Downside to cheaper petrol.
-
- Posts: 87
- Joined: 9 Nov 2015, 1:25pm
Re: Downside to cheaper petrol.
An interesting discussion this. I used to drive all over three different counties for my work with a van full of tools and materials, obviously I couldn't have done that on a bike but the fuel was paid for by the company.
The thing with Mick F saying that there are so many people who are having to commute 50+ miles to get to work so they would be unfairly penalised by a hike in fuel tax, I think is completely wrong. If you work in EXeter yet live in Cornwall, you are CHOOSING to live that lifestyle and it is this choice that has driven up house prices (just look at the London Travel To Work Area just to see exactly this with people living outside the smoke but commuting in). If you choose to live so far away from your workplace then you take the choice to pay the cost of extra fuel. Maybe if fuel costs went up, the house prices in rural areas might stabilise a bit more and actually enable the 'real' local people to be able to live there rather than being priced out of the market like in Salcombe!
I moved for my work, OK, I lived 300 miles away from where I now work, not really commutable no matter how you do it, but I know people who work here, Plymouth, who have moved from around the country to be here yet they CHOOSE to live in deep COrnwall or even one chap I know lives near Bristol!! That is a lifestyle choice, and they pay the cost of having the nice place to live with the workplace in the slightly less nice place to live, if the fuel cost goes up, maybe these people will choose to live closer, maybe they won't. But generally, if you can afford to live 50+ miles away from where you work, you can afford to pay the little bit extra you'd end up paying if fuel tax went up.
As for those in rural areas, maybe if the cost of fuel goes up, there will be more demand for the community transport and buses will be more regular. Where my parents used to live near Ipswich, the local bus service went from a bus every half hour to two busses a day over a period of years. The bus every half hour was generally 80-90% full by the time it reached the town centre but it still needed subsidising because of the long route, although over time as more and more people took to their cars instead the bus service, even with the subsidies had to be reduced which meant more taking to cars and so on and so forth until such time as that there is a rarely used irregular service now. Raising fuel prices might make these services much more viable once more as people will be less inclined to use the car.
The thing with Mick F saying that there are so many people who are having to commute 50+ miles to get to work so they would be unfairly penalised by a hike in fuel tax, I think is completely wrong. If you work in EXeter yet live in Cornwall, you are CHOOSING to live that lifestyle and it is this choice that has driven up house prices (just look at the London Travel To Work Area just to see exactly this with people living outside the smoke but commuting in). If you choose to live so far away from your workplace then you take the choice to pay the cost of extra fuel. Maybe if fuel costs went up, the house prices in rural areas might stabilise a bit more and actually enable the 'real' local people to be able to live there rather than being priced out of the market like in Salcombe!
I moved for my work, OK, I lived 300 miles away from where I now work, not really commutable no matter how you do it, but I know people who work here, Plymouth, who have moved from around the country to be here yet they CHOOSE to live in deep COrnwall or even one chap I know lives near Bristol!! That is a lifestyle choice, and they pay the cost of having the nice place to live with the workplace in the slightly less nice place to live, if the fuel cost goes up, maybe these people will choose to live closer, maybe they won't. But generally, if you can afford to live 50+ miles away from where you work, you can afford to pay the little bit extra you'd end up paying if fuel tax went up.
As for those in rural areas, maybe if the cost of fuel goes up, there will be more demand for the community transport and buses will be more regular. Where my parents used to live near Ipswich, the local bus service went from a bus every half hour to two busses a day over a period of years. The bus every half hour was generally 80-90% full by the time it reached the town centre but it still needed subsidising because of the long route, although over time as more and more people took to their cars instead the bus service, even with the subsidies had to be reduced which meant more taking to cars and so on and so forth until such time as that there is a rarely used irregular service now. Raising fuel prices might make these services much more viable once more as people will be less inclined to use the car.
Re: Downside to cheaper petrol.
I largely agree with the idea that living 50 miles from work is a lifestyle choice, but I will make a few points about this...
The first is that our car-centric culture enables these kind of lifestyle choices. People drive long distances for work because they can. And yes, it affects housing prices, but the opposite is true, as well. Housing is very expensive in London, and salaries are not necessarily enough higher to compensate for the higher cost of living, so people buy houses where they can afford them. The alternative is to restructure the housing market.
