a)It deprives the public spirited and environmentally responsible bus users from the opportunity of contributing to the sole funding source of our NHS, Schools and Pensions.
b) It removes the only incentive from the single bus company that runs the unique slightly inefficient and only just polluting bus in the country from upgrading to a more efficient newer bus and having it driven more cautiously, and no more than absolutely neccessary.
Or so I'm led to believe by my opposite numbers in the high tax camp.
Just under three hours to come up with that reply was it bogush?
I was referring to the fact that if bus companies are paying less (or no) tax on fuel (like farmers and fishermen) then, in a deregulated industry, bus ticket prices will be driven down. Is that not a good thing?
By the way, i've no idea how much pollution a bus makes compared to a car but i'm certain that a bus containing 40 passengers is less polluting and less congesting than 40 cars containing a single passenger.
Who said that fuel duty was "the sole funding source of our NHS, Schools and Pensions."? Was that your own personal opinion or a quote from someone on this message board?
If so, for reference, could you tell me where this posting is and who made it?
You said in the previous posting
"By the way, i've no idea how much pollution a bus makes compared to a car but i'm certain that a bus containing 40 passengers is less polluting and less congesting than 40 cars containing a single passenger."
Now, without trawling through all the message boards on this prickly subject, I seem to recall some figures being posted about the comparisons between car and bus journey's and the amount of pollution produced per passenger. Surprisingly the car won!. But, I am sorry that I can't produce these figures - no doubt Bogush will have the info somewhere. I know you probably won't take my word for it, and I'll not lose sleep over that but just thought I'd reply to your question.
Also I think Bogush was possibly making the point that we had the fact waved in our faces that if the government reduced fuel tax it would mean massive cuts in the NHS,Education,Pensions etc etc. Hence the mention of "sole funding"???
May be wrong, but it may have been his reason for quoting that.
<I was referring to the fact that if bus companies are paying less (or no) tax on fuel (like farmers and fishermen) then, in a deregulated industry, bus ticket prices will be driven down. Is that not a good thing?>
I was referring to the fact that if HAULAGE companies are paying less (or no) tax on fuel (like farmers and fishermen) then, in a deregulated industry, TRANSPORTATION prices will be driven down. Is that not a good thing? For industry in general?
Thanks. I appreciate your comments but commonsense tells me that a bus carrying 30 or 40 or 50 passengers is a more efficient way of transporting people around than 30 or 40 or 50 cars.
As for the "sole funding" thing....
Bogush is apt at criticising other people for factual inaccuracies and distortions of the truth. I asked a perfectly reasonable question - "What is wrong with fuel duty concessions for bus operators? - Ater all, Farmers and Fishermen get them" . Instead of a straight answer bogush comes up with "Because.....It deprives the public spirited and environmentally responsible bus users from the opportunity of contributing to the sole funding source of our NHS, Schools and Pensions".
Now, it's true that many of us "high duty supporters" may have pointed out that if fuel duty is cut, the burden will have to be shifted elsewhere but i'm certain that nobody has ever said fuel duty was the "SOLE funding source of our NHS, Schools and Pensions".
But bogush takes great delight in the minutiae of wording in these posts - even though he edits mine at will when they contain something he does'nt like. I don't enjoy that luxury, so I won't apologise for asking for a very direct answer to my question.
"A bus containing 40 passengers, probably does pollute less than 40 cars.
But, as there only ever seems to be half a dozen passengers (on a busy route, if your'e lucky!) on each bus, I guess we'll never find out!"
Yep, I agree. Empty buses are a bad thing. They will grow even emptier if fuel duty is cut. I don't know where you live, but over here buses are packed at peak times. This seems to be a good thing to me.
"I was referring to the fact that if HAULAGE companies are paying less (or no) tax on fuel (like farmers and fishermen) then, in a deregulated industry, TRANSPORTATION prices will be driven down. Is that not a good thing? For industry in general? Well, is it?"
In a way, I agree with you here aswell. That's why, three months ago, I suggested that the government SHOULD be making fuel duty/road tax concessions to hauliers to help out their industry. The trouble is - and I don't know why you can't see this - the savings will just be absorbed by their customers. It is such a competitive industry that the hauliers themselves will not see a penny.
<Yep, I agree. Empty buses are a bad thing. They will grow even emptier if fuel duty is cut. I don't know where you live, but over here buses are packed at peak times. This seems to be a good thing to me.>
Yep, I agree. Packed buses are a good thing. But only if they are Reliable, Regular and Clean. But they are not (where I live). So why should I be forced onto something that, your comrade the Petrol Goblin describes as :
"Public transport? Utterly awful.
I mean.. so what if bus routes are dropping? Buses are well and truely nothing but a last resort, little better than walking. Let's look at the average bus:
- uncomfortable (especially for bigger/taller people unless they get certain seats)
- overcrowded when you need them most
- normally at least a bit dirty
- often full of mangy people
- to be social correct you have to stand if someone needs your seat
- driven by nutters.. lurch accelerate *lurch-stop* you know what I mean
- Park and Ride? What a joke.. park and be thrown around in a smelly tin can!"
In order to keep the roads clear, so that the rich don't have to sit in traffic jams?
<In a way, I agree with you here aswell. That's why, three months ago, I suggested that the government SHOULD be making fuel duty/road tax concessions to hauliers to help out their industry. The trouble is - and I don't know why you can't see this - the savings will just be absorbed by their customers. It is such a competitive industry that the hauliers themselves will not see a penny.>
I can see it. I have said before. If the hauliers can compete with people who have access to Euro Derv, they stand a chance of keeping their contracts. So, as long as they were earning a living before, they will continue to after passing on the saving.
Also, it would help industry in general. As you well know, the manufacuring industry is loosing jobs to countries thay pay very low wages. If the cost of transportation was lowered dramaticaly, to counter our diadvantage, maybee there would be less contracts lost to other countries.
Badly run public transport is not an argument against public transport
February 18 2001, 3:53 PM
If you want to argue that this government and it's predecessors have failed to invest enough money into public transport then i'm on your side. The Tories thought they could improve things by privatising or de-regulating them whilst New Labour have sat back and expected that a few token measures (such as bus lanes) allied to high fuel duty would be enough.
But what bogush was attempting to pedal is that public transport/buses are a bad thing per se.
He is determined to promote the disingenuous claim that that "buses produce more pollution per head than cars" as a general argument against the provision of bus services and in favour of private vehicle use.
There may well be some evidence that some buses are actually less efficient than cars, I don't care to look at bogush's source. It doesn't take a genius to realise that for this to be true, the bus fleet has to be in a bad state and the numbers of passengers far too low. A decrepit old bus carrying two passengers is obviously less efficient than a Ford Ka carrying three people. We both seem to have come to this conclusion.
So if we had a modern, efficient bus service that was cheap and easy to use, it would have modern buses and more passengers. Then bogush's figures on pollution per head would tip DRAMATICALLY in favour of the bus.
This partly ruins the case for fuel duty cuts and also completely supports the idea (if it is true) that bus companies should (like farmers and fishermen) get cheaper fuel.
Bus services will never become attractive whilst cars are cheaper and more convinent. That IS the case at the moment, and lowering fuel duty will only serve to compound the problem. The fact that this government has chosen to maintain the levels of duty is not a mistake. The mistake it has made is in not investing public money in bus services to provide an alternative. It's self-proclaimed "joined-up transport policy" has not been anything like as "joined-up" as promised.
