23.08.06 Does petrol cost too much?

del.icio.us

digg

Technorati

Furl

reddit

SPURL.NET

746 comments 4247 votes

We don�t like to get ripped off when buying fuel and that�s why we created the Petrol Prices website. But even with the help of our site, UK consumers are still spending more and more money on fuel because of rising oil prices and rising taxation.

Fuel is taxed twice � firstly by fuel duty and then by VAT. Fuel duty is a fixed amount (47.1p per litre for unleaded and diesel) and VAT is a percentage (17.5%). To make it easier to understand, look at our breakdown of the price of a litre of fuel.

The money that is raised by fuel taxation goes into the Chancellors pot and taxpayers money is spent on health, education, social services and so on. In the 2004�05 fiscal year, fuel duty alone generated approximately �23.5 billion and this does not include the VAT raised on the fuel sold. In the 2005-06 fiscal year only �21 billion will be spent by government on transport as a whole. So, fuel taxation not only pays for the upkeep of our roads but it also helps to pay for the other things that government spends our money on.

Does petrol cost too much?

Is it fair for the motorist to pay for these extra services as well as for the upkeep of our roads?

Your Comments

Click here to add your comments

Showing: 1 to 75 of 824

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... »

This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

Petrol is overpriced. Period. Trying to justify this cost as a deterrent to 4x4 or other large engined vehicles is ridiculous. The cost is simply the government making money from the majority of the population that people rely on their cars (and Jonathan is obviously very lucky if his lifestyle means he can rely on a bike/bus/train for his travel needs).
If we were being incentivised to buy cars that needed less fuel to travel diesel would not be significantly more expensive than petrol!
Bring on another strike, this seems the only way to get the government and petrol companies listening to our frustration.

Posted by Nick Powell, 23rd August 2006 2:46pm

I don't drive through choice either, I drive through necessity. Being disabled I can only get about by driving my car. Public transport is not an option and using taxis is far too expensive. In common with many disabled drivers money is in short supply and the high taxation level that fuel for my car is subject to means I am very restricted in where I can afford to go and this has a tremendous impact on my quality of life.

Posted by Ian White, 23rd August 2006 2:50pm

As an oldie (in my 40s) I'm constantly bemused by the fact that younger colleagues have no idea of the price of petrol - and no yardstick to measure price rises by.
I am certain that if we retutned to pre-metric price-per-gallon displays alongside price-per-litre and petrol stations were forced to advertise the fact that a gallon costs over �5, there would be uproar. Equally, a 5p a litre budget tax rise is far more than 5p on a gallon. Maybe a crash thru the �1 per litre mark will do it.
I'm no little Englander - just someone who keeps a weather eye on miles per gallon performance of my car which is a tad difficult when I have to buy the stuff in litres.

Posted by David, 23rd August 2006 2:55pm

The reality is that fuel prices, road congestion charges, parking restrictions, parking fines, income from speed cameras etc. have all increased year on year by a hell of a lot more than inflation and road congestion continues to increase. This can only lead to one conclusion fuel prices are not too high as people would have switched to alternative modes of transport!!!

Of course increased taxation would make a difference, it would raise more revenue for the Government to spend inefficiently on public transport. Those that drive 4x4 and other gas guzzlers can afford to pay the increased taxesand fuel prices, so you won't see many of these vehicles being forced off the road.

Public transport is overcrowded and expensive at peak periods and too infrequent off-peak. And don't try to travel by train at weekends as the line works mean disrupted journies by bus etc.

Posted by Toon Broon, 23rd August 2006 2:56pm

Can you not find out what has happened to LRP it has gone unobtainable yet again and classic cars need this petrol without having to buy Redex to mix with unleaded

Posted by Violet Bainbridge, 23rd August 2006 3:02pm

This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

" ...increasing taxation on one of the most polluting substances on the planet (when taken in perspective of the amount used worldwide) would surly reduce the number of cars on the road... "

What an utterly stupid comment. Sure, some people have the luxury of "choice" whether to use their car or not. Most I am sure do not, increasing the cost of fuel, whether by taxing or other means is simply going to reduce the standard of living for most people who will have to afford the fuel prices at the expense of everything else.