The next point is that, many people began their careers living and working outside of London, but as the economy has shifted to a service and financial service oriented economy, the jobs have shifted to London, whilst a high proportion of new housing is built in the belt around London. Almost all of the people I worked with 10 years ago in Essex now work inside the M25. Because that's where they could get jobs.
The same situation often leads to couples working in different places, miles apart. Where I lived in Essex, it was quite common for one member of a couple to work locally, and the other to work in London. Mr V. and I lived about 25 miles from my work and 18 from his; on a straight line my work and his were about 40 miles apart. That was an improvement over when they were 50 miles apart. We did both make some attempts to find work closer together, but never found anything. I could get to work by public transport, but it was 2+ hours each way and expensive. Mr. V couldn't get to work by public transport all the time. He did shift work, and some shifts began or ended during times when there was no public transport running.
IMO, I think it will take more than high fuel costs; possibly other incentives, such as relief of some or all of stamp duty when people move within a certain distance of work (10 miles?) or a change in stamp duty that includes distance(s) from work or school, as well as the value of the house.
I also think that there should be some incentives for companies to subsidise travel on public transport, bike purchases, etc. But the company car culture needs to be curbed.
The first is that our car-centric culture enables these kind of lifestyle choices. People drive long distances for work because they can. And yes, it affects housing prices, but the opposite is true, as well. Housing is very expensive in London, and salaries are not necessarily enough higher to compensate for the higher cost of living, so people buy houses where they can afford them. The alternative is to restructure the housing market.
The next point is that, many people began their careers living and working outside of London, but as the economy has shifted to a service and financial service oriented economy, the jobs have shifted to London, whilst a high proportion of new housing is built in the belt around London. Almost all of the people I worked with 10 years ago in Essex now work inside the M25. Because that's where they could get jobs.
The same situation often leads to couples working in different places, miles apart. Where I lived in Essex, it was quite common for one member of a couple to work locally, and the other to work in London. Mr V. and I lived about 25 miles from my work and 18 from his; on a straight line my work and his were about 40 miles apart. That was an improvement over when they were 50 miles apart. We did both make some attempts to find work closer together, but never found anything. I could get to work by public transport, but it was 2+ hours each way and expensive. Mr. V couldn't get to work by public transport all the time. He did shift work, and some shifts began or ended during times when there was no public transport running.
IMO, I think it will take more than high fuel costs; possibly other incentives, such as relief of some or all of stamp duty when people move within a certain distance of work (10 miles?) or a change in stamp duty that includes distance(s) from work or school, as well as the value of the house.
I also think that there should be some incentives for companies to subsidise travel on public transport, bike purchases, etc. But the company car culture needs to be curbed.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Re: Downside to cheaper petrol.
I spent 40 years living in rural areas with poor public transport and agree that this needs to be improved. However in both places where I lived the 'indigenous' population where in the minority with the majority of people having moved there because it was nice. When I lived in Devon I choose to live in the sticks because it was a nice place to live and housing was cheaper than in the city. The downside would have been a commute but I knew this when I moved and as I cycled, for me this was actually a plus.
As a coincidence two people have just left where I work and now have jobs in Plymouth and Brixham. Both have chosen to live near Exeter as they said they liked it more. They are driving 100 & 70 miles a day respectively, not out of necessity but as a life style choice.
sapperadam wrote:An interesting discussion this.
I moved for my work, OK, I lived 300 miles away from where I now work, not really commutable no matter how you do it, but I know people who work here, Plymouth, who have moved from around the country to be here yet they CHOOSE to live in deep COrnwall or even one chap I know lives near Bristol!! That is a lifestyle choice, and they pay the cost of having the nice place to live with the workplace in the slightly less nice place to live, if the fuel cost goes up, maybe these people will choose to live closer, maybe they won't. But generally, if you can afford to live 50+ miles away from where you work, you can afford to pay the little bit extra you'd end up paying if fuel tax went up.
As a coincidence two people have just left where I work and now have jobs in Plymouth and Brixham. Both have chosen to live near Exeter as they said they liked it more. They are driving 100 & 70 miles a day respectively, not out of necessity but as a life style choice.
Re: Downside to cheaper petrol.
