Fuel Protests?

[Guest Elton]

Definitely no offence caused, Roy.

 

Interesting that you mention fags and booze. £2.5bn per year is lost tax revenue due to smuggled cigarettes, according to the Government's website.

 

The fact that your payment of £150 per month is "not all that important, but I don't pay for most of it, but get taxed on the benefit" is actually more important, in my eyes, than in yours.

 

I live in a village, as do many tax-paying citizens of this country. I have to drive to work for the simple fact that there isn't public transport from my village to my place of work. It's either that or have my house repossessed and go hungry. Why is my fuel, therefore, classed as a benefit and yours as a necessity? If the Government really wanted to cut down on unnecessary fuel use, surely it could look at roles such as traveling salesmen and ask if they're really needed. I mean, surely most samples could be sent by post and then the lead followed up by a phone call? That would keep the roads Mondeo free Me? I'd love to find a way of getting to and from work that doesn't cost me an arm and a leg, that's all. Oh, and I'm now about to change my vehicle for a more expensive to run 4x4 because successive Governments have allowed housebuilders to build on drainage land because they're too bloody greedy to say 'no'. Now, the minute we get a bit of rain, I can't even get to the shops. Not only that, but Tesco Direct can't get to me

 

Leon, much as I admire your stance and, as a mate of yours, know where you're coming from, your reasons are not the reasons that Labour and the Tories tax us to death. If they were, we'd be a cash rich country. I feel that you're speaking as if the Green Party were in power - the only reason governments tax us like this on fuel is because they can and because 'important' things like the dome need building (crikey, I know some people who made some money working on that!). They're certainly not spending it on things like public transport - haven't they sold most of the public utilities so that they can moan when they go wrong or when 'real' businessmen make them profitable.

 

BTW, Roy et al, these are my own opinions and I have no objection with anyone saying what they want about it. One of my best mates is totally the opposite of me when it comes to politics and we argue all the time, then we go down the pub and watch the footy! Life would be boring without differences of opinion

 

All the best,

 

Elton

 

 

------------------

Elton Murphy

Anglers' Net

http://www.anglersnet.co.uk

[Guest John S]

Originally posted by Leon Roskilly:

Because we have cheap fuel, we are happy to drive to the supermarket, past the closed down local butcher, the closed down local post office, the closed down local..... - we need the car

 

Admittedly, there are too many school-runs and trips to the shops that could easily be done on foot, but can you carry an entire weeks shopping for a family of four in one go? You can't really blame people for going to the (cheap) supermarket instead of the (expensive) corner shop, though within a 5 minute walk from my house there are 3 newsagents, a grocers, greengrocers, butcher, cake shop, hairdressers, chemist and off-licence. 10 minutes walk from me is Sainsburys. The small shop is dead? Not as far as I can see

 

Nothing wrong with the huge numbers killed and injured each year, the benefits far outweigh the odd dead child

 

I don't see that many cars driving on the pavements, so the problem must be when pedestrians start walking on the roads. I've seen them walk between parked cars straight out in front of me, run onto the road after a stray ball, or literally playing "Bullfighter" with the traffic! Every night I see cyclists on busy roads cycling without lights, and they wonder why the occassional car driver doesn't see them?Then when they get injured or killed, the anti-car lobby start screaming blue murder.

 

Every day, millions of people drive their cars and don't have accidents. Why? Because they've been through one of the most stringent driving tests in Europe after many hours of training. How much training do you need to step off a pavement or get on an unlit bicycle?

 

BTW, England is the safest country in Europe for car accidents involving pedestrians.

 

Nothing wrong with the thousands of premature deaths each year proven to be down to traffic pollution, the many thousands more of impaired lives.

 

Exhaust emissions are getting cleaner and cleaner (haven't they got to the point with some engines where the emissions are actually cleaner than the air going into the engine?). The exception of course is those smelly old diesels that power lorries and our (very efficient - NOT) public transport system.

 

Nothing wrong with the concreting over of large parts of our communities for car parks and roads

 

If it involves concreting over golf courses and cricket pitches, I'm all for it

 

I agree with you that there are too many journeys that could be done on foot or on a bike, but there are plenty of times when a car is the only real alternative.

 

------------------

John Suffill

 

john@go-fishing.co.uk

[Guest Leon Roskilly]

Originally posted by John S:

--------------------------------------------

Nothing wrong with the huge numbers killed and injured each year, the benefits far outweigh the odd dead child

--------------------------------------------

 

I don't see that many cars driving on the pavements, so the problem must be when pedestrians start walking on the roads.

 

Actually, a surprising number of children and pedestrians are killed in accidents where vehicles mount the pavement. I was shockeded when I saw the figures (can't remember them now).

 

But look around as you drive. The damaged road signs, the flattened keep left signs etc (all quickly replaced). They weren't dodging in and out of traffic!

 

Get in a time machine, visit any period in mankind's history on earth. You'll always see kids playing traditional games outside of the caves/huts/houses.