Arthur Gibson (Login Arthurgibson) 212.137.244.195
Gaz
February 18 2001, 5:18 PM
>If the hauliers can compete with people who have access to Euro Derv, they stand a chance of keeping their contracts.<
What rot! "people who have access to Euro Derv" have to pay a fortune to get here through the tunnel or on a ferry! They can only bring a tankful of derv and the cost of getting here must be similar or more to the saving on fuel. As we have demonstrated, the differential between France and the UK has reduced substantially since last September and not there is only pennies per litre in it. Moreover the Europeans have to pay higher wages and taxes to their staff, they also pay more corporation tax. Therefore their costs are the same or higher than the UK hauliers.
In any case, if the UK hauliers get a big reduction in fuel duty, the Frnch will demand, and get the same, so the small differential will remain.
I use both UK and European hauliers, because I both export to and import from Europe. The prices are not much different and we certainly would not use a European haulier to send stuff to Europe, the cost is the same.
Some European hauliers are price cutting to take UK business, but that is nothing to do with the cost of fuel. That has to do with overcapacity.
Overcapacity is the blunt fact of life that farmers and hauliers will not face. What they are after is a subsidy from the taxpayer. TAXIMAN was right. The whole fuel protest thing is a con trick on the motorists, who the farmers and hauliers are simply using.
1) Perhaps no one spotted it, but my post was a request for information, not discussion.
2) I did get some info on another forum, that the rumour was correct, but the poster there couldn't find the details. He probably came to this thread to reply as requested, but must have thought that I had given the wrong link (or perhaps it was funkii, and he just never followed the link ; - )
3) I answered as to whether it was a good thing that "public" transport should pay zero or low duty by "quoting" the high tax supporters mantras (within 3 seconds of seeing funkii's post):
a)It deprives the public spirited and environmentally responsible bus users from the opportunity of contributing to the sole funding source of our NHS, Schools and Pensions.
b) It removes the only incentive from the single bus company that runs the unique slightly inefficient and only just polluting bus in the country from upgrading to a more efficient newer bus and having it driven more cautiously, and no more than absolutely neccessary.
Or so I'm led to believe by my opposite numbers in the high tax camp.
And still no reasoned answer.
ANY arguments for high fuel duty on cars and trucks apply EQUALLY to public transport (and power stations etc).
ANY arguments for low fuel duty on "public" transport (and power stations etc) apply EQUALLY to cars and lorries.
So why are the taxation(/subsidy) regimes diametrically opposite?
4) Have "public" transport bus fares gone down in a deregulated industry? Or have a few predators put all the other firms out of business, bought up their old fleets at give away bankruptcy prices. Rehired their staff on worse terms with no pensions etc. Flogged off the offices etc (and didn't rehire the admin staff). And garages probably (and aren't buses EXEMPT from exhaust emmission controls, whether new or clapped out??) Cut all the routes that were STILL uneconomic after all that "reengineering" and "rightsizing", even though they might be paying a quarter of the price for fuel that motorists and hauliers pay, and despite having their own protected clearways along most of their routes, and not having had to pay a conductor for donkeys years. And then when they had a monopoly, not just of "public" transport, BUT OF THE ROAD, put prices up?
5) Which bit of: buses are more (by the way, that is SIGNIFICANTLY MORE) polluting and congesting (on average) per passenger mile than cars are people having problems following? And this does NOT depend on them being clapped out. And if you bring in more (modern) buses this either means buses carry fewer passengers on average and so probably get even more polluting and congesting per passenger mile. Or there are motorists whose only reason for not using buses is that there aren't any, and yet those motorists are being punitively taxed because bus companies haven't provided enough buses out of their fuel duties. You chose whichever version you think puts your argument in a better light.
6) Yes some buses may be clapped out, but if with no duty to pay, massive subsidies, 24 hour bus lanes, motorists forced out of cars on their behalf, and running bankrupt stock, with no emmision controls, they still can't provide an adequate service in the rush hour, and still can't make enough to invest in better stock, what makes the high fuel tax supporters think that giving them more subsidies, and more passengers, is going to improve the situation. Which are you advocating, more new, "ecological"? (petrol?) buses (at probably hundreds rather than tens of thousands of pounds each) picking up a couple of pensioners at midday? Or just sitting at the terminus until the next rush hour? With the driver taking the bus home at the end of his shift? And remember that's tens of thousands of pounds of resources and tens of thousands of pounds of polluting power usage, and that's before the thing even drives out of the depot to pick up its lone passenger.
7) Not even funkii, or Robert would advocate running a railway line to everyones house. Or that motor transport should be banned, and that everyone should walk or cycle to the nearest railway station.
Not even I (according to the high tax supporters) would advocate shipping coal from mines to power stations by car.
Buses are a halfway house. In the right circumstances they are perfect. But they can never be the right answer in every situation. In some situations trains (and yes, trams) are the best solution. But in others the car is the right one.
Which means that we need a mixed transport fleet.
Which then means that the bus might be the right answer in a wider range of situations - it's no longer so uneconomic or environmentally unfriendly to pick up those two pensioners at midday if all those resources and power input is standing idle. But it also means that the car can be used in a situation where in theory the bus is "better". In fact it sometimes means that the car MUST be used in some situations where the bus is "better".
8) Where have I EVER said ban buses or that they are a bad thing? I have merely pointed out that the high tax supportes are trying to ban cars, or at least some of their mileage on "environmental" grounds that actually apply to buses, BUT NOT to cars - therefore it is the high tax supporters that are saying that they are a bad thing and should be banned ; - ) But buses CAN'T be right for every circumstance. And the bus operators can't make a practical proposition of many routes any of the time, or any of them all of the time, even in the current highly distorted marketplace. So as I have said above - what we NEED is a mixed transport fleet.
9) So can some High Tax Supporter please explain to me why the car should be demonised, and taxed and forced off the road.
Why the drivers who are investing in a car, allowing buses to run more economically and ecologically, sparing you that outlay, giving YOU the seat on a bus that THEY have paid for, should be fined, imprisoned in their cars, and then tortured for all that they have done for you.
10) Or just explain HOW, when the motorists have been driven off the road:
The bus companies will suddenly clean their (environmental) act up, when they can't do it now.
Bus companies will be able to cope, practically, and economically, and ecollogically with pasenger demand when they can't cope with it now.
Fares will get lower, or where the subsidies will come from then.
Who will fund the hospitals and schools.
Pollution and CO2 will go down, when you will have more buses running emptier.
PS It wasn't me who put "the sole funding source of our NHS, Schools and Pensions" in quotes. But who keeps telling us low tax supporters that if we want fuel taxes cut we have to explain whether we heartlessly want funding for schools and hospitals and pensions cut, or whether we just want a politically impossible increase in income tax (so who are the heartless ones?). But I have asked several times whether, when we have been taxed out of our cars, the high tax supporters heartlessly want funding for schools and hospitals and pensions cut, or whether they just want a politically impossible increase in income tax.
Typically with a reply from bogush - the text is overly long and complicated and means i'm forced to write an even longer and complicated response.
<3) I answered as to whether it was a good thing that "public" transport should pay zero or low duty by "quoting" the high tax supporters mantras (within 3 seconds of seeing funkii's post):
a)It deprives the public spirited and environmentally responsible bus users from the opportunity of contributing to the sole funding source of our NHS, Schools and Pensions.
b) It removes the only incentive from the single bus company that runs the unique slightly inefficient and only just polluting bus in the country from upgrading to a more efficient newer bus and having it driven more cautiously, and no more than absolutely neccessary.
Or so I'm led to believe by my opposite numbers in the high tax camp.
And still no reasoned answer.>
With the use of the phrase "sole-funding source" in a) you are misrepresenting what the government and high tax supporters have said. Nobody said fuel duty was the "sole funding source".
The second bit b) was incomprehensible to me so I did not post a reply earlier. Could you explain what you mean?
<ANY arguments for high fuel duty on cars and trucks apply EQUALLY to public transport (and power stations etc).
ANY arguments for low fuel duty on "public" transport (and power stations etc) apply EQUALLY to cars and lorries.