Yes, but it's zero. We still have to pay it though.reohn2 wrote:Mick
Do you pay VED on the Fiat 500?
The other car is a 1.6 16v Clio and that costs £250.
Mick F. Cornwall
Re: Downside to cheaper petrol.
Wonder how that affects the quality of their workwhoof wrote:As a coincidence two people have just left where I work and now have jobs in Plymouth and Brixham. Both have chosen to live near Exeter as they said they liked it more. They are driving 100 & 70 miles a day respectively, not out of necessity but as a life style choice.
"42"
Re: Downside to cheaper petrol.
And even more so... I wonder how that affects their family life...squeaker wrote:Wonder how that affects the quality of their workwhoof wrote:As a coincidence two people have just left where I work and now have jobs in Plymouth and Brixham. Both have chosen to live near Exeter as they said they liked it more. They are driving 100 & 70 miles a day respectively, not out of necessity but as a life style choice.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Re: Downside to cheaper petrol.
squeaker wrote:Wonder how that affects the quality of their workwhoof wrote:As a coincidence two people have just left where I work and now have jobs in Plymouth and Brixham. Both have chosen to live near Exeter as they said they liked it more. They are driving 100 & 70 miles a day respectively, not out of necessity but as a life style choice.
The one doing 100 miles a day is getting up at 5.30 am in order to 'beat' the traffic. I don't think he has realised that he is the traffic. Perhaps in time he will physically tire of it (he's in his 20s) and move closer. The financial costs, environment or safety implications don't seem to be of concern.
There is a woman at work who has moved closer when she got a job here to avoid a 30 mile a day commute. She now lives 1/2 a mile away and even bought a bike to cycle to work. The council have put in a shared foot and cycle path running through a lovely meadow and wood that runs the 1/2 mile from near her house to right opposite work. Unfortunately it's been a year and she hasn't walked or cycled once but instead has driven the 1 & 1/2 miles around three sides of a rectangle everyday. Last week she was complaining that the journey took 25 minutes due to the amount of traffic.
-
- Posts: 87
- Joined: 9 Nov 2015, 1:25pm
Re: Downside to cheaper petrol.
whoof wrote:squeaker wrote:Wonder how that affects the quality of their workwhoof wrote:As a coincidence two people have just left where I work and now have jobs in Plymouth and Brixham. Both have chosen to live near Exeter as they said they liked it more. They are driving 100 & 70 miles a day respectively, not out of necessity but as a life style choice.
The one doing 100 miles a day is getting up at 5.30 am in order to 'beat' the traffic. I don't think he has realised that he is the traffic. Perhaps in time he will physically tire of it (he's in his 20s) and move closer. The financial costs, environment or safety implications don't seem to be of concern.
There is a woman at work who has moved closer when she got a job here to avoid a 30 mile a day commute. She now lives 1/2 a mile away and even bought a bike to cycle to work. The council have put in a shared foot and cycle path running through a lovely meadow and wood that runs the 1/2 mile from near her house to right opposite work. Unfortunately it's been a year and she hasn't walked or cycled once but instead has driven the 1 & 1/2 miles around three sides of a rectangle everyday. Last week she was complaining that the journey took 25 minutes due to the amount of traffic.
MADNESS!!
I live about seven miles from work, it's a tough ride so not even an easy seven miles (there's a cat 3 hill on the way to, but it's great on the way home). It takes me an average of about twenty five minutes. These are exactly the people who would be encouraged a lot more to use alternative transport if fuel costs were higher though.
As for living near Exeter because it's 'nicer'? Are they on crack? 100 miles a day to commute when I can guarantee there are many, many places within a fraction of a distance that are just as, if not more, 'nice'. This is what I mean about our society. I get that the country has become London centric as well and I'm not suggesting everything I said is bang on but they are certainly contributory factors at least. Raising fuel prices would only be one thing to help.
Re: Downside to cheaper petrol.
Mick F wrote:Yes, but it's zero. We still have to pay it though.reohn2 wrote:Mick
Do you pay VED on the Fiat 500?
The other car is a 1.6 16v Clio and that costs £250.
Thanks for that Mick
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Re: Downside to cheaper petrol.
