Cost of fuel

[Ch1pbutty]

That suggests that 90% of the British population do live within a 5 minute bike ride of an hourly bus service.

Over 50% of London households have no car, rising to 60% for inner London.

While a cut in fuel duty might have a marginal benefit for those who don’t own a car, the biggest benefit would be for those who do own a car and use it most.

But some on lower incomes are more likely to be working longer shift patterns in warehouse, factory which might be located out of town. Public transport in many areas does not run 24/7, so driving likely to be the only option.

Many of my colleagues live in London and earn a decent wage, but choose not to own a car as public transport (+Uber) is a lot quicker, no parking issues, no congestion charge etc. In the other hand they will happily buy 3 or more coffees a day from a large coffee chain that pays minimal tax in the UK!

 

[andyinluton]

Over 50% of London households have no car, rising to 60% for inner London.

Put another way 50% of London Housholds & 60% of inner London households have been unaffected by the massive increases in fuel costs when it comes to getting to work / school so don't need a cut in fuel duty.

As the exchequer is recouping in extra VAT anything that get chopped off in duty, government expenditure for those London citizens is unaffected. Those same people will of course carry on using the massively subsidised public transport where if you have to wait more than a couple of minutes for a tube its a disaster.

Meanwhile if you live in the rest of the UK where you may see a bus occasionally, and trains go North and South not East & West, or if you actually have to carry tools & materials for work you have no option but to pay the inflated fuel prices.

 

[WelshGas]

Put another way 50% of London Housholds & 60% of inner London households have been unaffected by the massive increases in fuel costs when it comes to getting to work / school so don't need a cut in fuel duty.

As the exchequer is recouping in extra VAT anything that get chopped off in duty, government expenditure for those London citizens is unaffected. Those same people will of course carry on using the massively subsidised public transport where if you have to wait more than a couple of minutes for a tube its a disaster.

Meanwhile if you live in the rest of the UK where you may see a bus occasionally, and trains go North and South not East & West, or if you actually have to carry tools & materials for work you have no option but to pay the inflated fuel prices.

Well said.
Some members of the public are very city-centric and have very little knowledge of how the non-city dwellers live and work.

 

[Calimili]

There are 300£ bikes. And there are 5000£ bikes. If we scrap the vat on bikes, who benefit the most, the poor buying the 300£ or the rich ?
The Chelsea mums will still drive kids with the v8 RangeRover even if it cost 5£ a litre. But supermarkets will be empty and lot of companies bust.

 

[soulstyledevon]

@Amarillo i do agree with some of your comments.
However, I’ve just done the school run on the bicycle and home via the shops. The real problem is cycling infrastructure.
Until that’s addressed, we have no hope of a cycling utopia.
Remember when Borris promised an overhaul of cycling infrastructure in the first lockdown…?

Yeah, I’m still waiting for the changes too…

 

[Velma's Dad]

Honestly, if we are really interested in the immediate issue under discussion which is the sudden 50%+ rise in petrol/diesel prices and its impact on low-income people, it seems ridiculous to me to be saying telling them get on their bikes and we'll take VAT off bike tyres, water bottle brackets and derailleur gearsets. Seriously, if that was suggested as a solution to the charities that work with people living in real-world poverty, I'm pretty confident they would be rolling their eyes.

 

[Amarillo]

Honestly, if we are really interested in the immediate issue under discussion which is the sudden 50%+ rise in petrol/diesel prices and its impact on low-income people, it seems ridiculous to me to be saying telling them get on their bikes and we'll take VAT off bike tyres, water bottle brackets and derailleur gearsets. Seriously, if that was suggested as a solution to the charities that work with people living in real-world poverty, I'm pretty confident they would be rolling their eyes.

I’m not seriously expecting the chancellor to scrap his planned fuel duty cut (if that is what he is planning) in favour of a VAT cut in derailleur gears.

But I do think that a fuel duty cut is the wrong way to get cash into the pockets of those who need it most. And it sends out the wrong Climate Emergency message and the wrong Putin’s War message.

A raising of the NI threshold would be a far more effective measure.

 

[andyinluton]

But I do think that a fuel duty cut is the wrong way to get cash into the pockets of those who need it most.

It isn’t getting cash into anyones pocket, it would be a slight reduction of a massive sudden increase in costs.

 

[Calimili]

It isn’t getting cash into anyones pocket, it would be a slight reduction of a massive sudden increase in costs.

And quite honestly, with a war next door, inflation , corona by far not resolved, shortages in several industries, i am sorry to say, maybe immediately the climate issue, although very serious, isn‘t priority n. 1.

 

[Steve1]

I’m not seriously expecting the chancellor to scrap his planned fuel duty cut (if that is what he is planning) in favour of a VAT cut in derailleur gears.

But I do think that a fuel duty cut is the wrong way to get cash into the pockets of those who need it most. And it sends out the wrong Climate Emergency message and the wrong Putin’s War message.