So why are the taxation(/subsidy) regimes diametrically opposite?>
They are not diametrically opposite. The same arguments don't apply since an efficient bus service uses less resources and creates less pollution and congestion than motor cars. We seem to have reached a catch 22 situation. You say that high fuel duty can't be justified as motorists need to use their cars because there is no public transport alternative. I say how could a realistic altenative to the car be produced if motoring was made more affordable? Or to put it another way, how can we stop the number of cars on the road increasing if we cut the cost of motoring?
<4) Have "public" transport bus fares gone down in a deregulated industry? Or have a few predators put all the other firms out of business, bought up their old fleets at give away bankruptcy prices. Rehired their staff on worse terms with no pensions etc. Flogged off the offices etc (and didn't rehire the admin staff). And garages probably (and aren't buses EXEMPT from exhaust emmission controls, whether new or clapped out??) Cut all the routes that were STILL uneconomic after all that "reengineering" and "rightsizing", even though they might be paying a quarter of the price for fuel that motorists and hauliers pay, and despite having their own protected clearways along most of their routes, and not having had to pay a conductor for donkeys years. And then when they had a monopoly, not just of "public" transport, BUT OF THE ROAD, put prices up?>
To read this you would think that I agreed with the Tory policy of deregulation. I didn't, I was opposed to it and all of the consequences you accurately describe. My point about prices is perfectly clear, bogush. If the bus companies do in fact get cheaper fuel, then removing that subsidy will only mean an increase in bus fares. Allied with a cut in fuel duty for motorists, bus services would be driven to extinction. Same goes for giving bus routes priority in urban areas.
<5) Which bit of: buses are more (by the way, that is SIGNIFICANTLY MORE) polluting and congesting (on average) per passenger mile than cars are people having problems following? And this does NOT depend on them being clapped out. And if you bring in more (modern) buses this either means buses carry fewer passengers on average and so probably get even more polluting and congesting per passenger mile. Or there are motorists whose only reason for not using buses is that there aren't any, and yet those motorists are being punitively taxed because bus companies haven't provided enough buses out of their fuel duties. You chose whichever version you think puts your argument in a better light.>
The bit I am having trouble following is this: How can a vehicle that carries 30 people be more polluting and congesting than 30 vehicles carrying 1 person? And bogush, I am talking about replacing older buses with newer ones - I do not agree with maintaining a policy of not testing the emissions of old buses. The last point I have already answered - high fuel duty needs to be allied with investment in bus services (as opposed to widening motorways or building new roads). The government have this bit wrong.
<6) Yes some buses may be clapped out, but if with no duty to pay, massive subsidies, 24 hour bus lanes, motorists forced out of cars on their behalf, and running bankrupt stock, with no emmision controls, they still can't provide an adequate service in the rush hour, and still can't make enough to invest in better stock, what makes the high fuel tax supporters think that giving them more subsidies, and more passengers, is going to improve the situation. Which are you advocating, more new, "ecological"? (petrol?) buses (at probably hundreds rather than tens of thousands of pounds each) picking up a couple of pensioners at midday? Or just sitting at the terminus until the next rush hour? With the driver taking the bus home at the end of his shift? And remember that's tens of thousands of pounds of resources and tens of thousands of pounds of polluting power usage, and that's before the thing even drives out of the depot to pick up its lone passenger.>
Motorists aren't being forced out of cars. This is part of the reason that bus companies aren't able to compete. Despite everything, private motoring is more affordable and more convenient than public transport at the moment.
I am advocating a cheap, affordable and convenient public transport system that is invested in from the public purse and, if necessary, subsidised for example by lower (or no) fuel duty. If existing buses are not as fuel efficient as cars then their is no point in making this proposition, so I would expect buses to be subject to the pollution laws as any other vehicle.
<7) Not even funkii, or Robert would advocate running a railway line to everyones house. Or that motor transport should be banned, and that everyone should walk or cycle to the nearest railway station.
Not even I (according to the high tax supporters) would advocate shipping coal from mines to power stations by car.
Buses are a halfway house. In the right circumstances they are perfect. But they can never be the right answer in every situation. In some situations trains (and yes, trams) are the best solution. But in others the car is the right one.
Which means that we need a mixed transport fleet.
Which then means that the bus might be the right answer in a wider range of situations - it's no longer so uneconomic or environmentally unfriendly to pick up those two pensioners at midday if all those resources and power input is standing idle. But it also means that the car can be used in a situation where in theory the bus is "better". In fact it sometimes means that the car MUST be used in some situations where the bus is "better".>
There is nothing in this paragraph I disagree with. I don't seek to drive cars from the roads. We need better public transport. We need to arrest the growth in car use. We need smaller cars on the road. I can't think of a better way of acheiving the last two points than making fuel an expensive enough commodity that it encourages you to consume less.
<8) Where have I EVER said ban buses or that they are a bad thing? I have merely pointed out that the high tax supportes are trying to ban cars, or at least some of their mileage on "environmental" grounds that actually apply to buses, BUT NOT to cars - therefore it is the high tax supporters that are saying that they are a bad thing and should be banned ; - ) But buses CAN'T be right for every circumstance. And the bus operators can't make a practical proposition of many routes any of the time, or any of them all of the time, even in the current highly distorted marketplace. So as I have said above - what we NEED is a mixed transport fleet.>
No, you haven't actually said that you want to ban buses - just like no high tax supporters have advocated the banning of cars. What you have done is consistently imply that there are no problems associated with the continual growth in car use and that anyone who makes such claims is driven by ideology not practical concerns.
The rest of the paragraph is merely a reiteration of what you said in paragraph 7, so see above.
<9) So can some High Tax Supporter please explain to me why the car should be demonised, and taxed and forced off the road.
Why the drivers who are investing in a car, allowing buses to run more economically and ecologically, sparing you that outlay, giving YOU the seat on a bus that THEY have paid for, should be fined, imprisoned in their cars, and then tortured for all that they have done for you.>
We need to put an end to put an end to the continual growth in car use because our road system cannot accomodate much more traffic. Building new roads does not seem to solve the problem (in fact it usually excacerbates it) and cutting the cost of motoring would merely promote it. We need to look at the provision of better alternatives to car use when and where they can be provided.
Some of the language you use is hysterical - "demonised", "forced off the road", "imprisoned", "tortured". None of these accurately describe the experience of motoring in the UK.
<10) Or just explain HOW, when the motorists have been driven off the road:
The bus companies will suddenly clean their (environmental) act up, when they can't do it now.
Bus companies will be able to cope, practically, and economically, and ecollogically with pasenger demand when they can't cope with it now.
Fares will get lower, or where the subsidies will come from then.
Who will fund the hospitals and schools.
Pollution and CO2 will go down, when you will have more buses running emptier.>
Again, buses are only efficient if they have passengers. Encouraging people to use them by improving the services they offer will create more passengers. Removing subsidies (if they exist), building new roads and making petrol cheaper will not. Bus companies will only invest if they are making enough profit from their fares or recieve grants from the public purse. Who will fund hospitals and schools? Tax and fuel duty payers - just as they do now.
<PS It wasn't me who put "the sole funding source of our NHS, Schools and Pensions" in quotes. But who keeps telling us low tax supporters that if we want fuel taxes cut we have to explain whether we heartlessly want funding for schools and hospitals and pensions cut, or whether we just want a politically impossible increase in income tax (so who are the heartless ones?). But I have asked several times whether, when we have been taxed out of our cars, the high tax supporters heartlessly want funding for schools and hospitals and pensions cut, or whether they just want a politically impossible increase in income tax.
Still no answer.>
Here is an answer. You won't be taxed OUT of your car. I don't actually expect there to be a significant drop in revenue from fuel duty in the near future because, relatively speaking, the cost of motoring is still at a level that most people can afford. More people than ever before can afford a car and the running costs. Hopefully, though, the rate of growth in car use will slow down or at least stay at the same level.
