Leslie

Hedgehog.

It won't just be the use of our cars that they want total control of either will it?

If use of fuel is so important, why don't they slap a tax on aircraft fuel then? The pollution from aircraft is absolutely enormous. Aircraft fuel is untaxed!

Les

hedgehog

I suspect they are less concerned with aircraft because they know you've used one. You have to book a ticket and produce ID as it is to get on a plane and so, in effect, you give advance warning of your intention to make the journey. With your car you can just jump in and drive with no need to present an ID card to buy fuel for example and no restriction on the routes you can us.

In effect the UK is going to become like those old Russian spy movies where each road had a checkpoint at each end and they timed you along the roads, assuming you were allowed access. The only difference here is that it will be done electronically.

Leslie

Orwell was no fool was he?

Les

hedgehog

Worth taking a look at this thread:

http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=353224

As I've pointed out before most of us driving "performance" cars are only 1 or 2 more insurance renewals away from having to have one of these boxes fitted to our cars. If you don't fight this you have 2 more years in control of your own car, after that you might as well buy a Corolla for all the difference it will make. In fact you might be allowed better performance out of a Corolla.

The motorists lobby in the USA is much, much stronger than here in the UK so we will probably have it enforced before they do just for simple political reasons.

Next step after that is telling you which roads you can drive on when, in saying that you will hardly be searching out good driving roads in your Corolla, or your Scooby that slows to a nice safe 15mph when a corner appears on the GPS system.

Next time you pass some lentil eating cycling nutter hugging trees just remember, he's now got control of your car because you are to lazy to be bothered fighting him.

scunnered

iTrader: (1)

All this crap about reducing emmisions to combat global warming is the biggest load of bollox. It's a totally natural phenomanon. The planet wobbles on its axis. It takes a few thousand years for a complete cycle. That's why this country was once sub tropical and a few thousand years later was in the grip of an ice age. It's just every succesive government has the need to fleece the electorate out of their hard earned, and they'll make up any excuse they think they can get away with. I don't hear them mention anything about the emissions eminating from all the live volcanoes around the world that account for 90 odd percent of GW gasses.
Just go out and drive your car, safe in the knowledge that you're doing no harm to the environment and at the same time enjoying driving one of the best cars affordable by the general public.

Jye

Stop slating imlach

r32

The Government dont want you to stop using your car, dont you get it at all? They NEED the tax revenue or they would increase it by a huge amount, its like taxes on tobacco, they dont really want to stop you smoking. Its unhealthy and we all know that. How many times have you heard "stick £5 tax on a pack of 20, that'll stop them smoking" and it would but like driving its not what they want. They need smokers to keep smoking and drivers to keep paying the ever (drip drip drip) increasing fuel taxes.

Leslie

And to have total control over us too!

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

ABD membership renewal goes in the post this morning. Thanks for the reminder.

Any current members know why their web site is down at the moment? The home page is asking for a login.

chiark

Some threads on scoobynet are bloody useless and banal.

This is an excellent thread . Really interesting debates going on here - keep it up, as it's great to read something that's both informative and backed up with references.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

At risk of going off topic, this isn't really true. What they need is for those people who smoke, to buy their tobacco in this country. Slap on a silly tax and all that happens is you create a black market and you see more and more people buying in France instead. Getting the right level of tax to maximise total income is a delicate balancing act.

With fuel it's a slightly different matter. Giving up smoking may be difficult but the eventual outcome is a better (wealthier and healthier) lifestyle. The consequences of giving up petrol are much less positive for our quality of life - endless hours spent on public transport instead of with our families. That's why demand for fuel is so inelastic.

imlach

It's interesting that you always quote the worst case. Yes, I admit there are plenty of people who do work in remote places inaccessible by public transport and/or requiring a significatnly increased journey time on public transport, but I am absolutely sure there are far more people who by using public transport would not have a significantly increased journey time.

...and I'm certain the number of people who'd have to spend "endless hours" on public transport every day is few compared to the national average.

There is also the prospect of car-sharing which can reduce pollution and congestion by nearly 75% if you can get a 4 car setup running. This is nearly as effective as using public transport (or at least one step closer in mindset terms to "adjusting").

I work in a an industrial unit 12 miles outside a city centre. Whether I cycle, drive, or use public transport, the time taken is almost the same due to rush hours etc. Driving is probably the most stressful of the three, and cycling is the most efficient given I get 24 miles/day exercise with no time loss in my day at all compared to using the car. Cycling is by far the cheapest option, and the car works out as the most expensive (unless car sharing).

Demand for fuel is inelastic because it is far too easy to jump in your car and drive, and the cost of fuel in real terms is very low today. Certainly lower than it has been in the last decade. It is too easy to not consider an alternative, because the car is there.

