Letter to moaning drivers.

Here was my response to a driver who wanted to march on London to protest at
greedy oil companies:

Hull Daily Mail 30 MAY 08

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/z30may08.jpg


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

Simon Mason wrote:
Here was my response to a driver who wanted to march on London to
protest at greedy oil companies:

Hull Daily Mail 30 MAY 08

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/z30may08.jpg


I liked the Mail's response.

We don't see less cars due to higher fuel prices - I would think that
remains to be seen.

We should all consider alternatives to private transport - So hands up
all those who use public bikes ;o).

"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...
Here was my response to a driver who wanted to march on London to protest
at greedy oil companies:

Hull Daily Mail 30 MAY 08

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/z30may08.jpg

a) Didn't need the bit about tax, which is becoming increasingly less
relevant as well. On a 117.5p litre, tax is now 17.5 + 50.35p = 67.85p, 58%.
On a 90p litre, it was 63.75p, 71%. That's a particularly generous lion.

b) Isn't accurate. Ok, the oil companies don't set the price - but they do
benefit when it is high. The profit they make on selling fuel is huge - when
taken across their entire operation, not just the retail sector.

Still the bits after that are ok.

cheers,
clive

Nick wrote:

Simon Mason wrote:
Here was my response to a driver who wanted to march on London to
protest at greedy oil companies:

Hull Daily Mail 30 MAY 08

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/z30may08.jpg


I liked the Mail's response.

We don't see less cars due to higher fuel prices - I would think that
remains to be seen.

People are still haring about at high speeds too. I wonder if all
those driving up and down the motorways at 90mph (off peak obviously)
know they could nearly halve their fuel costs by adopting the "Eddie
Stobart" speed of 56mph.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

"Phil Cook" wrote in message
...
Nick wrote:

Simon Mason wrote:
Here was my response to a driver who wanted to march on London to
protest at greedy oil companies:

Hull Daily Mail 30 MAY 08

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/z30may08.jpg


I liked the Mail's response.

We don't see less cars due to higher fuel prices - I would think that
remains to be seen.

People are still haring about at high speeds too. I wonder if all
those driving up and down the motorways at 90mph (off peak obviously)
know they could nearly halve their fuel costs by adopting the "Eddie
Stobart" speed of 56mph.
--

They probably do, but their cost benefit analysis has concluded that the
time saved by travelling at the faster speed is worth more than the extra
cost of the fuel.

"Adam Lea" writes:

"Phil Cook" wrote in message
...
People are still haring about at high speeds too. I wonder if all
those driving up and down the motorways at 90mph (off peak obviously)
know they could nearly halve their fuel costs by adopting the "Eddie
Stobart" speed of 56mph.

They probably do, but their cost benefit analysis has concluded that the
time saved by travelling at the faster speed is worth more than the extra
cost of the fuel.

Frankly I doubt many of them have done anything as complicated as a
cost-benefit analysis. It's more like "driving on motorways is
boring, driving *slowly* on motorways twice as boring, and getting
stuck on uphills behind speed-limited lorries is really no fun at all".

As long as Starbucks can stay in business charging £2+ for a cup of
coffee that probably costs them about 12p (hey, if you thought beer
was expensive, don't ever switch to coffee) pretending that people
generally act to minimise costs is pointless.


-dan

Daniel Barlow wrote:

"Adam Lea" writes:

"Phil Cook" wrote in message
...
People are still haring about at high speeds too. I wonder if all
those driving up and down the motorways at 90mph (off peak obviously)
know they could nearly halve their fuel costs by adopting the "Eddie
Stobart" speed of 56mph.

They probably do, but their cost benefit analysis has concluded that the
time saved by travelling at the faster speed is worth more than the extra
cost of the fuel.

Frankly I doubt many of them have done anything as complicated as a
cost-benefit analysis. It's more like "driving on motorways is
boring, driving *slowly* on motorways twice as boring, and getting
stuck on uphills behind speed-limited lorries is really no fun at all".

Well, that's something I don't do. If I'm pootling along at 60-ish in
lane one and come across "racing elephants" in lanes one and two. I
use my brain, drop it a cog and boot it past them. Mind you to do so
screws up the fuel economy of the past thirty minutes of driving :-(

It's rather similar to the cost of riding like the clappers on your
comute in to work. If you're a racing type you don't do slow but if
you did there would be less need for a change and shower when you got
there. But can I ride slow? No way! I like the way it feels to give it
some welly as I sprint away from the lights. Yet I do this knowing
full well that the next set will turn amber as I approach and all my
effort will be wasted...

.... since I don't jump red lights. :-\
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

Daniel Barlow wrote:

"Adam Lea" writes:

"Phil Cook" wrote in message
...
People are still haring about at high speeds too. I wonder if all
those driving up and down the motorways at 90mph (off peak obviously)
know they could nearly halve their fuel costs by adopting the "Eddie
Stobart" speed of 56mph.

They probably do, but their cost benefit analysis has concluded that the
time saved by travelling at the faster speed is worth more than the extra
cost of the fuel.

Frankly I doubt many of them have done anything as complicated as a
cost-benefit analysis. It's more like "driving on motorways is
boring, driving *slowly* on motorways twice as boring, and getting
stuck on uphills behind speed-limited lorries is really no fun at all".

I still need to go to wales from london every now and then, if traffic
is clear enought then higher motorway speeds can make the journey a fair
bit faster. and if one is driving down sat returning next day then
sometimes it's worth the fuel to get there sooner.

As long as Starbucks can stay in business charging £2+ for a cup of
coffee that probably costs them about 12p (hey, if you thought beer
was expensive, don't ever switch to coffee) pretending that people
generally act to minimise costs is pointless.

it's also fairly poor coffee or at least not good at any rate.

-dan

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

On May 31, 5:30*pm, "Simon Mason"
wrote:
Here was my response to a driver who wanted to march on London to protest at
greedy oil companies:

Hull Daily Mail 30 MAY 08

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/z30may08.jpg

Couldn't you just have written "I hate cars"?

"Nuxx Bar" wrote in message
...
On May 31, 5:30 pm, "Simon Mason"
wrote:
Here was my response to a driver who wanted to march on London to protest
at
greedy oil companies:

Hull Daily Mail 30 MAY 08

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/z30may08.jpg

Couldn't you just have written "I hate cars"?

I don't think Simon does hate cars. The clue is in the title, he hates
moaning drivers. Now I'm not speaking for Simon, but I also hate moaning
drivers (I'm a non-moaning driver myself). If that makes you think that I
hate you, then if the cap fits...