They are whingeing about petrol prices again!

Someone or other wrote:

In years to come when all of the oil has run out,

It was all supposed to have run out by about twenty-five years ago.

On Nov 20, 12:07*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 02:30:56 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason





wrote:
On Nov 20, 9:48*am, Tony Dragon wrote:

Of course that is the undoubted benefit of higher fuel prices so the higher
the better. Lets get all those frivolous drivers off our roads so that
serious road users can benefit. I bet the resulting lack of congestion would
save on fuel costs in the end.

Doug.

Yes, the higher the better, we all know that only motorists use fuel.

Those lorries, buses, trains, ambulances, hospitals, etc do not use fuel
at all, they are powered by Pixie Dust that falls out of the skies in
cloud cockoo land.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In years to come when all of the oil has run out, those vehicles will
be powered by biofuels made from palm oil, maize, wheat, sugar cane
and all sorts of other renewable resources. We are in a transitional
period when we are having to learn to be weaned off fossil fuels and
into cleaner forms of energy which will benefit us all.

I sort of wonder if there is potential to grow these oil crops in
third world countries. It's about time they got a look in.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman,http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They are doing.
Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia and others are big biofuel crop growing
nations.

--
Simon Mason

On 20/11/2011 14:49, JNugent wrote:
On 20/11/2011 12:58, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 20/11/2011 10:18, Mr. Benn wrote:
"Dave - Cyclists VOR" wrote in message
...

On 20/11/2011 08:50, Doug wrote:
On 18-Nov-2011, Simon wrote:

On 18/11/2011 14:48, Simon Mason wrote:
On Nov 17, 7:33 am, Simon
wrote:
On 17/11/2011 04:05, Simon Mason wrote:



On Nov 16, 11:46 pm, wrote:
On Nov 16, 6:53 pm, wrote:

Doug wrote:
Fortunately this hardly affects cyclists at all.

so why are you mentioning it here?

"just about everybody on this group have said they own a car."

I am not moaning about high petrol prices as
a) I work for an oil company.
b) I get a staff discount c) I hardly ever drive anyway.

Win win win.

Higher prices, less traffic!

--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.- Hide quoted
text
-

- Show quoted text -

My fuel bills are going through the roof due to me driving Mrs M out
to all of these hills.
I've just put another 70 quids worth in. :-(


It does not go far, I spend approx £80 a month on diesel. Still I’d
rather pay £160 per month and see less traffic on the roads.

Of course that is the undoubted benefit of higher fuel prices so the
higher
the better. Lets get all those frivolous drivers off our roads so that
serious road users can benefit. I bet the resulting lack of congestion
would
save on fuel costs in the end.

Still waiting for the penny to drop....
=========================================

It will when he realises that increases in food prices are largely due
to increased transportation costs.

Food is very cheap in the UK. It should be a lot more.

Should it?

Why do you say that UK living standards should be reduced?

As long as he can ride his child's toy in peace...

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 20/11/2011 13:01, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 20/11/2011 10:37, Simon Mason wrote:
On Nov 20, 8:50 am, "Doug" wrote:
On 18-Nov-2011, Simon wrote:





On 18/11/2011 14:48, Simon Mason wrote:
On Nov 17, 7:33 am, Simon
wrote:
On 17/11/2011 04:05, Simon Mason wrote:

On Nov 16, 11:46 pm, wrote:
On Nov 16, 6:53 pm, wrote:

Doug wrote:
Fortunately this hardly affects cyclists at all.

so why are you mentioning it here?

"just about everybody on this group have said they own a car."

I am not moaning about high petrol prices as
a) I work for an oil company.
b) I get a staff discount c) I hardly ever drive anyway.

Win win win.

Higher prices, less traffic!

--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.- Hide quoted
text
-

- Show quoted text -

My fuel bills are going through the roof due to me driving Mrs M out
to all of these hills.
I've just put another 70 quids worth in. :-(

It does not go far, I spend approx £80 a month on diesel. Still I’d
rather pay £160 per month and see less traffic on the roads.

Of course that is the undoubted benefit of higher fuel prices so the
higher
the better. Lets get all those frivolous drivers off our roads so that
serious road users can benefit. I bet the resulting lack of
congestion would
save on fuel costs in the end.