 

Kids playing together keep communities alive.

 

Mum goes looking for Johny at teatime 'He's gone round to Jack's house Mrs Ug' So off trots Mrs Ug, knocks on the door of Jack's house, meets Mrs Whatsername and gets nattering - that doesn't happen any more .

 

Our kids don't play on the streets anymore.

 

We don't talk to our neighbours anymore.

 

Mostly because so many kids seem to get knocked down by cars.

 

Serves them right for playing in the road - outside is meant for cars not kids!!

 

They can learn their social/leadership skills from TV and video games - much safer.

 

 

Every night I see cyclists on busy roads cycling without lights, and they wonder why the occassional car driver doesn't see them?Then when they get injured or killed, the anti-car lobby start screaming blue murder.

 

And I see cars exceeding the speed limit on dark wet roads, changing lanes and turning without signalling, drivers talking on their mobiles, driving with fogged up windows......

 

And when they hit a cyclist/pedestrian (lights or not) they say 'Sorry I didn't see them - stupid bastard shouldn't be on the road anyway'.

 

 

BTW, England is the safest country in Europe for car accidents involving pedestrians.

 

It also has the highest child casualty rate in Europe!

 

Exhaust emissions are getting cleaner and cleaner

 

Agreed, but the number of vehicles keeps expanding. It takes about 30 mins for a catalyser to become fully effective in British conditions. Most journies are under 5 miles. Cats actually cause more petrol to be burned, particularly during short journies. The amount of CO2 emissions is increasing.

 

I agree with you that there are too many journeys that could be done on foot or on a bike

 

 

But there are plenty of times when a car is the only real alternative.

 

But that's the whole point, our society has become car dependant, we can't do without it and continue the way of life we have grown used to in the last few decades.

 

It's not politics, but an inescapable fact of ecological logic. A car based society is unsustainable. It's impossible to get out of this mess with nothing more than a little minor disruption to the way we live our lives.

 

Face that fact, and the path is hard, but a sight more pleasant than waiting for the inevitable crunch!

 

A bit like the 1st class passenger phoning up to the bridge to complain to the captain about the noise of the ship's whistle keeping him and his wife awake, and about all that banging on his cabin door. 'But the ship's sinking sir'.

 

'Well that's your problem, I've paid a fortune for this cabin, and I'm not getting up in the middle of the night to stand around in the freezing wind, waiting to get in one of those silly little lifeboats, and anyway I need my sleep!'

 

Still sleeping, warm and comfortable, as the ship sinks beneath the waves.

 

Tight Lines - leon

 

ps

 

Hit at 40 mph: 9 out of 10 pedestrians die.

 

30 mph: 5 out of 10 die

 

20 mph: 1 out of 10 die

 

What speed do you think is appropriate for built up areas and country lanes?

 

[This message has been edited by Leon Roskilly (edited 11 November 2000).]

[Guest mmc1uk]

My Dad now lives in Florida and his American friends often wonder why we have not rioted as they say they would never allow fuel to be that price there.

The thing is Americans are confident that on an issue like this they would stand firm and together.

Maybe we could use some of that confidence?

Yes it is propoganda as Blair can say its not what we want and justify bully boy tactics if the blockades go up again.

[Guest mmc1uk]

Leon

I respect you for all that you do but even if we did all buy small cars cleaner cars the fact of the matter is we are all getting shafted out of our hard earned pound.

Now even you must see that?

No offence intended.

[Guest Leon Roskilly]

Originally posted by mmc1uk:

Leon

I respect you for all that you do but even if we did all buy small cars cleaner cars the fact of the matter is we are all getting shafted out of our hard earned pound.

Now even you must see that?

No offence intended.

 

If members of the government were lining their own pockets with the cash raised from the tax on petrol, I'd agree.

 

But that cash, like all taxation, goes back into the community, reducing the tax we would have to pay by other means (we'd still have white elephants like the dome, we'd just pay more for our shirts etc if petrol was cheaper).

 

How else would you get people to stop using their cars so much?

 

It takes a lot of extra on fuel to start having an effect, and people will squeal a lot before they start to cut down on journies.

 

So, given that we can't simply go on using more and more cars, for more and more journies, (or even sustain current usage for too much longer)how would you go about reducing our reliance on cars? (Remember, whatever you propose has to be paid for - where's the money coming from?)

 

The beauty of doing it by making fuel expensive is that it doesn't cost the treasury a bean, in fact it raises revenue!

 

Incidentally, Friends of the Earth reckon that every motorist is subsidised from taxation, to the tune of around £1,000 per year!

 

That's taking into account the total cost of private motoring to the community - cleaning up pollution, the cost of congestion, accidents, ill- health and all the other associated costs (on top of road building, traffic management etc).

 

Tight Lines - leon

 

ps It's never easy taking sweets away from children for the sake of their teeth - they tend to get angry and upset.

 

Any contra comments anyone wants to make, I promise I shan't take personally in any way .