Posted by Stuart, 23rd August 2006 3:13pm

Yes fuel is too expensive. Increasing the price does NOT reduce the amount people use, it just means that they pay more.

My car gets me from A to B, where ever and whenever that may be and costs the same for me as having a car full.

Public transport:
Infrequent
Takes much longer to get from A to B (usually)
More hassle as you would usually have a number of stops and changes
Very expensive for the whole family
Warmer than waiting at a bus stop or train station (Winter)
Cooler than cooking on a bus or train (Summer)

Will I be ditching my car? Not likely!

Will I (and others) vote against the government if they continue to increase stealth taxes? That's another question...

Posted by Jason Cresswell, 23rd August 2006 3:16pm

I don't think that we can believe that Fule Duty is an environmental tax any more. If it was, and the money raised was used to offset environmental damage, driving a a high powered, gas guzzling, 4x4 would be the most environmentally friendly thing you could do. Here is a comparison of costs I worked out on the back of an envelope (so rough figures before anyone tells me they are not exactly right).

Industry pays about �10 - �15 per tonne of carbon emitted through the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. Per tonne of carbon emitted from a car, the motorist pays:-

Carbon content of unleaded petrol - 85% (ave of various sources)

Density of unleaded petrol - 737.22kg/m3 (http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_liquids.htm)

Therefore carbon density of unleaded petrol 627kg/m3 or 0.627kg/l

---------------------

Duty on unleaded �0.4835/l (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget/budget_06/press_notices/bud_bud06_press02.cfm)

---------------------

To emit a tonne (1000kg) of carbon - need to burn 1595l of unleaded.

Duty on 1595l of unleaded = �771.18

Posted by Richard Ploszek, 23rd August 2006 3:19pm

Why is Diesel now more expensive that Petrol. For many years diesel was a lower price. Lower quality fuels were cheaper based on the level in the Catalytic Cracker that the distillate comes off. Furnace fuels at the lower end and petrol towards the top. This looks like Oil Company profiteering to me.

Posted by Blair Breton, 23rd August 2006 3:20pm

Petrol does cost too much!

Is it fair for the motorist to pay for these extra services as well as for the upkeep of our roads?

In short no, we as a nation get taxed to the hilt as it is!!

Perhaps Mr Two Jags could pay for my fuel for the year ;o)

I'd love to be able to catch public transport to my work place every day, trouble is there is no direct route to where I work, so I'd have to catch a combination of quite a few buses, trains etc and it's too far for me to bike every day too.

Posted by Mandy Marriott, 23rd August 2006 3:21pm

I think the amount of tax on fuel is a disgrace. The application of duty and then vat means the tax (duty) is also being taxed. We have a very poor road system and condistions in this country when compared with the majority of our European partners, who pay an awful lot less tax on their fuel and they generally enjoy better health and wefare care. The money taken by this government in particular is often wasted seemingly just to ensure it bolsters their votes.

I am afraid the working patters in our counrty have changed so much that public transport can never cover it. We no longer have all the trades, shops and facilities in the local village but at out of town business parks. We also work a lot of shifts to keep our society running. Public transport cannot and will never match it. Plus its hugely expensive. �3.90 for a single journey of 4.5 miles into town (�6 day return) on a bus and then more unreliable buses to continue the journey.

As to the bitch about 4x4 vehicles. Where is this nonsense coming from. They are comfortable and just as economical as a lot of other vehicles about. They may appear large but do not take up any more room on the road than other vehicles. I drive a Land Rover because I choose to. If others choose to drive an electric car then so be it. I won't moan. Tax 4x4's off the road and you will put many thousands of people out of work, or does that not come into the equasion. An awful lot of this hype appears to be government stirred, what next? a government issued pass to get on a bus. Come on get real look around and see what is happening to your freedoms.

