I'm in shock, fiftyone bloody quid.

[editor]

And what about the non existant fuel tax on flights to New York?

What about them?

I'm all for transport pricing taking into account the environmental damage it causes and people striving to use more environmentally friendly forms of transport, where practical.

Aren't you?

 

[editor]

Modern cars create very little pollution

Are they made from trees in air powered factories then?

Silly old me thought that they burnt up non renewable resources that contributed to global warming!

 

[comstock]

Again, pollution carefully defined to ignore CO2- John Redwood's a big fan of that one. Catalytic converters incidentally reduce the overall efficiency of the engine- more CO2 per unit of work done.

I'm no fan of Redwood but he's right. CO2 is non-toxic, unless you believe in that global warming gubbins of cause.

Anyway what right has Redwood got to talk? It was his party that started the 'fuel duty escalator' along with 17.5% VAT after giving the rich massive tax cuts and running out of things to sell off to pay for them .

 

[Dilzybhoy]

No you didn't http://www.dieselveg.com/faq's.htm

Trouble is you have to pay tax on it....how strict they are I don't know.

The guy I was talking about was doing all this in his driveway/shed. It was in the local paper. He was actually using cooking oil off his own back. At the time they're was no mention that I can mind of fuel tax. Surely they can't tax him for using his own oil which he's already paid VAT for. In mean if he was selling it or buying from "veggiefuel" supplier, I might understand. I mean at what point does it become liable to fuel tax? When he puts it in his car or before or after it has combusted in his engine

 

[comstock]

I mean at what point does it become liable to fuel tax? When he puts it in his car or before or after it has combusted in his engine

I think the moment you put it in your car, that's it, you become liable for tax and you are breaking the law. As with red diesel

 

[tangerinedream]

thankfully we're not all transport nazis like you. I agree there are many unnecessary journeys, but a hell of a lot of people need cars. Even if many of us could get by without one it would lead to a lower quality of life.

Hmm - concern for environment/transport system = nazi? Either you don't know what a nazi is or your argument is so weak you have to resort to cheap insults.

Great quality of life for kids growing up next to motorways and overcrowded arterial routes? How would driving a more economical car lower your quality of life? Either you would have to drive a smaller vehicle or use public transport for some journeys. I accept some people NEED a large vehicle, fine. I gave an example of someone who would be exempt or pay lower fuel taxes.
The thousands of cars parked up in multi storey carparks every saturday? The relentless marketing of uneconomical and oversized vehicles - the proliferation of families with two/three large vehicles? I live in a town and it takes an hour to get to work. If I leave the house earlier it takes 20 minutes. This is ludicrous and the more people that just bury their heads about stuff like this and describe driving as a 'right' the worse it will get.
I would love to be able to get up in the morning and go to work on a clean bus, that was not stuck in huge traffic jams at every junction. Would you not? If you genuinelly need to drive, fine. Would you not like less congestion?
Should we not think about ways to improve this? Does this not cost money? If I remember correctly Hitler was a big fan of the motorcar, built a lot of autobahns to put the unemployed to work and create the impression of a boyuent economy and commisioned the people's car, the Volkswagon.

 

[Dilzybhoy]

I think the moment you put it in your car, that's it, you become liable for tax and you are breaking the law. As with red diesel

But with red deisel I'm sure your in trouble just having it. Unless of your course entitled etc.

 

[comstock]

But with red deisel I'm sure your in trouble just having it. Unless of your course entitled etc.

I'm not saying you couldn't proberly get away with it. But that doesn't make it legal.

 

[poet]

Lets say we wanted to reduce car use by 50%. How many buses would we need to do that? F*cking thousands. And how many of those would half empty? Bus engines kick out loads of particulates so the result would be more pollution, not less

You know fuck all, don't you? A half-empty bus is still far more efficient than the equivalent in single-occupancy cars. Modern buses get about 10mpg, even really shitty old stock on it's last legs will still manage 4mpg, meaning that it takes very few passengers to make a bus more fuel-efficient than the equivalent car journeys. A fully loaded peak-time bus is clearly extraordinarily efficient compared to cars.