 

Anyway, a good ding-dong argument stops the forum from becoming boring .

 

pps Remember to watch David Attenborough's new TV series, starting on Wednesday.

[Guest Gaffer]

I don't know what the answer is, but raising the price of fuel just puts it out of reach of pensioners and those on low income.

If these people need a car for shopping or work, which they do, then they have to go without on things like heating etc.

The big fat cats with the big jag's don't care, money is no object, they'll carry on regardless.

If public transport was clean, economical and efficient I would stop using my car tomorrow, that's up to the government to get right, first!

Atb,

Gaffer.

[Guest mmc1uk]

Leon wrote

If members of the government were lining their own pockets with the cash raised from the tax on petrol, I'd agree.

 

But that cash, like all taxation, goes back into the community,

 

What about the money spent on wallpaper among other things I.E carpets ,houses etc but best of all thier millage allowance which from what I believe is 25p a mile where,as I get 8p a mile for taking a disabled child to hospital appointments.

They do line their own pockets and the proof is in the papers day after day.

[Guest John S]

Originally posted by Leon Roskilly:

Actually, a surprising number of children and pedestrians are killed in accidents where vehicles mount the pavement. I was shockeded when I saw the figures (can't remember them now).

 

Question is, WHY did those cars mount the pavement? Drunk or drugged drivers probably, not the norm as I'm sure you'd agree. Most of us don't go screaming around corners but drive sensibly, but every driver it seems is being tarred with the same brush.

 

Our kids don't play on the streets anymore.

 

Maybe not where you live, but they do in these parts. I've no objection to them playing on the streets (let's face it, there's very few places for them to go now that our parks are disappearing), but when it comes to roads, a lot of them just don't seem to know how to behave.

 

Eg, you know those laser-pointers you can buy? Would you point that into the eyes of a car driver travelling at 40mph? That happened to a few drivers in Hull a few years ago. How about firing air rifles at car drivers, or throwing breeze blocks off bridges onto passing cars. What about standing in the middle of the road giving a double "V" sign and forcing drivers to execute emergency stops? Hardly condusive to a long and healthy life.

 

Not that all kids are like that, just a small number of them (candidates for the Darwin Awards....)

 

Serves them right for playing in the road - outside is meant for cars not kids!!

 

When I was at school we were given periodic talks by the police on road safety, and twice a year we could go for our cycling proficiency test. All planned to teach us how to use the roads in a safe and proper manner. Do school-kids still get that type of instruction?

 

And I see cars exceeding the speed limit on dark wet roads, changing lanes and turning without signalling, drivers talking on their mobiles, driving with fogged up windows......

 

Again, irresponsible drivers (a small percentage of the driving population). The only accident I've had was as a pedestrian, walking on a pavement when a cyclist slammed right into me. At that time there was a perfectly acceptable cycle path on the road, but this cyclist chose to ignore that and dodge the pedestrians instead - unsuccessfully.

 

 

It also has the highest child casualty rate in Europe!

 

It's a pity the figures don't show how many of those accidents were caused by the child....

 

It's not politics, but an inescapable fact of ecological logic. A car based society is unsustainable.

 

Unless we have more research into alternative fuels.

 

Hit at 40 mph: 9 out of 10 pedestrians die.

30 mph: 5 out of 10 die

20 mph: 1 out of 10 die

What speed do you think is appropriate for built up areas and country lanes?

 

100mph is perfectly acceptable on some roads, on others 30mph is too fast. It's not speed that kills, but inappropriate speed.

 

At 30 mph I can just get the car into 5th, reducing petrol consumption, with a similar reduction in pollution. At 20mph the car will be struggling in 4th and I would probably have to change down into 3rd - higher fuel consumption and higher levels of pollution. I try to drive in 5th whenever possible.

 

Your turn Leon

 

 

------------------

John Suffill

 

john@go-fishing.co.uk

 

[This message has been edited by John S (edited 12 November 2000).]

 

[This message has been edited by John S (edited 12 November 2000).]

[Guest Leon Roskilly]

Originally posted by John S:

Your turn Leon

 

John,

 

I think that we both agree that the roads are populated by idiots and unthinking users, 4 wheeled, 2 wheeled and pedestrian.

 

That education and engineering can reduce the mayhem.

 

That's why I'm sitting here with a consultation document, issued by the local Planning and Transport Directorate 'Medway Travel safety Plan 2000 to 2005', preparing my response; and why I attend meetings of the local Transport Forum, when I can.

 

If you have strong feelings about road safety issues, than I suggest you too get involved.

 

It's pretty harrowing meeting members of Roadpeace, who have had their children killed.

 

It's interesting to look at the technical, social, economic and legal issues, and to be a part of the solutions.

 

But all this gets us away from the crux of this debate.

 

How to deal with the unsustainability of our car dependent lifestyle, and whether high taxed fuel is part of the solution.

 

Over to you

 

Tight Lines - leon

http://www.sustrans.org.uk