There will be no politically impossible increase in income tax either. Taxes on consumption are here to stay - they are the way forward for succesful, developed economies like ours.
The government has room to cut the tax burden and it should be targeted where it is needed. If low-duty supporters are looking for a solution to the problems faced by the small minority of independent hauliers and low earning motorists, can I suggest they campaign for the cutting (or scrapping) of Vehicle Excise Duty on trucks and small-engined, fuel efficient cars - instead of adding to the congestion and pollution of our country by calling for cuts in fuel tax.
Short and Snappy Funkii-Green Answer + Bogush Reasoning
February 19 2001, 11:00 AM
No
+
High tax supporters and the government IMPLY that ..................(I didn't use the quotes - and someone complains about my "editing") as discussed (READ THE POSTS).
But cannot answer the reasonable request for an explanation of what will happen when MOTORISTS are taxed off the roads (where did I mentioned farmers or hauliers - READ THE POSTS/THEY DON'T USE BUSES).
Buses are substantially more polluting/congesting than cars so by the HFTS/government argument THEY should be taxed off the road READ THE POSTS).
IE If you are worried about congestion/pollution/global warming/tax revenue/tax fairness/(have I missed anything out?) you should be campaigning for Higher Fuel Tax On Buses (And Power Stations) and a REDUCTION of Fuel Taxes on Cars.
AND ESPECIALLY READ THE M25 AND TRAFFIC "CALMING" POSTS AND LINKS.
<What rot! "people who have access to Euro Derv" have to pay a fortune to get here through the tunnel or on a ferry! They can only bring a tankful of derv and the cost of getting here must be similar or more to the saving on fuel. As we have demonstrated, the differential between France and the UK has reduced substantially since last September and not there is only pennies per litre in it. Moreover the Europeans have to pay higher wages and taxes to their staff, they also pay more corporation tax. Therefore their costs are the same or higher than the UK hauliers.>
If anyone wants to see rot, read the above.
A tankfull of derv can be around 1500 ltrs. This will last nearly all week, well long enough to steal a few jobs from a UK only haulier while he is over here, before returning home.
Pennies? Arthur, The pump price for Derv in Calais this week is 50-55 pence per litre. Compared to 80+ PPL here.
<I use both UK and European hauliers, because I both export to and import from Europe. The prices are not much different and we certainly would not use a European haulier to send stuff to Europe, the cost is the same.>
Arthur, you are being ripped off my friend!
I have just revealed the true price of french derv, and if you are paying them not much more than you are paying brits, they must be laughing all the way to the bank!
The full reply, with previously ignored answers, references and links
February 19 2001, 6:43 PM
"Typically with a reply from bogush - the text is overly long and complicated.............."
Exactly - is it my fault that the HFTS don't read or reply to the earlier points and reiterate previous points of theirs that have already been answered?
"............... and means i'm forced to write an even longer and complicated response."
"With the use of the phrase "sole-funding source" in a) you are misrepresenting what the government and high tax supporters have said. Nobody said fuel duty was the "sole funding source"."
So, please, clarify your insistence, from the revenue angle, for high fuel taxes on motorists, (and low ones on buses).
"The second bit b) was incomprehensible to me so I did not post a reply earlier. Could you explain what you mean?.........
...........since an efficient bus service uses less resources and creates less pollution and congestion than motor cars."
An efficient bus is a full bus. Please confirm that you are advocating that everyone walks or cycles to the terminus, to catch a petrol powered bus, with the bus only leaving when it is full, and only stopping once, at the destination, where it will wait for a busload to take back to the terminus, with everyone else being forced to pay 340% tax for the privilege of being unable to take advantage of this "service".
"We seem to have reached a catch 22 situation. You say that high fuel duty can't be justified as motorists need to use their cars because there is no public transport alternative."
Where? I quite clearly say that a mixed transport strategy is needed.
"I say how could a realistic altenative to the car be produced if motoring was made more affordable? Or to put it another way, how can we stop the number of cars on the road increasing if we cut the cost of motoring?"
a) No you say that the transport "market" should be distorted by subsidised buses and punitively taxed cars. Note also that the car "market" can be divided in two - those that need to use cars - the poor with no practical access to "public" transport who are unfairly penalised for their dependance, and the rich who don't, and who don't give a damm about the cost of fuel.
Making motoring LESS ARTIFICIALLY UNAFFORDABLE IN NO WAY PREVENTS A REALISTIC ALTERNATIVE TO THE CAR BEING PRODUCED, CERTAINLY NOT A SUBSIDISED ONE.
There are places with cars, and quality FREE buses.
b) Why do you want to stop the number of cars increasing?
i) If it's because of "pollution/global warming" buses are more polluting on average per passenger mile (REGARDLESS OF CONDITION - follow the links). The more you have, the emptier they run, so the worse it gets. Even you can't believe that a bus and driver going nowhere is less polluting than a car and driver going somewhere!
BUT, there is no way that bus companies, however much subsidised, are going to provide enough buses in the rush hour to cope with all commuters, even using clapped out buses. What is your master plan - let them eat trains?
ii) If it's because of congestion - what causes congestion? Congestion is going up, usage down. Hmmmmmmmmmmm, a mystery. Not really - you only get congestion on main roads. Put a bus lane down it - capacity halves - road could have been running at 95% capacity in the rush hour, now it's 190% - result? Make it 24 hour - capacity halved all day long - road could have been running at 51% capacity in off peak hours - now it's 102% - result?
Oh yes - and someday you might like to take a look at the M25 post.
Or you might like to consider motorway provision in the developed EEC compared to the UK, where peacetime motorway provision began.
> 4) "Have "public" transport bus fares gone down in a deregulated industry? Or have a few predators put all the other firms out of business, bought up their old fleets at give away bankruptcy prices. Rehired their staff on worse terms with no pensions etc. Flogged off the offices etc (and didn't rehire the admin staff). And garages probably (and aren't buses EXEMPT from exhaust emmission controls, whether new or clapped out??) Cut all the routes that were STILL uneconomic after all that "reengineering" and "rightsizing", even though they might be paying a quarter of the price for fuel that motorists and hauliers pay, and despite having their own protected clearways along most of their routes, and not having had to pay a conductor for donkeys years. And then when they had a monopoly, not just of "public" transport, BUT OF THE ROAD, put prices up?>
"To read this you would think that I agreed with the Tory policy of deregulation. I didn't, I was opposed to it and all of the consequences you accurately describe. My point about prices is perfectly clear, bogush. If the bus companies do in fact get cheaper fuel, then removing that subsidy will only mean an increase in bus fares. Allied with a cut in fuel duty for motorists, bus services would be driven to extinction. Same goes for giving bus routes priority in urban areas."
No, I didn't say that you agreed with the tories, but as I have said, and I would have thought was self evident, there is no way any bus company, regardless of the extent of their road monopoly, or of the size of their subsidy, is going to lay on millions of shiny new buses to handle every commuter in the rush hour. Any increase in subsidy is going to work itself into shareholders pockets (was it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the privatised utilities can't afford to invest in modernisation or safety, but can afford to quadruple the MD's salary and shareholders dividends?)
Only dinosaurs become extinct. Are you saying that the only thing that has saved the bus from extinction is bus lanes and subsidies. Because if you are, and you couple that with the fact that they are more polluting and congesting, you are saying that they should be put out of their misery now.
You claim: "But what bogush was attempting to pedal is that public transport/buses are a bad thing per se."
Where?
"He is determined to promote the disingenuous claim that that "buses produce more pollution per head than cars" as a general argument against the provision of bus services and in favour of private vehicle use."
