Jump to content

Fuel Protests?


Guest Elton

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Leon Roskilly:

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 wink.gif

 

As the one who started this thread, I'd like to point out that the crux of it was supposed to be

 

A) whether public support for the fuel protestors was flagging or not and,

B) why our industry is crippled by successive governments that penalise them for trying to transport goods.

 

Bad driving, drunk driving and the rest are a totally different subject. My 11 year old cousin was killed by a car, and I don't think she'd be any less dead if the fuel in the car cost 50p a gallon or £5000 a gallon.

 

What I was trying to get at with this thread is why we, the British, accept high taxation when other countries wouldn't hear of it. My own opinion is that politicians use the media to unfairly portray 'true' public opinion. They're going to get a rude awakening with the internet, as their ability to choose which facts we do or don't hear about is dwindling.

 

All the best,

 

Elton

All the best,

 

Elton

 

 

 

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

Elton Murphy

Anglers' Net

http://www.anglersnet.co.uk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Leon Roskilly:

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

 

I used to be a member of Friends of the Earth, the Hunt Sabateurs and Transport 2000, until I recognised the Con in Conservation....

 

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

 

I've lost a good friend to a drunk and drugged joyrider whilst she was on a pedestrian crossing. I realise however that most drivers are steady and law-abiding, and should not be tarred and feathered with the same brush as the irresponsible minority. I have no problems with them, but I do have a problem with drivers going at breakneck speeds in inappropriate places.

 

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

 

I don't think we can, and anyone who thinks that we can is living in a Utopian world that cannot be achieved. Not in the short-term anyway.... I wouldn't use my car more if the fuel was lower priced, but it would allow me to spend more on other things.

 

If you live in the country, you need a car because the public transport system is not a viable alternative. I live in the city, but even then the public transport system is not sufficient for most of my journeys. The bus system is laughable, and as for the rail network..... hahahaha!

 

BTW, driving home this evening in the dark, I spotted 7 cyclists without lights (I would get prosecuted if I did that in my car), 2 cyclists coming out of side roads without looking (ditto), and 5 people crossing the road within 20 feet of a pedestrian crossing. Bumper fodder, the lot of them! Maybe if the police started prosecuting cyclists for dangerous driving as they do with car drivers, or started charging pedestrians with jaywalking, the roads would be far safer for everyone. Or is that just another Utopian dream...?

 

Your turn smile.gif

 

 

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

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).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest uk_lurcher

Leon,

'Except that the way of life we have created is totally unsustainable.'

 

If you are talking about cars powered by internal combustion engines,then maybe you have a point BUT......

 

What about other propulsion systems, who is working on them? Car manufacturers and oil companies thats who. I don't see Greenpeace coming up with a viable alternative do you?

 

These companies can see the end of fossil fuels the same as you,do you think they will blindly plough on until the oil runs out and then go bust? Of course not, they want to stay big and profitable hence their research into electric vehicles,fuel cells etc.

 

Perhaps we need a CUT in fuel prices to INCREASE consumption, this will perhaps speed up the day when we can all drive around in our environmentally friendly next generation cars.

 

The car is here to stay, the internal combustion engine isn't.

 

UKL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Leon Roskilly
Originally posted by John S:

I wouldn't use my car more if the fuel was lower priced, but it would allow me to spend more on other things.

 

Interesting item on the news tonight, about the cross rail link, intending to extend the railway from Paddington through the city.

 

'Many people are turning to the train because of the high cost of fuel .. the rail system has to be expanded to cope with the increased demand' !!!

 

If you live in the country, you need a car because the public transport system is not a viable alternative.

 

There used to be a pretty good public transport system, serving town and country, backed up by healthy people who walked and cycled a few hundred yards now and again.

 

Unfortunately, when a critical number of people gave up using public transport, the system collapsed.

 

Until enough people go back to using it, there won't be a viable alternative to the car. Chicken and egg.

 

Even if we had the best public transport system imaginable, car owners would still travel by car.

 

It won't be until car travel becomes really expensive/inconvenient that we can afford a decent public transport system again. (I'd never dream of motoring into London - I take the train every time).

 

There will be no easy transition from unsustainability to sustainability. The longer we leave it, the harder will be the cost we pay. (But heck, as long as it's the Samoans and residents of Yalding paying the cost for now - who cares?)

 

Personally, I have a lot of sympathy for those living and working in the country. Some form of relief will be needed.

 

The same for those who were born and still live in the country, and are forced to find work in the town.

