs, it blows the train option away. 3 or 4 in the car and its happy days, cheap journey. until this is addressed the train is always going to struggle against a car full of mates.

In some circumstances cars are a logical part of the transport mix (car clubs, van clubs, taxis, small tradesmen etc etc) but this "freedom" argument is just silly tory nonsense, reminiscent of the gun lobby's equally stupid freedom line in the States.

in masses of the country a car is the only option of the transport mix. i think those of us that live in london, home counties forget that sometimes.

 

[weltweit]

in masses of the country a car is the only option of the transport mix. i think those of us that live in london, home counties forget that sometimes.

When I was a student, in a city, I could get around by bus. Since then I have always moved where the work was and invariably it was out of town. The car has always been a necessity for me to get to work.

 

[roryer]

Off topic a bit but fuel duty rises are mainly a tax to raise revenue, nothing too dissimilar to duty on booze. While I support raising the cost of motoring, and accept that fuel duty is the only mechanism available, it really is a blunt instrument and the unintended consequences of simply taxing fuel have already as has been discussed here.

Almost everyone, even the car lobby, RAC Foundation in particular, argue that road pricing is a much more sensible policy if congestion were an issue that we wished to deal with.

In city centres congestion is a common problem, while alternatives are many, so the price of driving would be very high especially at peak hours, also the social costs of local environment, child obesity etc. could even be factored in, so that driving on common routes to school could be also priced at levels which reflect the external costs imposed on others of driving a car.

Meanwhile the less accessible places would have very low motoring costs.

Overall the cost of motoring would be no higher, tax revenues would be the same as present, but we could actually address our transportation issues.

I understand that there is resistance to this move. A pity that the electorate aren't asked the real question, road pricing saving costs for the majority or expensive fuel and congestion.

 

[fredfelt]

Again, to repeat. I am not calling for a fuel duty cut. Just no further increases for a while.

That's the thing about a duty - it's a fixed rate, rather than a percentage of price of the good. Unless the duty is raised periodically the % of tax to price on the commodity falls over time.

 

[Oswaldtwistle]

That's the thing about a duty - it's a fixed rate, rather than a percentage of price of the good. Unless the duty is raised periodically the % of tax to price on the commodity falls over time.

Not quite sure what point you are making there?

 

[fredfelt]

Not quite sure what point you are making there?

For example Say duty is 50p on a litre which costs £1.00 - tax 50% of the price

Time passes, with inflation and market pressures the price of fuel doubles. No change in duty. A litre now costs £1.50. Tax is 33 % of the price.

So where a duty remains the same the tax is reduced.

The Tories tried to address this feature of a duty with the fuel tax escalator - increasing fuel duty each year.

 

[Oswaldtwistle]

For example Say duty is 50p on a litre which costs £1.00 - tax 50% of the price

Time passes, with inflation and market pressures the price of fuel doubles. No change in duty. A litre now costs £1.50. Tax is 33 % of the price.

So where a duty remains the same the tax is reduced.
.

As a percentage, yes. But I don't see how that is a good argument for raising fuel duty?

 

[fredfelt]

It's not an argument either way, just an illustration of how a constant level of fuel duty results in decreasing tax on fuel. However I certainty don't think it's wise to reduce taxes on fuel.

 

[Oswaldtwistle]

However I certainty don't think it's wise to reduce taxes on fuel.

I think people accept that that cannot happen. I do think it is reasonable, though for people to ask for a line in the sand to be drawn, and the duty not to be increased any further (that would *still* give rising tax revenues to the exchequer as oil prices rise because petrol is also subject to VAT on top of the duty)

If there are public protests, I will proberbly take part, although ironically that will mean borrowing a car

 

[fredfelt]

If there are public protests, I will proberbly take part, although ironically that will mean borrowing a car

I'm insured on my GF car. I'd give you a lift.

 

[Oswaldtwistle]

I'm insured on my GF car. I'd give you a lift.

LOL

 

[co-op]

in masses of the country a car is the only option of the transport mix. i think those of us that live in london, home counties forget that sometimes.

I've lived in very isolated rural places for years and not had a car when I did so I'm aware of the issues but I think you're missing the point I was making. I was talking about "freedom" and how cars don't offer this - probably can't offer it - universally. They are very zero-sum; the more one person enjoys their freedom in a car, the less other people are going to be able to.

I understand the (obvious) point that it is harder to live in a rural area without a car. But rural areas are of course a much purer example of my point; as car-ownership increases amongst a rural population, so public transport will start to deteriorate (and much more rapidly than where population densities are higher since the critical mass needed to sustain any given service is a larger proportion of a rural population). Likewise, local shops and services will start to deteriorate as a larger proportion of the population start to drive further afield to buy services or goods. Pubs close, post offices close, local shops close, schools close.

Eventually there is almost no alternative to car-ownership, even though for a very large number of the rural poor this will cause a high level of financial stress and thus reduce their general freedom.

Some win, some lose, that's the nature of the zero-sum game, but there's absolutely no guarantee of some magical optimal maximisation of "freedom", far from it.

Cars are great for the rich basically, and in many of the rural parts of our country they have effectively cleansed great swathes of land of the poor.

 

[Oswaldtwistle]

I think you are trying to put a genie back in a bottle, co-op.

 

[roryer]

I think you are trying to put a genie back in a bottle, co-op.

No, I think the rising price of energy over the coming decade will reverse the trends of car dependence, the consequences will be most profound on the inaccessible 'rural' x-burbs, where people have become used to travelling some considerable distance to access the goods and servcies they need and desire.

My personal preference would be to look with some urgency at methods of raising the necessary funds to address the issues, rather than simply watch the decline.

 

[Mitre10]

I think that this year will end with petrol being over £1.50/litre and the end of 2011 will see over £1.80/litre.

Hope I'm wrong but we shall see...

 

[XR75]

I've lived in very isolated rural places for years and not had a car when I did so I'm aware of the issues but I think you're missing the point I was making. I was talking about "freedom" and how cars don't offer this - probably can't offer it - universally. They are very zero-sum; the more one person enjoys their freedom in a car, the less other people are going to be able to.

I understand the (obvious) point that it is harder to live in a rural area without a car. But rural areas are of course a much purer example of my point; as car-ownership increases amongst a rural population, so public transport will start to deteriorate (and much more rapidly than where population densities are higher since the critical mass needed to sustain any given service is a larger proportion of a rural population). Likewise, local shops and services will start to deteriorate as a larger proportion of the population start to drive further afield to buy services or goods. Pubs close, post offices close, local shops close, schools close.

Eventually there is almost no alternative to car-ownership, even though for a very large number of the rural poor this will cause a high level of financial stress and thus reduce their general freedom.

Some win, some lose, that's the nature of the zero-sum game, but there's absolutely no guarantee of some magical optimal maximisation of "freedom", far from it.

Your whole point could apply to any part of modern society where something new has come along and forced people along with it.

Cars are great for the rich basically, and in many of the rural parts of our country they have effectively cleansed great swathes of land of the poor.

Blame all the laws and added costs surrounding personal transport for that.