It's a fact, and I merely point out that if you are going to use pollution/congestion as an argument it actually applies more to buses, and so it is they that should be banned/punitively taxed/etc, etc.
But if you think that the only justification for buses it to soak up surplus treasury funds, who am I to argue ; - )
> 5) ".............The bit I am having trouble following is this: How can a vehicle that carries 30 people be more polluting and congesting than 30 vehicles carrying 1 person?"
Because a bus starts off with no passengers in a bl**dy great body with a massive DIESEL engine. And most of the day runs with hardly anyone in it.
A car ALWAYS has AT LEAST one "passenger".
"And bogush, I am talking about replacing older buses with newer ones"
I've covered this more than once.
"The last point I have already answered - high fuel duty needs to be allied with investment in bus services (as opposed to widening motorways or building new roads)."
Why? Read the M25 posts.
> 6) "..............Motorists aren't being forced out of cars. This is part of the reason that bus companies aren't able to compete. Despite everything, private motoring is more affordable and more convenient than public transport at the moment."
Hmmmmmmmmmmm, a mystery. Not really - you only get buses on main roads. Put a bus lane down it - capacity halves - road could have been running at 95% capacity in the rush hour, now it's 190% - result? Make it 24 hour - capacity halved all day long - road could have been running at 51% capacity in off peak hours - now it's 102% - result?
"I am advocating a cheap, affordable and convenient public transport system that is invested in from the public purse and, if necessary, subsidised for example by lower (or no) fuel duty."
Ahhhh, you mean cut fuel taxes (to zero), and and have car pool lanes, as have very successfully been operated in a number of cities, WITH NO ADVERSE EFFECTS ON BUSES?! Then we can ban the buses ; - )
> 7) "........... In fact it sometimes means that the car MUST be used in some situations where the bus is "better"."
"There is nothing in this paragraph I disagree with. I don't seek to drive cars from the roads. We need better public transport. We need to arrest the growth in car use. We need smaller cars on the road. I can't think of a better way of acheiving the last two points than making fuel an expensive enough commodity that it encourages you to consume less."
?
How many people deliberately use too much fuel, apart from the rich/company car users who are not affected by high taxes? So what you are saying is drive the poor off the road. Also that regardless of whether a large engined car is more economical/ecological, everyone should drive a mini. And you obviously haven't read the M25 or bus lane posts yet.
> 8) ".........No, you haven't actually said that you want to ban buses - just like no high tax supporters have advocated the banning of cars."
No, but HFTS have consistently supported punitive fuel taxes/to reduce car use.
Whereas I have merely pointed out that the HFTS arguments used to support this actually apply more to buses - is it my fault that your arguments support the banning of buses (not something I would support - but it's a free country ; - )?
"What you have done is consistently imply that there are no problems associated with the continual growth in car use....."
Actually, no, I never have. But what I have said is that what current problems there are, are caused by eg dangerous traffic "calming", or counter productive (for buses as well as cars) bus lanes (READ THE POSTS).
And that people have a totally erroneous view about the "growth" in car "usage" which I think was very cleverly put into perspective by the "M25....... "
I might well have surmised therefore that anyone who proposed traffic calming measures or 24 hour bus lanes, or claimed that car usage was growing out of control, might have done so for ideological, rather than common sense reasons.
However I can well understand why you believe that I MUST have said: "anyone who makes such claims is driven by ideology not practical concerns" ; - )
> 9) ".............We need to put an end to put an end to the continual growth in car use because our road system cannot accomodate much more traffic. Building new roads does not seem to solve the problem (in fact it usually excacerbates it)"
Ahhhhhhhhhh, and I thought you'd read the M25 post, I see that I was mistaken after all!
"and cutting the cost of motoring would merely promote it."
Again: Read the M25 post. You can only drive one car at a time by the way!
"We need to look at the provision of better alternatives to car use when and where they can be provided."
By halving all road widths, traffic "calming" the car lanes, even on main roads, and taxing consumption at 340% ?
"Some of the language you use is hysterical - "demonised", "forced off the road", "imprisoned", "tortured". None of these accurately describe the experience of motoring in the UK."
by the way, did you know that taxi drivers are a very high risk for permanent health insurance because of the high risk of....... no not accidental injury, but of back injury (deliberate?) from all the jolting and vibration from our car friendly roads, or that a certain council appears to be lowering some speed humps - probably because they are about to divert some buses TEMPORARILY down the road?
If you didn't READ THE POSTS!)
> 10) "Or just explain HOW, when the motorists have been driven off the road:.........
"Again, buses are only efficient if they have passengers. Encouraging people to use them by improving the services they offer will create more passengers."
I wasn't aware that 340% taxation was a bus company service ; - )
"Removing subsidies (if they exist), building new roads and making petrol cheaper will not."
READ THE POSTS
"Bus companies will only invest if they are making enough profit from their fares or recieve grants from the public purse."
So why aren't THEY investing?
"Who will fund hospitals and schools? Tax and fuel duty payers - just as they do now."
Ahhhhhhh. So you are saying that when they have driven motorists off the road they will start taxing bus fuel at 340% ?
> "PS ......... But I have asked several times whether, when we have been taxed out of our cars, the high tax supporters heartlessly want funding for schools and hospitals and pensions cut, or whether they just want a politically impossible increase in income tax."
"Here is an answer. You won't be taxed OUT of your car. I don't actually expect there to be a significant drop in revenue from fuel duty in the near future because, relatively speaking, the cost of motoring is still at a level that most people can afford. More people than ever before can afford a car and the running costs. Hopefully, though, the rate of growth in car use will slow down or at least stay at the same level."
In other words you admit that high fuel taxes can't, won't and aren't meant to cut car use, or promote more efficient car use (otherwise you WOULD expect a significant drop in revenue) - it's just a revenue raising scam.
Thank you, and goodnight.
Arthur Gibson (Login Arthurgibson) 212.137.250.167
Reply to Gaz
February 19 2001, 7:02 PM
What does a return ticket on a ferry or the tunnel cost for a European trucker?
Do you know, or shall I phone up and find out?
I will ask my European customers what Frnch diesel and unleaded costs and work out how much a European trucker pays less than a UK trucker to work for a week in the UK and then drive all the way home to wherever he lives in France.
I cannot imagine that there is much of a saving, especially with all the time lost messing about on a ferry, but I will find out.
If there is a huge saving, UK truckers would be going over to France to fill up and then coming back to the UK to work for a week on the fuel. Do they do that? Why not?
The UK truckers seem to me to be a bunch of lying bull****ers and I expect that an examination of the figures will prove that this is the case here.
Arthur, no doubt Gaz will understand, but I'm baffled
February 19 2001, 7:16 PM
Are you saying that a local haulier should take a day out, go down to Dover, buy a ferry ticket, go to France, buy a (domestic operator) tankfull of cheap diesel, and come back again, so that he can compete with a transcontinental trucker, with half a tank spare, picking up some lucrative work while he's over here?
Phone up if you wish. But the point I am making is, They come over from France with a load, as usual. Then before returning, they do a few UK jobs. The cost of the ferry has come out of the first job, so is irrelevent.
I HAVE found out the price of derv. It is 50-55 ppl.
So, 25-30 ppl saving. 1500 ltrs of derv. A french hauiler can undercut a UK only one by about £450. Are my calculations correct? Or am I a lying bull****er?
<I will ask my European customers what Frnch diesel and unleaded costs>
Would they be the same ones who told you the difference in price per litre was pennies?
So that they could continue to charge you artificially high prices!!!
Arthur Gibson (Login Arthurgibson) 212.137.237.164
To Gaz
February 19 2001, 8:56 PM
My customers only told me the price of unleaded, which is not nuch less than here. Italy and The Netherlands seem to be within 1p of our price. I did not get a reply from France. After all the lies from fuel protesters, I only believe figures that I can verify. "Dump the Pump" is still making out that UK unleaded is 89.9p, which is 19p more than Plymouth unleaded. All the fuel protest web site continental fuel prices are wildly innacurate.