 

But 'townies' who choose to continue to accept high salaries by working in the city, shopping at out of town shopping centres, yet choosing to move to the country to live, escalating local property prices beyond the cost of local families, all made possible by the ownership of cars, and investment in roads ......

 

I live in the city, but even then the public transport system is not sufficient for most of my journeys. The bus system is laughable, and as for the rail network..... hahahaha!

 

It used to be much better - blame those who deserted it for the comfort of cars. I'ts going to be tough for those who have to go back to it when the traffic grinds to a halt frown.gif

 

BTW, driving home this evening in the dark, I spotted 7 cyclists without lights (I would get prosecuted if I did that in my car), 2 cyclists coming out of side roads without looking (ditto), and 5 people crossing the road within 20 feet of a pedestrian crossing.

 

Sorry, your point is?

 

(I could give you an equally non relevant count of the number of cars I've seen parked on the pavement, drivers using mobiles, drivers with defective brake lights etc etc. Idiots on bikes are no different to idiots behind a steering wheel, except one lot mostly get themselves killed, the other lot mostly kill others)

 

 

Maybe if the police started prosecuting cyclists for dangerous driving as they do with car drivers, or started charging pedestrians with jaywalking, the roads would be far safer for everyone. Or is that just another Utopian dream...?

 

Idiot cyclists and pedestrians cause relatively few deaths (except their own).

 

Idiot's driving half a tonne of murderous polluting metal cause considerably more.

 

Better to concentrate effort where it most counts.

 

Some motorists are naively confident that they have the skill to drive half a ton of metal at 40mph on a wet or frosty road.

 

Maybe.

 

But their behaviour sure scares the hell out of potentialcyclists/pedestrians.

 

(I'm sure you'll approve of that John.)

 

But just think, when next you are sitting in a traffic jam. That guy blocking the intersection with his Volvo could be me - too scared to cycle.

 

The reason that you are driving round and round looking for a parking spot could be because of all the would be cyclists/pedestrians, parking their cars.

 

When a family member lies dying of cancer, or heart disease - it could have something to do with all those long chain molocules emitted by would be cyclists/pedestrians driving cars.

 

Your turn smile.gif

 

Tight Lines - leon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Leon Roskilly
Originally posted by Elton:

As the one who started this thread, I'd like to point out that the crux of it was supposed to be

 

A) whether public support for the fuel protestors was flagging or not and,

 

er, What fuel protest wink.gif

 

B) why our industry is crippled by successive governments that penalise them for trying to transport goods.

 

It's so expensive to move goods by road in this country that the rail companies find it cheaper to move engines on the back of lorries!

 

What I was trying to get at with this thread is why we, the British, accept high taxation when other countries wouldn't hear of it.

 

I seem to remeber reading recently that, although our fuel duty is high, when you add up transportation costs on the continent eg road tolls etc, it's actually cheaper to transport goods in the UK.

 

Like our fishing industry, we have a road transport lobby who are expert at manipulating public opinion.

 

My own opinion is that politicians use the media to unfairly portray 'true' public opinion. They're going to get a rude awakening with the internet, as their ability to choose which facts we do or don't hear about is dwindling.

 

Likewise the road lobby, and hopefully the commercial fishing industry too smile.gif

 

Tight Lines - leon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Leon Roskilly
Originally posted by uk_lurcher:

Leon,

>>'Except that the way of life we have >>created is totally unsustainable.'

 

If you are talking about cars powered by internal combustion engines,then maybe you have a point BUT......

 

Electric cars certainly cause less pollution to city air. The problem is that the inefficiencies in generating and delivering electricity to power points means that globally, far more fuel is burned, and more pollution produced smile.gif

 

The current prime candidate to replace petrol is hydrogen. But to make that work is going to require an awful lot of investment - who is going to fund that?

 

The Government? - What, and lose the nice little earner on fuel duties?

 

The Petrol Companies? - Why?

 

The car manufacturers? - Again Why?

 

On the same basis as Hoover telling Dyson that they didn't need a new product. As long as people keep buying petrol cars, we'll keep selling them.

 

Any potential outside competitor is going to have to invest an awful lot to develop a product to take on the might of the current car industry. Risky, if the alternative is seen as dangerous, lacking in acceleration, full of environmental and health risks (vested interests will make sure it is seen as such, of that you can be sure).

 

And who is going to licence urban filling stations to store thousands of gallons of liquified hydrogen?

 

No, a real alternative to petrol is a long way off yet. A lot of work will go on (and be hidden away) so that vested interests will be ready to move in as the world's oil stocks run dry (and that will happen in the next hundred years, much sooner if all the chinese cyclists start driving cars, on cheap fuel, as china industrialises), but I've a feeling that their will be an environmental crunch long before then.