Posted by John Hazelton, 23rd August 2006 3:24pm

Jonathan has got a point but what about the rest of us who are unable to catch public transport to work and who live too far away to ride a bike? I do not drive a 4x4 or a palatial car but I still spend �50.00 per week on petrol, which - personally - I think is a joke. We already have to pay over the odds for car insurance, then there is the road tax, then there is the congestion charge every time we go into London (which only pushes the congestion out into the suburbs), then there are the hefty prices we have to pay for the pay and display car parks. America don't have to pay through the nose for their petrol and neither do the rest of Europe, so I don't see why we should have to.

Posted by Paula, 23rd August 2006 3:26pm

Petrol prices are way too high, the motorist is always being penalised from increasing petrol prices, higher road tax prices, insurance costs, speeding fines, congestion. Give us a break, without us the economy would suffer .

Posted by Jas, 23rd August 2006 3:27pm

In short, yes it is. In a short response to Jonathan, most people use cars because they have to and if there was a realisitc alternative, we would all jump at the chance. However there is not, especially in rural areas. I drive a 4x4 and actually think that you should have to be able to justify the need to buy one. Living 'out in the sticks', in an area that floods, being the owner of a 1.5 tonne trailer and a caravan I think I am justified. However I wouldn't drive the thing out of choice. Maybe there would be an argument for insurance companies to make insuring more reasonable second cars a viable option because it is prohibitive at the moment. Having said that, my 2.7 turbo diesel 'gas guzzler' actually attains more MPG than my wifes 1.7 petrol car which is a bit of an eye opener for those that use the 'Chelsea Tractor' blanket statement.
On a slightly different tack, a friend of mine was looking at setting up a bio fuel plant recently. Lower emissions, sustainable, we all wanted to use his fuel! However the Customs and Excise and local planning authority put so many barriers in his way that he gave up the idea as it was just too much hassle. Why should this be so? I also note that a local truck stop is selling Bio Diesel at 99.6 ppL - once again why? Surely there should be a significant taxation benefit to bio fuel providers, or are the government more interested in retaining revenue than helping the environment?

Posted by John Beardon, 23rd August 2006 3:29pm

It is taxed 3 times.......... Income tax - fuel duty - VAT

Posted by Graham Thomas, 23rd August 2006 3:29pm

Unfortunately a car is an absolute neccessity when living in small villages. There is a very limited country bus service and only along certain roads, and the county bus fares are very expensive.
I was living in a village with no shops, limited bus service (restricted times and not at weekends), no street lights and no pavements. What are we meant to do - having a car is the only means to get to a local shop, supermarket, station or work and it always seem to be that the garages take advantage of this by having the most expensive prices compared to ones nearer bigger towns.
Surly something should be done to stop garages being so greedy.

Posted by Kim Cooke, 23rd August 2006 3:31pm

It's not just tax and vat, it's the vast profits made by the oil companies. lets get all car manufactures to supply car with dual fuel. We'd see a big fall in the prices then with people switching to gas

Posted by Mike Otter, 23rd August 2006 3:43pm

At the end of the day, having a car is a privilege. It's not a right. I might be a driver, but I'm not blinded by the need to drive; I know how much damage it does to the environment.

Maybe it's a good way of taxing the middle and upper classes to pay for all the things we demand: healthcare, education, etc. But maybe you can go too far with taxing fuel, can't you?

I'd rather see duty reduced and the amount reduced by replaced by a "conversion fund", lowering the �2000 price tag for an LPG fuel conversion. I say this, even though I drive a �650 car!

The thing that bothers me more is road tax. Most of it doesn't go anywhere near repairing the roads!

Posted by James Hamilton, 23rd August 2006 3:43pm

Please let's not have the "cost is not about monetary value" debate.

I need to get to work, and the only viable way is using my car or motorbike. The alternative to this 30 minute each way journey is a 2 1/2 hour trip on public transport that would involve 3 buses each way and a 15 minute walk. This would cost more and take 5 times as long! Anyone who sees this as a viable alternative is deluded.