My eldest son is running the German exhibition for me, I will ask him what continental diesel prices are right now when he drive back on Thursday.
Arthur Gibson (Login Arthurgibson) 212.137.237.164
Gaz
February 19 2001, 9:12 PM
Where did you get your price of French Derv? Was it a recent price? What was the exchange rate at the time?
If you got it from a fuel protest site it will be wrong.
What Bogush has said about the bus industry is pretty much spot on. I've been a fitter in the bus industry for 19 years. Deregulation happened in 1986, since then routes have been cut, fares increased regularly, and companies reshuffled as the big companies emerged, taking over small local firms, and driving competition from the market.
You now have a situation where there are a few companies running the show, doing deals so they don't tread on each others toes. Staff wages have been cut, frozen, redundacies, running the company on the bare minimum of resources. Cut, cut ,cut in all areas, while profits increase year on year, but passengers and staff see no benefit from it.
Buses are subject to the same emission standards as HGVs', and compared to a car are not as efficient, per passenger mile. Fuel is taxed at a reduced rate, not sure how much (5% rings a bell). On average a bus will carry 70 passengers when full, a car will carry 5. This means the bus will carry 14 times more people than the car. If you look at these figures http://www.transtat.detr.gov.uk/tables/tsgb99/2/20899.htm
You will see that the dangerous emissions, Nox and Particulates are 60 times greater than the car taking the middle figure (although it can only carry 14 times the number of passengers at best), comparing the 3 way catalyst car (unleaded) and the middle bus 1993-1996. Older buses are even worse for particlulates (breathing problems).
Or do you not regard 'horse's mouth' facts from a time served bus fitter. Or a report from 'The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' as valid evidence?
Both Mark and the LYING TURNCOAT government must be lame Stalinist Fascist pseudoscientists, just trying to spread confusion amongst the true believers of the holy word.
Our debate on this thread has covered all the ground necessary for other people to decide the rights & wrongs of our opinions. There would be no point in me and you continuing because, clearly, neither of us will ever change position.
To clarify what I do and don't believe:-
Car usage has grown to a point where any further growth would be unsustainable on our present road network.
High fuel duty is part of a short to medium term solution to this because the cost deters motorists from increasing the usage of their cars. (It also coerces them into more economical cars which is good for the environment).
The other part of the solution is provision of a realistic alternative to private motoring - where it is possible. This should be acheived by public investment and subsidy and, in the case of buses, road prioritising. I concede that bad examples of road prioritising need to be rethought - but not scrapped. I also accept that all of this amounts to, as you put it, "a distortion of the transport market", but it does not constitute the banning of cars
The only alternative to these solutions is an expansion of our road network. This is not only undesirable in extra-urban areas but virtually impossible in urban areas. In any case, past expansion of our road network has failed to deliver an efficient transport infra-structure.
I concede that our country can afford to reduce the burden of taxation over the coming decade. For the reasons I have outlined above, I think it would be wrong to do this by reducing fuel duty. But I accept that certain small sections of society do suffer disproportionately from higher fuel prices which is why I continue to suggest a further reduction (or scrapping if possible) of Vehicle Excise Duty for small-engined cars plus similar measures to help hauliers.
I am convinced that an across the board cut in fuel duty will only be of real benefit to the vast majority who can already well afford to run their cars. The net affect of such a measure would be to encourage them to increase their consumption through higher milage and bigger-engined cars.
I do not propose or even wish for "driving cars off the roads". High fuel duty has NOT had this affect in any case. It will arrest the growth in congestion, pollution and consumption particuarly if it goes hand-in-hand with a commitment to better public transport.
I fully support a "mixed transport fleet" - which is exactly what we don't have now.
Lastly to answer your final point, which was:-
<...you admit that high fuel taxes can't, won't and aren't meant to cut car use, or promote more efficient car use (otherwise you WOULD expect a significant drop in revenue) - it's just a revenue raising scam>
No bogush. My assertion is that maintaining the current tax regime will stabilise growth in car use (as opposed to cutting fuel duty and creating further growth). Therefore the current level of revenue will also be maintained.
Finally. Bogush, you have picked my argument apart without once offering your own solutions. This is my last post on this thread, you can have the last word.
I had supposed that modern PSVs and HGVs were more efficient than older ones. That's why I am advocating public investment in bus services and huge reductions or scrapping of VED for hauliers.
> Finally. Bogush, you have picked my argument apart without once offering your own solutions.
And why should I? We are not sitting down in 1901 debating how to plan a transport system, or even 1921, or 51.
And you obviously still haven't looked at the M25 post.
We are in a situation, wrongly in my view, and I have given the reasons, where car fuel is taxed at 340%, allegedly for environmental reasons, half of all through routes are closed to cars (for the "benefit" of buses), and the roads/lanes that are open to cars are traffic "calmed" and or subjected to artificially low speed limits. And we do not have a road "system".
If you had bothered to research the issues (READ THE POSTS/FOLLOW THE LINKS) you would have seen that eg:
Cars do NOT cause the environmental problems you are concerned about. Buses do. If you want to cure real or imagined pollution/global warming problems: tax the problem, not the car. And this is NOT down to clapped out buses. Buses are intrinsically more polluting even if new, maintained and full. They use a heavy oil. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is impractical to run large vehicles on petrol/LPG. And have you ever seen a bus being towed by a milk float? Or is your argument that as the problem is imaginary: it's ok to imagine the car is to blame and tax it at an all too real 340%.
Bus lanes cause much of the congestion you are concerned about. (This should be self evident: what are the chances of a 1901 road having twice the capacity needed in 2001. And if you halve the capacity by putting in a bus lane? This is not rocket science.) This congestion affects ALL road traffic.
If you had bothered to read the M25 post you would have learnt that our road system could not cope with 1901 (ie pre-car) traffic. Cars do not cause congestion - totally inadequate roads do. No new roads built to date have been built to handle the traffic that they WOULD be carrying. The M25 was only one ring of FIVE planned after the second world war (when horses and carts were still common, and only the rich had cars). Why, if they needed five rings then, are you surprised that one ring now is congested. And WHY do you imply that we therefore need to find ways to solve the supposed problem of supposedly ever increasing traffic.
Traffic "calming" does not calm traffic. This also should be self evident. As one poster on another forum complained: traffic calming "only" reduced average speeds from 46Mmph to 34mph on a (presumably through) road. AVERAGE. But the 46 would have been an average of the constant speeds along the road. The 34 would have been the average of the varying speeds (down to nearly zero? up to? 68mph?).
Traffic calming does NOT improve safety. It distracts drivers. It winds them up. It makes them try to make up for lost time. It CAUSES accidents, as authorities who have had to spend vast sums ripping it out have had to concede - too late. AND the figures are something like an additional 80 ambulance passengers will die for every one pedestrian saved. And problems for other emergency services. And greeny cyclists. And it burns up resources. And causes pollution. And...
Artificially low speed limits don't save fuel, as cars aren't cruising. They don't reduce pollution. And they certainly don't save lives. Extensive data show that reducing a speed limit to an artificially low figure INCREASES accidents by over 5%. And increasing speed limits to a more reasonable level DECREASES accidents by over 5%. Again, not rocket science. Some people will obey the law regardless of how stupid it is. The more stupid it is, the more people will disobey it. The more people disobey stupid laws, the more likely they are to disobey a law which happened to be sensible after all. The more stupid speed limits you have, the more people you have watching the speedo, rather than the road. And the more stupid the speed limit you have, the greater range of speeds you have, and so the greater the opportunity for collisions to occur. Why am I having to explain all these things to people who supposedly can use computers and type a post??