Doug.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Agreed.
Fuel is far too cheap - if people can afford to sit in traffic for an
hour like I was the other night doing 8-9 mpg, then the fuel taxes
need to be raised in order to force people to consider more sensible
alternatives. I certainly won't be driving to work today, that's for
sure.


Me neither, I have for a long time considered that driving to work is a
costly waste of resources.


Is that why you are a UB40?

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On Nov 20, 1:01*pm, Simon Weaseltemper
wrote:

Agreed.
Fuel is far too cheap - if people can afford to sit in traffic for an
hour like I was the other night doing 8-9 mpg, then the fuel taxes
need to be raised in order to force people to consider more sensible
alternatives. I certainly won't be driving to work today, that's for
sure.

Me neither, I have for a long time considered that driving to work is a
costly waste of resources.


Hopefully, when Mrs M gets fit enough, we will only really need the
car to go on our 3000 mile summer holidays and not for commuting/
shopping anymore.

--
Simon Mason

On 20/11/2011 14:49, JNugent wrote:
On 20/11/2011 12:58, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 20/11/2011 10:18, Mr. Benn wrote:
"Dave - Cyclists VOR" wrote in message
...

On 20/11/2011 08:50, Doug wrote:
On 18-Nov-2011, Simon wrote:

On 18/11/2011 14:48, Simon Mason wrote:
On Nov 17, 7:33 am, Simon
wrote:
On 17/11/2011 04:05, Simon Mason wrote:



On Nov 16, 11:46 pm, wrote:
On Nov 16, 6:53 pm, wrote:

Doug wrote:
Fortunately this hardly affects cyclists at all.

so why are you mentioning it here?

"just about everybody on this group have said they own a car."

I am not moaning about high petrol prices as
a) I work for an oil company.
b) I get a staff discount c) I hardly ever drive anyway.

Win win win.

Higher prices, less traffic!

--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.- Hide quoted
text
-

- Show quoted text -

My fuel bills are going through the roof due to me driving Mrs M out
to all of these hills.
I've just put another 70 quids worth in. :-(


It does not go far, I spend approx £80 a month on diesel. Still I’d
rather pay £160 per month and see less traffic on the roads.

Of course that is the undoubted benefit of higher fuel prices so the
higher
the better. Lets get all those frivolous drivers off our roads so that
serious road users can benefit. I bet the resulting lack of congestion
would
save on fuel costs in the end.

Still waiting for the penny to drop....
=========================================

It will when he realises that increases in food prices are largely due
to increased transportation costs.

Food is very cheap in the UK. It should be a lot more.

Should it?

Why do you say that UK living standards should be reduced?

It might have a positive effect on obesity rates if people were not able
to afford to gorge themselves to such a point where they are a health risk.

Cheap food equals fat people. Look at the US.

Expensive food equals healthier people, up to a point.

--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.

On 20/11/2011 14:50, JNugent wrote:
On 20/11/2011 13:01, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 20/11/2011 10:37, Simon Mason wrote:
On Nov 20, 8:50 am, "Doug" wrote:
On 18-Nov-2011, Simon wrote:





On 18/11/2011 14:48, Simon Mason wrote:
On Nov 17, 7:33 am, Simon
wrote:
On 17/11/2011 04:05, Simon Mason wrote:

On Nov 16, 11:46 pm, wrote:
On Nov 16, 6:53 pm, wrote:

Doug wrote:
Fortunately this hardly affects cyclists at all.

so why are you mentioning it here?

"just about everybody on this group have said they own a car."

I am not moaning about high petrol prices as
a) I work for an oil company.
b) I get a staff discount c) I hardly ever drive anyway.

Win win win.

Higher prices, less traffic!

--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.- Hide
quoted text
-

- Show quoted text -

My fuel bills are going through the roof due to me driving Mrs M out
to all of these hills.
I've just put another 70 quids worth in. :-(

It does not go far, I spend approx £80 a month on diesel. Still I’d
rather pay £160 per month and see less traffic on the roads.

Of course that is the undoubted benefit of higher fuel prices so the
higher
the better. Lets get all those frivolous drivers off our roads so that
serious road users can benefit. I bet the resulting lack of
congestion would
save on fuel costs in the end.

Doug.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Agreed.
Fuel is far too cheap - if people can afford to sit in traffic for an
hour like I was the other night doing 8-9 mpg, then the fuel taxes
need to be raised in order to force people to consider more sensible
alternatives. I certainly won't be driving to work today, that's for
sure.