So, regardless of my want to use fuel, I have to buy it so like the overwhelming majority of drivers, I have no choice and the Tax man has me over a barrel!

So, what about the argument that I should live nearer to work or change job to work nearer to home. Hmm, that'd be great, but for the fact that it'd cost a fortune to move home, take me away from friends (and mean I have to drive to see them), take my wife away from her work, and take my children from the school/nursery. And as for changing job? I work in a relatively specialised industry, and jobs aren't that easy to come by!!! As if they are easy to come by anywhere!!!

Posted by Paul Hartley, 23rd August 2006 3:44pm

"too expensive" - definition no-one can afford to pay (other than very wealthy)
so be happy either lots of us are very wealthy or petrol isn't too expensive!
After all it's rare I get to drive straight into a petrol station - usually I'm queuing with other "very wealthy" people.
But we aren't very good at being happy, we're much better at complaining and being greedy.
Lots of older people (45+ say) grew up without cars - must be my rose tinted glasses but I seem to remember shorter wait times for buses - oh my tinted glasses have fallen off because I remember buses being more crowded - maybe I'm just remembering how it was.
Yes, the world is different now - we have stormier weather, more extinct species, more obesity, more asthma to mention just the down side of increased use of fossil (ie non renewable) fuels.
Diana

Posted by Diana Bruce, 23rd August 2006 3:47pm

Jonathan

I travel all over the East Midlands and visit at least 10 families a week to help them with their kids maths and english. This changes some families lives drastically and earns a living. A living severly dented by fuel prices. Until the nmanufactures get an alternative cheaper non polluting fuel then I have no choice and I cant afford 2 grand to change my fuel tank either.

Your ideals are correct but your reality is not. You are just 50 yrs ahead of the game.

Unless the manufactures/producers are made to change, it won't.

Posted by Mike Otter, 23rd August 2006 3:47pm

There are too many cars on the roads. When new roads are built, it allows more motorists access to other parts of the country and therefore congestion increase more. Like everything in life, it is all about economics. Taxes and fuel prices need to increase to a sufficient level to discourage people off the roads. People will moan that this will affect the poor. Well it will and it is no different to health care (the rich get better care), housing (the rich have bigger and better houses), food (the rich can eat more healthy food), in fact is no different to anything in the capitalist world.

Posted by James, 23rd August 2006 3:49pm

I beleive that if we are part of the EU, then our petrol prices should reflect this.

Posted by Gary Penrose, 23rd August 2006 3:51pm

This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

I am another of the seemingly huge majority who thinks that petrol and diesel prices are way too high. I drive my car through necessity, working about 10 miles away from home, at a place that I cannot get to directly with the local bus and train services. I use my car rarely at weekends to try and keep my costs down. I feel very frustrated that the Government is seeming to push me into watching what I do with my free time (as I have to calculate the cost first) and even to contemplating changing my job, which I love, to try and work somewhere nearer home that I could perhaps cycle to. I bought my car just over 4 years ago, a little 1.4 litre Audi A2. Back then it cost me �17 to fill up my tank from empty, and it now costs me between �25 - �28 - which is one of the reasons I watch this website like a hawk and try to get cheaper diesel as and when I can. As others have said with all the other things that we motorists have to pay, and other areas of tax this government has imposed, the monthly wage just doesn't go as far as it used to - it would be lovely to be able to go to bed at night and not fret about how much it is going to cost me to get to work the next day!

Posted by Melanie Thomas, 23rd August 2006 3:56pm

I agree entirely about the cost of fuel - what riles me more than anything is the supermarkets claims in the national press that they are reducing the prices - where are they reducing the prices? - in my aree I have a Sainsburys and a Tesco - both of these are dearer than the nearest towns which are approx 20 mins away in either direction. How can they justify this? surely a supermarket chain should charge the same whether it be in London Peterborough Cambridge Bristol (to name a few big towns) and smaller towns along the way. It cannot be any more expensive to deliver the fuel to a town between two bigger towns. For example I live in Huntingdon in Cambridgeshire - in Cambridge and Peterborough the petrol is 2-3p cheaper than it is in Huntingdon - yet all three towns are virtually on the same road.
Who is kidding who about the cost?