So why is it up to me to design a proper transport system?
In case no one has noticed, I'm still trying to sort out the total c*ck-up that the HFTS/greens/reds have produced. And when I say c*ck-up, I mean poor oppressing, resource wasting, earth destroying, child killing, c*ck up.
When all that has been undone, then, and only then, can we look at rebuilding a proper system.
To clarify what (you) do and don't believe:-
> Car usage has grown to a point where any further growth would be unsustainable on our present road network.
So if you took out all the bus lanes and traffic calming (even on main roads!) this wouldn't make a dramatic difference to capacity?!
> High fuel duty is part of a short to medium term solution to this because the cost deters motorists from increasing the usage of their cars.
Only the poor, who probably don't have the time or inclination to "joy-ride" anyway. The rich, in their large capacity, heavy motors couldn't give a damm about the cost of fuel.
> (It also coerces them into more economical cars which is good for the environment).
Why/how. Many poor people drive "big" cars because they can get them at give-away prices second hand, and then find petrol money on a week to week basis. They are then not in a position to borrow for a nice new ecological car because of their low incomes, expenditure on the high fuel and duties, and the high cost of duty on new cars. Others need big engined cars, and trying to make do with an inappropriate small engined one is NOT good for the environment.
> The other part of the solution is provision of a realistic alternative to private motoring - where it is possible. This should be acheived by public investment and subsidy
But, and here's a radical thought, especially as it is buses that do the damage: if society wants buses, shouldn't society pay for them?
> and, in the case of buses, road prioritising. I concede that bad examples of road prioritising need to be rethought - but not scrapped. I also accept that all of this amounts to, as you put it, "a distortion of the transport market", but it does not constitute the banning of cars.
Yes it does, or, ok, just half of them that would have been using the otherwise empty 24 hour bus lane. (And you have had suggestions - car pool lanes).
> The only alternative to these solutions is an expansion of our road network.
Why, when buses are more congesting, as well as more polluting!
But you could be right there, dammed clever chaps, those Edwardians!
> This is not only undesirable in extra-urban areas but virtually impossible in urban areas.
Why? And why? I've already explained how you can double capacity.
> In any case, past expansion of our road network has failed to deliver an efficient transport infra-structure.
Of course it has. Read the M25 post. We don't have a transport infrastructure. There has NEVER been an expansion of our road network. Only a tarting up of existing roads/plans to carry historic traffic.
> I concede that our country can afford to reduce the burden of taxation over the coming decade. For the reasons I have outlined above, I think it would be wrong to do this by reducing fuel duty.
And I have outlined why you are wrong to think it wrong.
> But I accept that certain small sections of society do suffer disproportionately from higher fuel prices....
Over 70% of the population has access to cars. What percentage is deemed to be poor?! And the overlap??
And how rich do you have to be to be able to bear a 340% tax without discomfort?
> .... which is why I continue to suggest a further reduction (or scrapping if possible) of Vehicle Excise Duty for small-engined cars plus similar measures to help hauliers.
New, small engined cars for urban cycles are great for the environment, and not affordable by the poor. And the £150 VED is a drop in the ocean, even if scrapped. Old small engined cars are the best way of destroying the environment. So your aim is?
> I am convinced that an across the board cut in fuel duty will only be of real benefit to the vast majority who can already well afford to run their cars.
How do you define "well afford". By the sacrifices they HAVE to make to remain mobile? How does the expenditure of someone on the average wage compare with expenditure on food, heating etc?
> The net affect of such a measure would be to encourage them to increase their consumption through higher milage and bigger-engined cars.
Why? Second point first - as discussed - they would buy smaller, newer, more expensive cars.
First point - why? Where would they go? Go to work twice every day? Go to the supermarket twice as often? Just drive around in circles thinking "well that's only cost me a tenner instead of fourty!"
Why do these people who have been spending all their money on fuel never take a holiday, or buy a bigger house, or buy a motorbike, or an expensive cycle, or move to a more expensive area closer to work, or a tube station, or railway station? Amazing, they are all addicted to spending as much as they can on petrol!
> I do not propose or even wish for "driving cars off the roads". High fuel duty has NOT had this affect in any case. It will arrest the growth in congestion, pollution and consumption particuarly if it goes hand-in-hand with a commitment to better public transport.
Hmmmmmmmmmm,
"I am convinced that an across the board cut in fuel duty will only be of real benefit to the vast majority who can already well afford to run their cars. The net affect of such a measure would be to encourage them to increase their consumption through higher milage and bigger-engined cars."
"I do not propose or even wish for "driving cars off the roads". High fuel duty has NOT had this affect in any case. It will arrest the growth in congestion, pollution and consumption."
> I fully support a "mixed transport fleet" - which is exactly what we don't have now.
I'll concur with that.
> Lastly to answer your final point, which was:-
<...you admit that high fuel taxes can't, won't and aren't meant to cut car use, or promote more efficient car use (otherwise you WOULD expect a significant drop in revenue) - it's just a revenue raising scam>
> No bogush. My assertion is that maintaining the current tax regime will stabilise growth in car use
But car use has been decreasing for years.
> (as opposed to cutting fuel duty and creating further growth).
Discussed above.
> Therefore the current level of revenue will also be maintained.
Ahhh, so it's not a scam then.
> Finally. Bogush, you have picked my argument apart without once offering your own solutions. This is my last post on this thread, you can have the last word.
I might discuss with my doctor treatments for an illness. But would you discuss with a mugger treatments for a knife in the back. And if you did, would you not do it AFTER you had discussed its removal.
As I said at the start, we are not sitting down with a clean sheet discussing future transport planning proposals. Motorists have been mugged and stabbed in the back by people with their own agenda (in many cases monetary) and we have now to try to overturn a fait accompli. Try following some of my links (just as it's easier to follow a path with your eyes open, its easier to follow an argument with your mind open - try it - you may not be convinced, but you may be surprised!)
Why do you suggest I'm a "lame Stalinist Fascist pseudoscientist"? You asked a question, and I tried to give you the answer. I'm not supporting buses, I've had to work under the consequences of privatisation. I was pointing out that they are not as clean as cars.
Funkii says "If the laws are to lax on PSV and HGV emissions, I would like to see them tightened." And Gaz "A new HGV is 80% LESS polluting, than an equivalent one that is 10 years old?
The figures are probably similar for buses. But most buses 'round my way are over 10 years old. Yet most trucks I see are under 10 years old.
And, On the spot, emmision testing is a frequent event for HGVs. Very rare to see a bus being pulled over though."
Emission laws are for diesels in general, buses have no special privilidges. Maybe they should be tightened, but it's no good saying buses never seems to get pulled over. Do you know how the Vehicle Inspectorate operates?
The buses in our fleet average 7 years old, with around 60% being 5 years old or less. The VI tends to sit on motorways, dual carriageways etc to do spot checks, so they are not going to get many buses there when they operate in an urban environment. They do sit at bus stations however and do buses there. They tend to target certain areas. One week concentrate on wagons, another on buses, another on cars etc. Plus bus operators get regular fleet checks, where the VI actually comes to their premises to check a random selection of the vehicles. Buses are actually tighter controlled than wagons, as they carry passengers, the MOT is stricter too. We also do our own vehicle inspection every 3 weeks to higher than MOT standards, which includes a smoke emissions test. If the bus fails, it won't go out. I'm not saying all firms are like this. If you are in an areas where the big companies haven't taken a hold, then you probably will find older buses, as when the big firms buy new buses, the smaller firms tend to buy their old ones.
Don't get me wrong, I'm for a cut in fuel duty too, tax should be related to the ability to pay, ie on income tax. I can't understand Bogush's reaction, when he asked for some facts, and I've tried to give an insight into how it works. But looking at some of these posts, this board does seem a bit of a joke, with him choosing to alter peoples posts.