Remember, I'm not implying a clampdown on personal freedom. Nothing like it. I've never said "the car is evil". Just that the usage of cars could be better thought out by many. There are a lot of unnecessary and duplicated journeys that car sharing pools, and school buses etc could alleviate.

imlach

Yes, although we could do without the usual tiresome & predictable "lentil eating, cycling nutter, tree hugger" jibes.

Always an inventive way of poo-poohing an opposing argument. Some should be trying harder

Faire D'Income

imlach - there were two main industries that were affected by the ban on CFCs, the aerosol industry and RAC. Some will argue that the RAC industry was unfairly included but this is largely a result of vested interests by the chemical industry who suddenly had their main market for Chlorofluorcarbons (CFCs) taken away from them, that being the aerosol industry.

The aerosol industry replaced CFCs with HCs (Hydrocarbons) which are relatively high purity LPG derivatives such as isobutane/propane blends which have zero ozone depletion, although DME is also used in some medical applications.

The RAC industry was pushed down the Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) route by the chemical manufacturers who saw this as an opportunity to protect their market share with a range of patented synthetic refrigerants such as R134a and R407C. Ironically, the Montreal Protocol didn't address the issues of Global Warming and it was left to the Kyoto Summit to do so but what we didn't realise at the time, was that the HFCs developed to replace the CFCs were very significant global warming gases - they solved one problem, Ozone Depletion only to contribute massively to another, Global Warming.

Slowly but surely, the RAC industry has adopted HCs as refrigerants of choice which not only solves the problem of Ozone depletion and Global Warming but also contribute towards reducing CO2 emissions by requiring far less energy than similar synthetic refrigerants. Other natural refrigerants such as Ammonia and CO2 are also making a comeback, which in essence, is the recycling of old technology as these were the main refrigerants that the industry started with in the late 19th century.

The other major irony with these gases is that the developed nations were required to phase out CFCs and HCFCs far more quickly than developing nations but countries such as India and China have adopted HCs far more quickly by making the transition from CFCs almost straight away.

To summarise, the gases that replaced CFCs are to all intents and purposes environmentally benign and in the case of the RAC industry actually reduce energy consumption of various refrigeration and air conditioning equipment.

GWP/Ozone Depletion comparison

imlach

Fair D'income - sounds like a win-win result then.....nice.

Faire D'Income

Yes. Although, those with little ammuntion (as you pointed out earlier) other than to slag off various non-aligned NGOs such as Greenpeace would do well to remember that we need an effective counter point to big business and indeed government otherwise we'll get dragged off in one direction that may not neccessarily be the correct one.

If you Google up Greenfreeze, you'll notice that it was Greenpeace that first recognised the environmental benefits of HC technology. A clear case of the "tree huggers" coming up with a solution that not only benefited the environment but also industry - which is more than can be said for the chemical manufacturers and indeed the industries themselves.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

It's not so surprising, surely, that those of us who would be most inconvenienced by not having a car, are those most likely to campaign for its free use?

Through no fault of my own - and I'll justify that by PM if you like - I've ended up working in a string of offices, regular access to which by public transport isn't a viable option. Given that my working hours don't change depending on how I get to and from work, and nor does the number of hours' sleep my body needs, any and all extra time taken up travelling comes straight out of my free time. In other words, the effect of extra travelling time on my quality of life is disproportionate. I'm not unique in this respect.

Here are a few suggestions though:

- One simple observation is that our roads generally flow freely except during the morning and evening rush hours. This only happens because working hours tend to be synchronised, even when it's not strictly necessary for this to be the case. A change to working time regulations forcing employers to grant their employees the right to choose their own hours, would enable people to spread out their travelling times and thereby reduce peak demand on the roads (and trains, for that matter). Staggering school hours by +/- an hour or so between neighbouring schools would help here too. Result? Less stress, less pollution and an actual increase in personal freedom.

- The cost of owning a car consists of two parts: a fixed cost (servicing, tax, insurance) which does not vary much with mileage, plus a variable cost (fuel, tyres, brakes) which does. Consider now the effect of scrapping road tax and adding a revenue-neutral amount to the cost of fuel. Also add to the cost of fuel the cost of basic 3rd party insurance as they do in Australia. Now we see that:
* the average driver pays no more overall than at present;
* the low mileage driver, who obviously contributes less to pollution, congestion and accidents, pays less, which is fair;
* the high mileage driver pays more, which is also fair;
* nevertheless, the cost per journey increases, so there's an incentive to look more favourably on public transport;
* the problem of uninsured drivers simply goes away;
* the cost of collecting and administering road tax goes away;
* fuel tax is virtually impossible to evade, so it's pretty much given that every vehicle on the road is taxed and insured. Make the MOT certificate disc shaped and you can check all three with no more administrative overhead than it takes to check tax discs today.

imlach

Andy, no need to justify your own use to me by PM, as I think you detailed the reasons in a previous post regarding your office situation.

..and yes, as I stated before, there are lots in a similar situation like you. However, the point was, there are lots that are not.....

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Agreed. Actually I'm interested to know how many - I'll set up a poll.