Posted by Dave King, 23rd August 2006 3:56pm

This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

Someone said that the fuel is taxed more than once at the forecourt. Bear in mind that the direct tax that we pay at the pump is only the tip of the iceberg. Everytime that fuel prices rise so does the transport costs of articles in the shops and the ticket prices of public transport. Answers on a post card please to "Who pays yet again?"

Posted by Clive Smith, 23rd August 2006 3:59pm

Well, I think the French have the right idea. I would gladly pay a toll on the motorways for reduced price per litre. ALL of the revenue raised by Autoroute tolls in France goes directly back into the upkeep of the roads (not just the Autoroutes) and associated infrastrucure - which is why most of the Autoroutes in France are clean and well maintained with (on the whole) excellent surfaces. Taxing through tolls really does mean that those that use the roads the most will pay the most, which is how I think it should be. I think that would also force many people, particularly businesses, to think whether a journey is absolutely necessary and could be replaced by a phone/video conference (in the case of a meeting) or by using another means to deliver one or two packages for instance. I use a car less than I ever have. However, when we DO make long journeys I'd rather pay a toll to go and visit my parents in law.

Posted by Andy Greig, 23rd August 2006 3:59pm

Taxation's a side issue; sure, we're higher than most of the rest of Europe at the moment but I imagine they'll come in line gradually.

The fact is, fuel is ridiculously cheap at the moment. It's a fossil fuel, so they aren't making any more of the stuff, there's only a finite amount.

It will continue going up, far faster than inflation, year after year, until either it's all used up or we all get alternative fuelled vehicles. Hopefully the latter :-)

In the meantime, please spare us the standard whining that the government or oil companies are ripping us off. Someone even thinks gas stations are coining it in! Mad.

Posted by David, 23rd August 2006 3:59pm

I drive a 4x4 as I own a caravan. I would also take my chilren to school by bus/train if...

a) One could by a combined ticket - it is daft to have to buy a ticket for the bus, then one for the train and then another one for a bus at the other end

b) One could buy reasonably prices monthly season tickets - The children aged 7 and 10 have to have adult season tickets!!! add to that a season ticket for the adult to accompany them and it becomes very expensive. Of course if the other parent has to take them yet another ticket has to be purchased.

It is therefore cheaper to drive the 4x4 on the school run of 40 minutes (4 journeys daily) - crazy but true...

if there was another option I would use it.

Posted by Ian, 23rd August 2006 4:00pm

The place where there is the scope for reduction is the tax, camaigns should be targeted at Mr. Brown and his department.

Posted by John A Douglass, 23rd August 2006 4:02pm

If the tax from fuel, road tax etc was spent solely on the roads and road safety, then fine, but it just goes into the government's pot to stop up what they've already frittered away on dross. If a company operated their finances in this way it would be fraud, so why do the govt get away with it?

Motoring is not a luxury hobby that we choose to do for fun. There seems to be this dirty word "motorists" which conjures up images of some polluting maniac zooming around the place for fun. We are not "motorists". We are doctors, teachers, nurses, labourers, people who just want to get to work and back each day to earn our living responsibly like the decent, self sufficient people we are, and for the privilege of taking ourselves off to work five, six or seven days a week we get robbed through tax and abused for our auduacity to drive ourselves to a hard day's grind.

As for the 4x4 bashers. I think you need to take into account that people who, like me, live in a valley surrounded by mountains, often need a more rugged vehicle simply to get us to the aforementioned hard slog in bad weather. They are not exclusively owned by toffs dripping in diamonds and cash - for some of us they are as much a necessity as having shoes on your feet. If we're going to bash a particular type of car, I would much rather bash the small-car townies (like the grey haired cloth-capped nissan micra drivers who have never been out of second gear) who tootle around at 17mph on national speed limit roads holding everyone up at the busiest times of the day. That's what really wastes the fuel!!