A raising of the NI threshold would be a far more effective measure.

If you are concerned with the environmental damage caused by driving, why on earth would you own a California. I should have thought it falls at the opposite end of the scale and using it does just as much harm as short school journeys etc. Is it that only well off people are allowed to pollute, in which case the higher the fuel price the better I suppose ?

 

[soulstyledevon]

If you are concerned with the environmental damage caused by driving, why on earth would you own a California. I should have thought it falls at the opposite end of the scale and using it does just as much harm as short school journeys etc. Is it that only well off people are allowed to pollute, in which case the higher the fuel price the better I suppose ?

What’s the pollution of a trip to France via flight vs driving…?

 

[Steve1]

What’s the pollution of a trip to France via flight vs driving…?

But if you are truly concerned you wouldn't do either would you ? I am not saying you shouldn't, obviously I do. I am saying that criticising others use of fuel in a particular way, while owning a very inefficient vehicle seems wrong.

 

[Ch1pbutty]

What’s the pollution of a trip to France via flight vs driving…?

You could cycle to the airport & put some new plants in the garden to offset some of the emissions from the flight.

 

[Steve1]

You could cycle to the airport & put some new plants in the garden to offset some of the emissions from the flight.

The airplane won't be able to take off if everyone does that the plants will block the runway

 

[Velma's Dad]

What’s the pollution of a trip to France via flight vs driving…?

Not sure if that was a rhetorical question but if not... it obviously depends on the number of people in the Cali. But if two, a 150bhp Cali would emit 223/2 = 112g per km. That's actually quite similar to a short-haul flight although that varies a lot with load factors etc.

 

[Amarillo]

Not sure if that was a rhetorical question but if not... it obviously depends on the number of people in the Cali. But if two, a 150bhp Cali would emit 223/2 = 112g per km. That's actually quite similar to a short-haul flight although that varies a lot with load factors etc.

We rarely drive the Cali with fewer than four people. A recent exception was a trip to Snowdonia when it was just me and the two boys.

 

[Amarillo]

If you are concerned with the environmental damage caused by driving, why on earth would you own a California. I should have thought it falls at the opposite end of the scale and using it does just as much harm as short school journeys etc. Is it that only well off people are allowed to pollute, in which case the higher the fuel price the better I suppose ?

My point is about the most efficient way the chancellor can get cash into the pockets of those which need it most.

My secondary point was about Government messaging through tax giveaways: climate and Putin’s War.

We do use bikes a lot as a family. I hope one day to go bike packing with the boys along the Danube, but we’ll probably drive to our start point - in our California!

 

[vmaxkiddy]

Fine where there is actually a public transport service. According to the RMT, more than six million people in Britain do not live within one mile of an hourly bus service. Just saying.

Count me in that 6 million. I have to book a bus ride at least 24 hours in advance, then get to the bus stop 3 miles away.

 

[soulstyledevon]

But if you are truly concerned you wouldn't do either would you ? I am not saying you shouldn't, obviously I do. I am saying that criticising others use of fuel in a particular way, while owning a very inefficient vehicle seems wrong.

I could drive all my journeys via the Cali, my CO2 contribution would be a lot more than it currently is.
However, by offsetting many small journeys made by bicycle, I have reduced how much I pollute.
It’s not just about what vehicle one drives, but the other factors of sitting in traffic adding to congestion and the knock effect this has.

Nobody’s perfect, but all must try harder…

 

[soulstyledevon]

Not sure if that was a rhetorical question but if not... it obviously depends on the number of people in the Cali. But if two, a 150bhp Cali would emit 223/2 = 112g per km. That's actually quite similar to a short-haul flight although that varies a lot with load factors etc.

I did a quick search and found this useful table

 

[Wildcamper]

What’s the pollution of a trip to France via flight vs driving…?

If you are really concerned about climate change then one would neither fly or drive a Cali anywhere.

 

[soulstyledevon]

If you are really concerned about climate change then one would neither fly or drive a Cali anywhere.

Still not getting it really, are we…?

 

[Velma's Dad]

I did a quick search and found this useful table

I suspect they are basing this on a small/medium car. A Cali emits a lot more than that of course - well over 200g/km, whereas smaller cars would typically be in the 120-130 range.

 

[Calimili]

I suspect they are basing this on a small/medium car. A Cali emits a lot more than that of course - well over 200g/km, whereas smaller cars would typically be in the 120-130 range.

and of course we need to the CO2 consumptions per day per person staying in a hotel (A/C - heating- several services, lifts etc) vs camping ..

 

[Velma's Dad]

and of course we need to the CO2 consumptions per day per person staying in a hotel (A/C - heating- several services, lifts etc) vs camping ..

Pretty sure there have been some hotly debated calcs on camping vs. hotels on threads in the past on here, I'm not going to revisit...