Fuel Strike In Scotland 27th & 28th Could Cause Shortages All Over The UK!

Dustangle

I wasn't making a "green" argument, just saying that in real terms more people can afford to keep and run cars than ever before, and the total cost of ownership ought to rise to temper unnecessary additional car journeys. The problem is one of congestion.

The argument "why spend £8k+ on an efficient car when you can get an inefficient car for £200" is irrelevant as the cost of purchase of the car is generally a minor part of the total cost of running it. It will often be cheaper to use a car than to use public transport, but not always, and raising the cost of car use will help reduce the total number of car journeys. We certainly shouldn't be building more roads to accommodate more car travel, and so given there are more cars than ever before they should be used less.

None of which has anything to do with the need to support the workers at Grangemouth and not let the wicked grasping billionnaire owners, who can afford to do anything they like with the money they steal from the working class, get away with their wicked crimes.

But there's plenty of fuel in reserve and we shouldn't let nasty petrol companies bump their prices.

goldspanners

Dustangle wrote: »

The argument "why spend £8k+ on an efficient car when you can get an inefficient car for £200" is irrelevant as the cost of purchase of the car is generally a minor part of the total cost of running it.

i would consider £8k+ a MAJOR part of vehicle running costs.im sure others would to.

Dustangle

Well, £8k over five years at normal loan rates is probably less than the total cost of fuel over five years and certainly less that the total cost of fuel and insurance and VED and servicing and other routine costs of ownership over five years, less residual value. That's what I meant.

Conor_3

Dustangle wrote: »

If anything, tax on fuel should go up not down. There are already enough cars, and the number will undoubtedly increase not reduce, because car use is more affordable to more people than ever before.

Really? With the recent rise in fuel prices it finally reached the point where my wife and I jointly spent more on fuel last month than we did the mortgage. ONE SIXTH OF OUR NET INCOME WENT ON FUEL. Not a single journey was unnecessary nor could it be done cheaper by public transport although public transport is not an option in any way shape or form for my journeys which are also the highest mileage out of the pair of us.

The only thing that the price rises are going to guarantee in our house is that it's not worth us working anymore.

Chesnut1

I could not agree with you more Connor. I am going to a new job which in many peoples opinion does not look after their elderly charges well. I wanted to return to my old post but due to the fact I do not live on a bus route and I use my 4x4 for the elderly folk my diesil bill will now be 50% of my weekly wages:eek: These folk I look after find my vehicle the best for their needs but I cannot afford the luxury of looking after them anymore when I get only get an allowance of 15p a mile. So i am off to work with a national company that will pay my fuel bill but who treats the clients as numbers. I feel terrible but I cannot afford 50% of my take home pay to go on fuel and I do not want to say to the folk I look after that I would love to take them out but I cannot afford it. I know to well they would offer money off their meagre pensions but I could not do that.

wdyw

going back to the original subject..... was speaking earlier to a guy who works at the Shell Stanlow refinery. He hadn't hears of the proposed strike and his only comment was ...... there is no slack in the UK refinery system to up diesel production so if Grangemouth stops producing then diesel will have to be imported from the continent which is likely to cause prices to go up.

Conor_3

Hardly as there's always about 70 days of reserves in the UK.

manic_saver

Conor wrote: »

Really? With the recent rise in fuel prices it finally reached the point where my wife and I jointly spent more on fuel last month than we did the mortgage. ONE SIXTH OF OUR NET INCOME WENT ON FUEL. Not a single journey was unnecessary nor could it be done cheaper by public transport although public transport is not an option in any way shape or form for my journeys which are also the highest mileage out of the pair of us.

The only thing that the price rises are going to guarantee in our house is that it's not worth us working anymore.

I couldn't agree with you more. I got rid of my car last year as i found out that it was costing to much, especially with petrol prices going up. I had the facilities in front of me but never used them as i was ignorant not to use them.

I had the train station which is across the road from me so that only takes 2 minutes to walk, once on the train 10 minutes, then another 5 minutes once off the train to walk to my work...a grand total of 17minutes. By car it took 15mins...2 minutes for what its worth, i wouldn't go back to a car.

Problem with society is that were like a flock of sheep, everyone thinks car is king and there is no other way of getting around. All you have to do is use some common sense because there is bound to be other modes of transport out there. I cycle to my work also which is cheaper and healthier, so there i have two modes of transport to get to where i want to go.

Its funny how the media say don't panic, but the public do the opposite. :rotfl:

newsgroup_monkey

anewman wrote: »

Not really. Why spend £8k+ on an efficient car (very few efficient cars come under this price)

Er poppycock. Depends of course on how much you drive.

We bought a Fiat Panda 1.1 litre last September. £5k brand new.
So far, we are exceeding the fuel figures.
(Officially: Combined 49.6mpg, ExtraUrban 58.9, Urban 39.2)

The servicing is cheaper than most cars, there's a 3 year warranty and so on. It'll do 80mph+ quite happily, it's comfortable and I can get all 4 of us in it. It has a CD player and electric windows, has airbags and ABS.

Ooh and did I point out that the insurance is a group 1E.

£250 fully comp for a new learner driver with 1 additional driver.

anewman

newsgroup_monkey wrote: »

Er poppycock. Depends of course on how much you drive.

We bought a Fiat Panda 1.1 litre last September. £5k brand new.
So far, we are exceeding the fuel figures.
(Officially: Combined 49.6mpg, ExtraUrban 58.9, Urban 39.2)

The servicing is cheaper than most cars, there's a 3 year warranty and so on. It'll do 80mph+ quite happily, it's comfortable and I can get all 4 of us in it. It has a CD player and electric windows, has airbags and ABS.

You can get all those features for under £500. Not as good fuel economy mind you, but not so much lower that it's going to turn that £500 to £5k, even if you do do 20k miles plus a year. Same with extra cost of insurance, couple of years and still won't make total cost £5k. My point is the £500 car will overall be cheaper, why spend £5k new (especially on a brand that's prone to depreciation) when £500, a little extra fuel, little extra insurance, little extra road tax will get you from A to B safely and reliably.

Servicing of many older £500 cars is cheaper than new cars and in some cases can be done yourself to make the ultimate savings.

Compare overall costs the £500 car versus the £5k new car (using a figure of depreciation as cost of car instead of purchase cost, as depreciation is the more important figure) and over 3 years the £500 car, even if it needs a new clutch and headgasket in that time, will be far lower.