mattleonard Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Well I earn about £14,000 a year and do about 300 miles a week in my car. I enjoy driving and compared to a lot of other things, such as fizzy pop, washing up liquid and alcohol, £1.30 for a litre is relatively cheap Well in value terms, if you're driving 300 miles a week then you must be doing an awful lot of washing up to feel that's a good comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Assuming a reasonable efficiency of 40/gallon and 4.5litres/gallon that means you're spending about £45/week on fuel. That's about £2000 a year. You're spending a 7th of your entire income (pre tax? or post?) on fuel and you think it's cheaper than washing up liquid? I probably spend <£10 a year on washing up liquid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Well I earn about £14,000 a year and do about 300 miles a week in my car. I enjoy driving and compared to a lot of other things, such as fizzy pop, washing up liquid and alcohol, £1.30 for a litre is relatively cheap On the one hand you could say that many of us on modest incomes that have computers, HD TV's and I phones etc and yet still run a car have had it too good for too long, the price of cars, fuel and insurance has been kept artificially low, and all that is happening now is the cost of motoring is starting to get more realistic. On the other hand you could ask yourself why the cost of motoring has been kept artificially low, is it because they like us and are doing us a favour? or is it because the type of capitalist society we have wouldnt function without the masses getting to their work places and do their shopping conveniently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diggory comp Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 a few years ago i used to cycle across the city to and from work. i wouldn't say i was a dangerous cyclist but on the roads it is dog eat dog and you have to have your wits about you. wherever possible i used to go through red lights and dodge around vehicles using the pavement but only if it was safe to do so. the main danger for cyclists is drivers of motor vehicles who generally show no courtesy to cyclists and i used to have near misses almost everyday due to rude drivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 On the one hand you could say that many of us on modest incomes that have computers, HD TV's and I phones etc and yet still run a car have had it too good for too long, the price of cars, fuel and insurance has been kept artificially low, and all that is happening now is the cost of motoring is starting to get more realistic. On the other hand you could ask yourself why the cost of motoring has been kept artificially low, is it because they like us and are doing us a favour? or is it because the type of capitalist society we have wouldnt function without the masses getting to their work places and do their shopping conveniently? 80% of the cost of fuel is tax, I'm not sure how it can have been considered to have been artificially low or that it's now become realistic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 a few years ago i used to cycle across the city to and from work. i wouldn't say i was a dangerous cyclist but on the roads it is dog eat dog and you have to have your wits about you. wherever possible i used to go through red lights and dodge around vehicles using the pavement but only if it was safe to do so. the main danger for cyclists is drivers of motor vehicles who generally show no courtesy to cyclists and i used to have near misses almost everyday due to rude drivers. Cycling like that I'm not surprised that motorists didn't like you. It's just a shame the police never spotted you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 80% of the cost of fuel is tax, I'm not sure how it can have been considered to have been artificially low or that it's now become realistic? The shear volume of traffic on the roads tells me that it can't have been that expensive in previous years when most people bought their cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 That doesn't mean it was artificially low though, for many people it's a necessity, so no matter how much it costs they need a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattleonard Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Indeed. They could slap 80% taxes on washing up liquid and Tackart would still need to wash his dishes - that wouldn't mean the price was suddenly more realistic and had previously been artificially low though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tackart Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Assuming a reasonable efficiency of 40/gallon and 4.5litres/gallon that means you're spending about £45/week on fuel. That's about £2000 a year. You're spending a 7th of your entire income (pre tax? or post?) on fuel and you think it's cheaper than washing up liquid? I probably spend <£10 a year on washing up liquid. I do about 55mpg Diesel I paid 137.9p a litre yesterday Flash All Purpose £1.88 a litre or 2 for £3 Daisy Washing Up Liquid £0.70 for 500ml or £1.40 a litre Carlsberg Export Cans £2.20 a litre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.