 

If only the burning of hydro-carbons was all that we have to worry about.

 

Perhaps if the level of car ownership were to be frozen at current levels, nationally and globally, we could just scrape by.

 

But there are plenty of other problems.

 

Al of those discarded tyres, slowly degrading into the water table.

 

All of that sump oil which is still being tipped down the nearest drain (not everyone has a recycling centre nearby, especially in rural areas, especially in under-developed countries).

 

All of the pollution that goes into transporting materials for building, and disposing of cars.

 

Then there are the roads and parking spaces.

 

You think that the roads are congested now?

 

It's the traffic growth projections which scared the pants off the road builders in the last Tory Government. (Them, and the cost of motoring and the health effects it's having on the nation).

 

Somehow, we always believe that tomorrow will mostly be like today, with luck and technological progress, perhaps a little better. It never is.

 

Since I moved to the Medway Towns 18 years ago, I've seen set after set of traffic lights appear along the A2. There wasn't a Saturday queue for the Pentagon shopping centre - now there always is, and it gets longer and longer, each year. There wasn't a one way system, for just a little while it eased the traffic congestion, now it's often just a circle of slow moving vehicles.

 

And yet, according to traffic growth projections, we haven't seen nothing yet!!

 

Even if cars had completely non-polluting engines, our society would not be able to sustain their continued use.

 

But it's going to be hard and painful reverting to a less personal mode of transport - with lots of grief and anger to come.

 

Far easier to pull up the warm sheets and pretend that the ship isn't really sinking.

 

Tight Lines - leon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest uk_lurcher

Leon,

'Electric cars certainly cause less pollution to city air. The problem is that the inefficiencies in generating and delivering electricity to power points means that globally, far more fuel is burned, and more pollution produced '

 

I was assuming you would realise I was talking about electric cars running on electricity generated by 'green' methods such as wind and solar power not fossil fuels. We were talking about fossil fuels running out were we not?

The big problem with electric cars at the moment is that electricity generation is more polluting than conventional cars!

I also heard that to produce a catalytic converter for a car causes more pollution than running a car without the cat,any truth in this?

 

Also the point of my post was to show that it is in the car and petroleum companies own interest to develop these replacement technologies,so that they stay in business when the oil runs out.Hence my call for us to use it up quicker!

 

UKL

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by uk_lurcher (edited 17 November 2000).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Leon Roskilly
Originally posted by uk_lurcher:

The big problem with electric cars at the moment is that electricity generation is more polluting than conventional cars!

 

Not to mention, the batteries, their manufacture and disposal. frown.gif

 

I also heard that to produce a catalytic converter for a car causes more pollution than running a car without the cat,any truth in this?

 

Sorry lurcher, I don't know.

 

What is worrying is the amount of heavy metal that goes into cats, and the substances which they accrue during their working life. Hopefully that is mostly recovered, and not too many end up dumped in the environment.

 

Cats are just what LA needs, but in this country, it can take up to 30 mins, from a cold engine start, before they are operating efficiently. And they do increase fuel consumption.

 

The one thing I agreed with Mrs T on, was that we should have concentrated on producing a lean burn engine. But that would have meant that the car builders would have needed to produce different models for different environments - common sense and the environment lost out once more to commercial interests.

 

Also the point of my post was to show that it is in the car and petroleum companies own interest to develop these replacement technologies,so that they stay in business when the oil runs out.Hence my call for us to use it up quicker!

 

But the planet doesn't have the capacity to cope with any increase in our rate of fuel consumption. The environmental crunch will come before the oil reserves run out frown.gif

 

However, there is a growing number of 'extreme' greenies who, dismayed at society's inability to face up to the problems, and individuals' stubborn determination to cling to their comforts no matter what, go around switching on lights, revving up engines, demanding plastic carrier bags for every item purchased, in the belief that it will be better to provoke the inevitable crunch earlier, rather than await a 'boiled frog' fate.

 

(It's said that if you drop a frog into a pan of hot water, it will leap straight out. However, if you put it into a pan of cold water, and heat it slowly, it will sit their until it dies. Sometimes the rate of change is too slow for us to realise what's coming, we get used to small incremental degradations to our environment and way of life. Today, doesn't seem too much different to yesterday. Tomorrow will not be much different to today. OK, the future doesn't look too bright, but there's no need for us to take any action yet, or tomorrow, or tomorrow .......... boiled frog!)

 

Tight Lines - leon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.