Me neither, I have for a long time considered that driving to work is a
costly waste of resources...

...so you don't bother going?

No need. I can earn a living not leaving the house :-)

Those who do “have” to drive to work are mugs. They will spend a good
part of their income on the means to get them there. They are also being
further conned in that the cost of travel to work is not tax deductible
so they pay tax on earning the money to pay for the means to get them to
work and … pay tax.

For the high earners, this is not a problem as they can afford it. But
it seems to me utterly absurd for low to moderate earners, part-timers
etc. to run a car to get them to work, especially if the commute is any
distance and expensive. If they could do the journey by human power they
would be considerable better off. Their income requirement would be
less, their health improved and their overall standard of living
improved too.


--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.

On 20/11/2011 15:13, Simon Mason wrote:
On Nov 20, 1:01 pm, Simon
wrote:

Agreed.
Fuel is far too cheap - if people can afford to sit in traffic for an
hour like I was the other night doing 8-9 mpg, then the fuel taxes
need to be raised in order to force people to consider more sensible
alternatives. I certainly won't be driving to work today, that's for
sure.

Me neither, I have for a long time considered that driving to work is a
costly waste of resources.


Hopefully, when Mrs M gets fit enough, we will only really need the
car to go on our 3000 mile summer holidays and not for commuting/
shopping anymore.



That’d be good. I think cars should be seen as a luxury item for ease
and enjoyment and not (as many see them) as a necessity.



--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.

On 20/11/2011 14:44, Simon Mason wrote:
On Nov 20, 12:50 pm, Simon
wrote:

ISTM bizarre that in this day and age we have old folk frightened to put
their heating on in the winter because they cannot afford the fuel
bills, and we have teenagers and single mums on benefits, running around
in cars.


We had a young single mum in the paper the other day on benefits who
was moaning about the car high parking prices outside of the dole
office where she had to sign on now and again.

The world has gone mad.


Be fair, she will “need” a car to “look for work”.


--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.

On 20/11/2011 15:43, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 20/11/2011 14:49, JNugent wrote:
On 20/11/2011 12:58, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 20/11/2011 10:18, Mr. Benn wrote:
"Dave - Cyclists VOR" wrote in message
...

On 20/11/2011 08:50, Doug wrote:
On 18-Nov-2011, Simon wrote:

On 18/11/2011 14:48, Simon Mason wrote:
On Nov 17, 7:33 am, Simon
wrote:
On 17/11/2011 04:05, Simon Mason wrote:



On Nov 16, 11:46 pm, wrote:
On Nov 16, 6:53 pm, wrote:

Doug wrote:
Fortunately this hardly affects cyclists at all.

so why are you mentioning it here?

"just about everybody on this group have said they own a car."

I am not moaning about high petrol prices as
a) I work for an oil company.
b) I get a staff discount c) I hardly ever drive anyway.

Win win win.

Higher prices, less traffic!

--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.- Hide quoted
text
-

- Show quoted text -

My fuel bills are going through the roof due to me driving Mrs M out
to all of these hills.
I've just put another 70 quids worth in. :-(


It does not go far, I spend approx £80 a month on diesel. Still I’d
rather pay £160 per month and see less traffic on the roads.

Of course that is the undoubted benefit of higher fuel prices so the
higher
the better. Lets get all those frivolous drivers off our roads so that
serious road users can benefit. I bet the resulting lack of congestion
would
save on fuel costs in the end.

Still waiting for the penny to drop....
=========================================

It will when he realises that increases in food prices are largely due
to increased transportation costs.

Food is very cheap in the UK. It should be a lot more.

Should it?
Why do you say that UK living standards should be reduced?

It might have a positive effect on obesity rates if people were not able to
afford to gorge themselves to such a point where they are a health risk.

Commodity prices would have to rise a LOT before that would happen.

In effect, real incomes would have to be similar to what they were in the
late 1940s or early 1950s (the last time that food was rationed by price, as
well as by the state).

Is that the sort of effect you were thinking of?

Cheap food equals fat people. Look at the US.

I have.

In fact, food prices in the USA are not all that much more than here. OK,
steak (and similar) is a cheap commodity there, but eating out is no cheaper
than it is here. But you DO get a lot more on your plate. Too much for me,
certainly.

Expensive food equals healthier people, up to a point.

Can you think of a real world example?