Posted by Sally, 23rd August 2006 4:03pm

This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

..and who says price fixing is dead.?.....5 stations within a mile of Tescos at Kingston in Milton Keynes are all charging 92.9p/litre for unleaded today...surely they are not all buying at the same spot prices on the same market?

If they can all afford to follow Tescos up or down in price ( and usually do so within minutes of a price change there..)..who is kidding whom about wafer thin margins?

Posted by Steve Baker, 23rd August 2006 4:06pm

@ Blair Breton.
Yes, for many years Diesel was lower priced than petrol, so, everyone went out and bought diesel cars! Because of this there is now much much more demand for diesel and because you can only make so much diesel from a barrel of oil, the UK refineries are unable to produce as much as is required QED the price goes up!

@ Violet Bainbridge
You will be lucky to find many garages that stock LRP nowadays, there just is not the demand for it and many refineries no longer produce it. Your best bet is to speak to Bayford Thrust who get small amounts produced and distribute it through classic car clubs.

P.s. Yes, I work for an oil company!

Posted by Mike Hunt, 23rd August 2006 4:06pm

This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

@ Dave King
The garages in the larger towns will sell their petrol quicker than the smaller town garages. Therefore the petrol sits under the forecourt at the smaller garage for a longer time, costing money. This is why rural and smal town garages have to charge more than the larger sites.

Posted by Mike Hunt, 23rd August 2006 4:09pm

I think the entire country (apart from life dependent services) should not touch a petrol station on a designated date - just to demonstrate to the government just how much power we have over their purse.

Based on the 23.5bn quoted above for '04-05, I make one day's revenue for the government from fuel to be �64 million - scary, huh?!

Posted by Debs, 23rd August 2006 4:11pm

This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

@ Steve Baker
Yes, the margins on petrol are wafer thin, if not at times negligible.
The reason that they will all price match is that they make the money on in store sales, that is why you will not find a forecourt that does not have a shop attached nowadays. If you put �10 petrol in and then buy just a can of coke as well, more money is made from the can of coke than from the petrol you've bought! So they have to price match to attract people into the shops.

Posted by Mike Hunt, 23rd August 2006 4:13pm

This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

The government used to give grants to help pay for conversion to cleaner forms of fuel - LPG in particular. They don't do that any more because despite claiming to be a "green" government that cares about our environment, they know two things.

1. UK Pollution counts for a drop in the ocean when it comes to yearly global pollution, so cleaning up our act means approximately squat in the grand scheme of things!
2. If we all converted to LPG the treasury would lose the �27 billion in revenue they get from the 47.1p per litre in duty.

They're not stupid. We sadly have no choice. We lose, they win!

Posted by Paul Hartley, 23rd August 2006 4:14pm

Ownership and profiteering is the name of the game these days, its what we all voted for? - we all need to make money, including oil companies whom employ workers who then spend their wages buying products, which in turn keeps jobs going. Does anyone see the circle here? When kids are buying expensive �90 trainers every other week - who cares if fuel is 2p more expensive this week - lets face it, transport is the priority in order to get to work so you can pay for Sky tv subscription and takeaway meals, new gap jeans at �130 and having your hair done at �30 every other week. Time to live with reality folks - if you don't like it, give up your job and walk everywhere - your health and quality of life will probably improve but you just won't own anything.

Posted by Stuart Weston, 23rd August 2006 4:14pm

This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

Quoting David:-

"It will continue going up, far faster than inflation, year after year, until either it's all used up or we all get alternative fuelled vehicles. Hopefully the latter"

Yes we will all be driving cars powered by alternative fuels - but that alternative will be petrol derived from oil shales and tar sands, both far dirtier than crude oil, but cheap and available in quantities that make Saudi's reseves look puny. Cude oil may be reaching peak production, but fossil fuels are still very abundant.