Bring trains, trams and short-haul electric buses into the equation and we could dramatically reduce our emissions.

 

[comstock]

Not if we actually thought creatively and invested in environmentally sound forms of public transport - e.g. tramways, new busses,

Great ideas, but they would only work in urban areas. And who would pay all those extra bus drivers to work anti-social hours?

Or are we all supposed to sit at home on a Sunday or after 6pm as we did 70 years ago

 

[Dilzybhoy]

Well my point is... If the fuel tax is supposed to help the environment it should be legal. Kind of makes an arse of "they're only taxing for the greater good" thing don't it?
That was to comstock btw

 

[poet]

Great ideas, but they would only work in urban areas. And who would pay all those extra bus drivers to work anti-social hours?

It's a fuckload cheaper than private car ownership.

 

[pogofish]

I'm not saying you couldn't proberly get away with it. But that doesn't make it legal.

You really don't want to know just how harsh Customs & Excise can be if they catch you misusing Red Deisel! Dipping checkpoints are a pretty regular sight round here. Anyone caught with the stuff in their tanks can face HUGE & punitive back-duty bills & if they argue, Customs don't need to worry about search warrants etc & have next to no legal accountability.

 

[comstock]

You know fuck all, don't you? A half-empty bus is still far more efficient than the equivalent in single-occupancy cars. Modern buses get about 10mpg, even really shitty old stock on it's last legs will still manage 4mpg,A fully loaded peak-time bus is clearly extraordinarily efficient compared to cars.
.

I've said peak time buses are a good idea. But if you are only getting 4 mpg you need at least 10 passengers to break even. Make that 15 because buses do a fair bit so 'sorry I'm not in service (but still emiting shitty black smoke)' ing about.

Now to make buses appeal instead of cars we need to be offering about 10 buses an hour. Thats the sort of frequency you get in London, and they get used. But how many other routes could we get at least 15*10=150 people an hour on a bus. Yes there are *some* I'm not denying it but not as many as you greenies would like to think.

 

[Pie 1]

our little Fiat that Pig is now using for work

<please let it be a Panda, please...>

 

[tangerinedream]

Great ideas, but they would only work in urban areas. And who would pay all those extra bus drivers to work anti-social hours?

Or are we all supposed to sit at home on a Sunday or after 6pm as we did 70 years ago

less people use cars = more people paying bus fares/train fares etc. - Yes there would be a shortfall I'm sure but your argument is no different me saying 'who pays for the roads to be maintained???' More roads + more cars = higher fuel duty. Think about alternatives, it will never get any better the way it is.

 

[comstock]

It's a fuckload cheaper than private car ownership.

Are you sure? To provided the number of buses we would need.

I think not. Nobody pays me to drive myself around.

 

[chooch]

unless you believe in that global warming gubbins

Aye. Clearly a matter of belief, rather than extremely strong evidence.

I think not. Nobody pays me to drive myself around.

Cough.

 

[tangerinedream]

Are you sure? To provided the number of buses we would need.

I think not. Nobody pays me to drive myself around.

Your petrol costs, insurance, tax and cost of buying your car and maintaining it vs my bus ticket.

Easy. People who buy new cars every year could afford a bloody personal bus driver.

 

[comstock]

.Think about alternatives, it will never get any better the way it is.

And what do you define as better??? Whats wrong with things the way they are?

You think a world where we are all stuck at home would be better than one where we are free to come and go as we please?

You think a world where people are forced to take any sh*tty job locally is better than one where they can persue a career by travelling to work?Perhaps we should f*ck it all and go back to farming the land by hand

A world where everyone stays at home (or walks to church perhaps ) of a Sunday is better than one where we can enjoy our leisure time?

Where few travelled beyond there own village is better than one where we can go to see any bits of the country we want?

Because there is a bit of f*cking congestion in London and a few other cities everyone else has to pay a damn fortune in fuel tax.