<this board does seem a bit of a joke, with him choosing to alter peoples posts.>
Yes, I agree this board is becoming a joke. I remember defending it because there were no deletions, now we have something far worse than deletions, the sysop altering the posts of people he doesn't agree with.
That's the worst abuse of moderator status I've ever seen, even worse than Steve Manners on the compuserve UK boards, and believe me he is some cookie when it comes to sysops abusing their power.
Errrrrrrrrrrrrm, Sorry Mark, It was meant to be "a bit of of joke"
February 20 2001, 11:57 AM
Whenever someone comes up with some sensible facts the high fuel tax supporters claim that they must be fascists peddling pseudoscience.
I was merely emphasising, in my own twisted little way, that you had come up with more common sense and facts that the high fuel tax supporters wouldn't like.
PS the "editing/altering/censoring", if you check, was:
the emphasising of part of a "quote" FROM ME to put it back into context, plus the addition of "and I can't read" to the thread title which said:
"Is that not the finest, dumbest example of right wing ideological claptrap you've ever heard?"
When I had committed the crime of inviting the High Fuel Tax Supporters to check out some stats which proved them wrong.
And, even worse, I added some links (which the HFTS kept ignoring) which put into context a graph that the HFTS kept spamming the site with, along with falsifications of other people's graphs:
"Bogush, you make your replies too long and complicated and you raise too many questions and post too many posts, that is why everyone ignores you these days.
Make it short and snappy." - gasp, emphasised by bogush!
Ta for the info about buses - knew someone here could find out the info. And thanks for adding a little fresh air to an increasingly stagnant atmosphere in here.
I'm not sure this board is a joke, it's probably in need of a bit of a clean up and some threads ramble on way too much with far too much 'copy and paste' of others postings. I seem to remember reading forum rules somewhere which stated it is a frowned upon practice and uses up valuable space.
But it's Bogush's board, and he can do with it as he likes. If the folk who post here don't like it, then there is an easy answer. Don't post here
There is definately one person I'd be glad to see the back of.........
Nice to hear from Mark. Confirms what I've always felt about buses (been stuck behind 'em on many a cycle journey through town.). But then I've got an anti-pollution mask which deals quite nicely with the particulate problem. Scares careless old ladies at pedestrian crossings a treat as well.
What about solutions, though? Your a bit short on these, Mark. As a deregulated industry, you've suffered more than most, I know but clearly something can and has to be done to fix it. Once again, I don't see why I should pay any more in income tax in order to subsidise a cut in fuel duty. But I might wear a penny on the basic rate for Public Transport Development, including the exclusion of private cars from City centres as well as encouraging companies to lay on transport for their workers, instead of forcing them into cars.
Almacal the Amiable Anarchist
Fiend of the Fuel Protest
(Cynical Realist Branch)
Mine use these activated carbon filters which really work, I can tell you. Refills are (naturally) expensive but you can't scrimp on these things. Main point is to replace the filters regularly. I suppose some s**t still gets through but at least it's something.
Almacal the Amiable Anarchist
Fiend of the Fuel Protest
(Cynical Realist Branch)
Sorry Bogush, maybe I misunderstood you, I didn't realise the pseudoscience thing was a long running joke, those long posts took some following
To Pict,
I know I don't have to post here, I only came on here because Bogush asked on another forum if anyone knew anything about these "rumours". Maybe "a joke" was the wrong word, just seemed like people messing about with the large type etc when I first came on.
To Almacal
I don't want to get involved in the why's and wherefores of exhaust emissions when the real problem is from industry, power stations etc, and not vehicles at all. It's just an excuse for the Gov't to levy a carbon tax on road users. Why did fuel taxes keep going up after catalysts were introduced in '92 if it's about the environment, when catalysts cut emissions? It's up to the Gov't to bring new emission laws in if necessary, but what will that do to your bus fares, someone has to pick up the bill for the new technology ie. the passenger. An engine for a Volvo B10M (a popular engine) is currently around £7,500 to buy.
Got this quote for you (sorry about more copy and paste, and I can't remember the source at the moment)
Quote
"Climatologists agree that taxing fossil fuel based transport is not the answer. Why? Because if we were all to stop using our cars, buses, lorries, tractors, etc tomorrow, and never used them again, there would be no discernable difference to the environment. Global Warming is purely an excuse for carbon tax on Road Users. The carbon dioxide level of normal air is low, at 0.03 per cent. Of the total of this 0.03%, anthropogenic CO² is 5%, of this 5%, 0.6% can be attributed to road vehicles."
...I wasn't getting at you mate!!!!. If you read my message it was welcoming your contribution, not criticising it.
As for my remark about 'copy and paste'- copying small extracts from articles is OK, it's just pasting the whole of someones long posting as a means of getting your point across that is a bit tedious. But hey, it isn't my forum so do as you like. Just making a small point that's all.
Almalcal, does your mask filter out the likes of benzene??. I understand that even the best, most expensive mask is not much better than a doubled over hanky when it comes to the filtration of vehicle exhaust emissions. And cyclists travel, by the way, in the "exhaust tunnel" created by vehicle motion. Levels of pollution are highest in the immediate area behind a vehicle, and when you have a city of vehicles you may as well drink the stuff neat. Hmmm, starting to sound like a biker here.....
What we need are lovely cycle ways like the Dutch have.......
I'm one of these anti - protestors who realise that vehicle emissions don't make a great deal of difference to global warming. They do, however play a great part in determining the air quality in our towns and cities. ANY decrease in IC (internal combustion) emissions, either through the application of technology or through the reduction of IC traffic would be welcome, however small.
And that's just the air quality issue.
MadPict- No, I don't think it does filter out benzine but the rapidity with which I have to change the filters suggest that it's helping with the particulates. For instance, I can easily smell if I'm behind a car whose CAT isn't warm enough.(Sulphur dioxide, rotten eggsmell)
Almacal the Amiable Anarchist
Fiend of the Fuel Protest
(Cynical Realist Branch)
Maybe I took it the wrong way. I agree that including all the post becomes tedious, and marking the bits thats yours and the copied bits helps too, this seems to be common on most forums.
Yes. it is a matter of fact that bus cos get most of the duty paid on their road fuel rebated. I can't give you the exact % I'm afraid but it is true that this happens.
I stood in the sunshine thinking about John Prescott and his "Get out of your car campaign" - I thought I would do some research on Public Transport. For about an hour I watched on the A6 between Manchester and Stockport; every four or five minutes a large bus, sometimes a 54 pax bus and often a huges 86 pax bus, would pas me by. On board there was always a DRIVER and sometimes as many as 3 PAX - yes! 3 pax per bus sometimes less. Now if that is what they get cheap fuel for; and don't forget they are already highly subsidised by the local councils; then somewhere there is a big con going on. And moreover it is unlikely that a suicide bomber would be able to climb into my car un-noticed!!
Anonymous (no login) 62.254.0.48
Re: Anyone got info on this rumour?
August 18 2005, 9:55 PM
Strange that - I stood in the sunshine between Lenton and Nottingham and a bus came past every 2 to 3 minutes with up to 70 people on board but more typically 50. Several cars passed most with 1 but some had 2 occupants.
Visitors are requested to keep their posts "legal, decent and honest" and comply with the normal rules of society and web netiquette.
Visitors are fully responsible for their own posts and any consequences thereof.
However, whilst accepting no responsibility for same, I reserve the right to remove any posts I happen to come across that I feel might be "dubious".
The contents of any posts, or websites linked from any posts or any pages on this or related websites do not neccesarily reflect the views or opinions of the forum owner.
All copyrights, trademarks, etc, acknowledged