Posted by Richard Ploszek, 23rd August 2006 4:14pm

This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

What happened to the 'miracle fuel' - hydrogen. The hydrogen engine was supposed to make the petrol/diesel engine obsolete. I have heard the major oil producers squashed the idea because they would not sell as much petrol and would not line their pockets as much! I believe the hydrogen engine was in an advanced state of development. We do need something else - look at the Toyota Prius - it's useless!

Posted by Clive H, 23rd August 2006 4:21pm

Fuel tax in aid of the environment?? what a joke!

If the government is really imposing higher tax on fuel to encourage people tp switch to cleaner fuel, or more environmentally friendly modes of transport, then why aren't hybrid vehicles heavily subsidised? Why isn't there a grant available to people who want to convert their vehicls to LPG?

We can all remember the puch to get peole using Diesel instead of petrol because it was a greener fuel, because diesel vehicls were more fuel efficient etc.etc.etc., and it was considerably cheaper. What a diffrent story now. Diesel is either the same price as petrol or more expensive, depending on where you buy it.

I wonder if when the masses decide that spending �1000 + on LPG conversions so that they can buy it at 45p a litre, if the government will impose fuel duty at 47p to bring it line with the other fuels?

thes taxes have nothing to do with the environment or the ozone, they have everything to do with the revenue for the government.

I was considering buying a Toyota Prius (hybrid) last year until i discovered it would cost me at least �6000 more than my current petrol car to renew. And considering I change my car every three years i think �2000 pa or �38.46 per week is a contribution to the environment that my income quite frankly, will not support. Nor am i likely to recoup that amount per week in the savings it would give me at the pump or on MPG.

I travel extensively for my work all over the country to attend client appointments in their homes. Public transport is not an option for me for the following reasons: accesability to village locations, times, convenience.

I can recieve a call and make the appointment. I can get in my car and go straight there allowing for traffic and arrive on time. Public transport cannot guarantee adequate links or times for me, not to mention reliability.

If this or any other government was really thinking of the environment, there would be a massive drive to get people in environmentally friendly vehicles. We have the technology to build vehicle which run on bio diesel, hydrigen etc.. these should be produced and made available for realistic prices.
Isnt it strange that the people who can afford to drive the big 4x4 gas guzzlers are the same set who actually afford to buy the hyhbrids?

I dont know how many millions of drivers there are in this country, but I do know that most of the regular drivers would be only too happy to consider the environmentally option if it were affordable to them.

Of course we would then be left wondering how we motorists would be taxed to replace the lost fuel duty. Oh if forgot, they are considering a pence per mile tax aren't they. Silly me to think that the government does not think that far forward.

Darren Leonard

Posted by Darren Leonard, 23rd August 2006 4:21pm

This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

" ...increasing taxation on one of the most polluting substances on the planet (when taken in perspective of the amount used worldwide) would surly reduce the number of cars on the road... "

What twaddle! I have no choice about using my car - there is no direct link to my office, and once I have been to the office I could then end up driving to any of 14 other branches, how the hell does public transport work for that? Let's face I am not the only one with this sort of 'problem'.

Until someone invents a matter transporter, we are all stuck with commuting to our places of work using (mostly) our own transport as the government is not going to help out as it has a vested interest in us paying taxes and private enterprise is not interested in supplying a sensible alternative as they want 'lottsa profit'.

Posted by John B, 23rd August 2006 4:22pm

This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

I raised this issue recently with the consumers association. My argument is that the change in prices is claimed to be driven by the change in crude prices. In this case the 'raw' cost is only a part of the total product cost since the processing costs are sensibly constant. Assuming 50% of the product cost is thus variable the actual increase should equate to the percentage increase in this part of the product plus the increased VAT, only. On a percentage basis I believe we get charged more so someone is profiting more than can be justified and it is not us!