Mr Sledgehammer meet Mr Nut

 

[editor]

Now to make buses appeal instead of cars we need to be offering about 10 buses an hour. Thats the sort of frequency you get in London, and they get used. But how many other routes could we get at least 15*10=150 people an hour on a bus. Yes there are *some* I'm not denying it but not as many as you greenies would like to think.

Any thoughts on the quality of life degradation that occurs when neighbourhoods have hundreds - if not thousands of cars roaring along their streets?
What about the noise pollution?
The atmospheric pollution?
The added danger?
The countryside churned up to provide ever more roads?
And do you really think that global warming is to be dismissed as "gubbins"?

 

[editor]

Because there is a bit of f*cking congestion in London and a few other cities everyone else has to pay a damn fortune in fuel tax.

A bit of congestion in London and a few other cities?

What planet do you live on, chum?

The UK's roads are the most congested in Europe. This is partly due to the fact that the UK is a small and densely populated country. Yet in smaller, even more densely populated Belgium there is less congestion. The difference is that in Britain we have developed a special, relationship with our cars. Even though we own fewer cars than our European neighbours, we spend more time in them and drive them further. Almost nine in ten motorised journeys (car, bus, motorbike) are made by car compared with the EU average of just over eight in ten.

http://www.cfit.gov.uk/congestioncharging/factsheets/need/

 

[comstock]

Aye. Clearly a matter of belief, rather than extremely strong evidence.
Cough.

Chooch me old mucker the global temperature has been going up and down for centuries, millenia even. As have sea levels.Ice ages have come and gone. Deserts turned to swap to sea. Thats the natural cycle of things

I wouldn't get too excited about a few egghead running around saying' we're all doomed, doomed I tell ye' just because it's gone up by point something of a degree.

Really mate, I wouldn't worry. The end has always been nigh according to someone


We could sack a few of this accademic lot and reduce fuel tax (only joking)

 

[comstock]

A bit of congestion in London and a few other cities?

What planet do you live on, chum?

Most cities only have traffic jams for a hour or so in the morning and an hour at night. At 7am at noon, at 7pm most routes are free flowing.

 

[Nemo]

Chooch me old mucker the global temperature has been going up and down for centuries, millenia even. As have sea levels.Ice ages have come and gone. Deserts turned to swap to sea. Thats the natural cycle of things

As I understand it, it's the amount that the climate is altering. Instead of the ridiculous bullshit about 'eggheads,' perhaps you could read what they're saying before coming out with such absurd propositions in future.

 

[Nemo]

Most cities only have traffic jams for a hour or so in the morning and an hour at night. At 7am at noon, at 7pm most routes are free flowing.

And what makes you think that large parts of London aren't the same? Have you ever been to London?

 

[poet]

I wouldn't get too excited about a few egghead running around saying' we're all doomed, doomed I tell ye' just because it's gone up by point something of a degree.

A few eggheads? The entire scientific community (apart from a few (mainly oil-industry funded) crackpots) are 'a few eggheads'? Fuck it, I was hoping for a reasoned argument, but I think I'll have a chat with this cheese and pickle sarnie instead, better quality of debate that way.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Most cities only have traffic jams for a hour or so in the morning and an hour at night. At 7am at noon, at 7pm most routes are free flowing.

Er, whereabouts do you live? That's just not true when it comes to London.

 

[comstock]

Any thoughts on the quality of life degradation that occurs when neighbourhoods have hundreds - if not thousands of cars roaring along their streets?

If they have thousands of cars then obviously they are in a place like London or Brum where buses and light rail could make a difference. (and are doing). Most places have *nowhere near* that many.

And do you really think that global warming is to be dismissed as "gubbins"?

Yes I do....really...seriously I think it is b*llocks, and I've said why above.

 

[Nemo]

Yes I do....really...seriously I think it is b*llocks, and I've said why above.

If that's why you think it's bollocks, your education has been severely neglected.