Yes, the Fiat500 is a Twinair 2cyl 85bhp and goes like a rocket. The CO2 is 99gms per Km, and that puts it into the zero VED category. We can get 60mpg out of it on a run on the motorway, but locally it returns just less than 40mpg.
The 1.6 16v Clio OTOH has 170gms per Km. It can give 55mpg on a motorway, but locally it's more like 35mpg ........... ie not a lot different economy to the Fiat500. It's the CO2 that's the difference.
The 1.6 16v Clio OTOH has 170gms per Km. It can give 55mpg on a motorway, but locally it's more like 35mpg ........... ie not a lot different economy to the Fiat500. It's the CO2 that's the difference.
Mick F. Cornwall
Re: Downside to cheaper petrol.
CO2 is directly proportional to the weight of fuel burned (regardless of whether that fuel is petrol or diesel, by the way). So if your numbers are right, it’s really the claimed CO2 that’s the difference.
If the VW scandal has an upside, it’s that it will lead to more realistic testing of fuel economy and emissions generally. But for now, the claimed CO2 figures are exactly as inaccurate as the claimed fuel economy figures.
If the VW scandal has an upside, it’s that it will lead to more realistic testing of fuel economy and emissions generally. But for now, the claimed CO2 figures are exactly as inaccurate as the claimed fuel economy figures.
Re: Downside to cheaper petrol.
ANTONISH wrote:I was listening to radio 4 and the subject of increased car insurance charges arose.
Apparently drivers for whom the cost of petrol is a deterrent to driving are now increasing their mileage.
It seems this includes a disproportionate number of drivers prone to having serious accidents-the young (risk takers) and decrepit old gits like myself (incompetent).
Accidents accordingly are on the rise.
I've had the impression over the last few months that car speeds seem to have increased - maybe this is related (or I'm just going slower).
I was at a lecture last night by a government economist who was talking about roads policy. They have observed a recent uptick in the accident rate, but are unable to assign a reason to it. Clearly the above might be a reason, but I don't think they have the evidence to know.
Re: Downside to cheaper petrol.
Mick F wrote:Yes, the Fiat500 is a Twinair 2cyl 85bhp and goes like a rocket. The CO2 is 99gms per Km, and that puts it into the zero VED category. We can get 60mpg out of it on a run on the motorway, but locally it returns just less than 40mpg.
The 1.6 16v Clio OTOH has 170gms per Km. It can give 55mpg on a motorway, but locally it's more like 35mpg ........... ie not a lot different economy to the Fiat500. It's the CO2 that's the difference.
Blimey! I had noticed that those Fiats streak along but those figures make it less economical than my Mitsu ASX Cat 5 diesel 1.8 4wd. I have never got 60 mpg. More like 45 mpg whatever.
Al
Reuse, recycle, thus do your bit to save the planet.... Get stuff at auctions, Dump, Charity Shops, Facebook Marketplace, Ebay, Car Boots. Choose an Old House, and a Banger ..... And cycle as often as you can......
Re: Downside to cheaper petrol.
Mick F wrote:Yes, the Fiat500 is a Twinair 2cyl 85bhp and goes like a rocket. The CO2 is 99gms per Km, and that puts it into the zero VED category. We can get 60mpg out of it on a run on the motorway, but locally it returns just less than 40mpg.
The 1.6 16v Clio OTOH has 170gms per Km. It can give 55mpg on a motorway, but locally it's more like 35mpg ........... ie not a lot different economy to the Fiat500. It's the CO2 that's the difference.
Our 1.8L petrol Cmax returns 37/39mpg regularly,m/way driving @70/75mph, that goes up by 6/8mpg,it runs @ 3,400rpm at those speeds.
Interestingly my old 1.8L '97 Mondeo Est which ran @ 3000rpm @ 70/75mph and returned an amazing 55/57mpg fully loaded,but it's shape was far more slippery than the Cmax.
I have to pay £205(?)VED
There's something amiss somewhere,and it ain't my maths.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Re: Downside to cheaper petrol.
There's much more to it than that perhaps?Samuel D wrote:CO2 is directly proportional to the weight of fuel burned ...........
Surely, CO2 is a by-product of burning fuel in a particular engine, not directly proportional per litre burned. Differently designed engines will produce less CO2 than others. Yes?
Mick F. Cornwall