Posted by Tom Jarvis, 23rd August 2006 4:24pm

..you just know things have gone completely barking mad when you see railway carriages being transported by road...the whole UK transport infrastructure is screwed....for as long as the rail network has priced itself out of the market, the government will continue creaming fuel taxes with glee...whilst paying lip service to congestion and pollution, two issues they of course dont give a toss about really. Of course, for as long as cars are actually cheaper, more reliable and more convenient than public transport, no amount of cajoling will get people out of their cars. Quite why Blair hasn't rumbled this obvious one yet, I have no idea.

When buffoons like Prescott decree that 2000 new homes can be built 3 miles from Junction 13 of the M1 without improving the surrounding road network, because in his expert opinion (God help us) it is "not needed", you just know things are going to get a lot worse before this incompetent self-serving administration is booted out at the next election.

Posted by Steve Baker, 23rd August 2006 4:24pm

Glad we are self sufficient - what would it cost if we had to import petrol !
just look at the poor people in the Canary Islands where it has to be transported by tanker and then distributed by road tanker - amazing how they only pay 60p per litre!! mus be a trick somewhere!

Posted by Kenneth J. Allan, 23rd August 2006 4:24pm

@ Steve Baker
Yes, the margins on petrol are wafer thin, if not at times negligible.
The reason that they will all price match is that they make the money on in store sales, that is why you will not find a forecourt that does not have a shop attached nowadays. If you put �10 petrol in and then buy just a can of coke as well, more money is made from the can of coke than from the petrol you've bought! So they have to price match to attract people into the shops.

Posted by Mike Hunt, 23rd August 2006 4:25pm

This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

It seems to me that there is a culture in this country that started way back in the mists of time (probably Harold Wilson's) and perpetuated by successive governments, that simply see's the motorist as a cash cow fit for milking until it lays down and dies (at which point they'll tax the population in some other, equally extortionate way).
I ask the question: why is it that whenever it is decided that the number of vehicles on UK highways, or in UK towns and cities is regarded as too large and in need of a reduction, there is only one possible solution - increase the cost to the motorist? There is never any other viable solution!
And yet, at the same time, we are offered no suitable alternative form of transport that is not EVEN MORE expensive than the artificially inflated cost of using our cars. Surely if government insists that we use our cars less, they have to offer an alternative that is GREENER and CHEAPER than our modern, comparatively (to cars of previous decades) efficient cars!
Yet no, all they can think of to do is to try to price us off the road.
Why? Because it's easier than to think of a viable, lasting solution to the problem.
I like my car because it takes me where I want to go, when I want to go, with the flexibility of my being able to change my plans at will if required.
I'm sure you feel the same way. So why is there not an initiative to give the people what they want - personal transportation that is socially acceptable?
In other words what we need to do is to reinvent the motor car!
As already stated, cars are relatively efficient these days, but they could undoubtedly be better still. How about a small diesel engine in a very light, very areodynamic vehicle with a 20 speed gearbox? Just an idea, but if I can think of ways to travel more miles on each gallon of fuel, then I'm sure others can too!

Posted by Geoff Hemingway, 23rd August 2006 4:25pm

In addition to all the levels of taxation, those who use their car for business can be paid just 40pence per mile without being taxed AGAIN on this largesse! Yet this 40p rate dates back at least 3 years when fuel was about 20-25 p per litre LESS than it is now and insurance was probably lower.

Posted by Tricia Best, 23rd August 2006 4:26pm

This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

For those of us who run a small business where the main part of the business is travelling around both the town and rural areas (we are a letting agency) then using public transport is just not possible.

We lived in London for many years and used the car occasionally at week-ends.

Simple solution really - those who don't need a car, don't use it. Those of us who need it for our livelihood will carry on doing so.

Posted by Margaret Jenkins, 23rd August 2006 4:29pm

This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.

Showing: 1 to 75 of 824

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... »

Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.

Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of PetrolPrices.com (Fubra Ltd)

« Go Back to Main Blog