Drivers ‘priced off road’ by fuel costs

ktache wrote:

Even during the fuel supply issues of a couple of months back, I reckon that I failed to notice any reduction of unnecessarily huge motor vehicles accelerating towards the next red light or queue of other unnecessarily huge motor vehicles.

as I recall it was always possible to get fuel, it was just a little inconvenient. Unlike the fuel tanker strikes of 2000, when there was a very significant reduction in vehicles on the roads

Simon E wrote:

Quote:

Anyone noticed??

Absolutely not!

 [ ... ]

I have been looking forward to the day when the cost of fuel is expensive enough that it prompts people to reconsider how many journeys they make and how far and how fast they drive.

It would make the roads safer for everyone, not just people on bikes. It would also greatly reduce pollution, congestion and the mental health issues related to noise (grossly underestimated by so many), among other things.

Outside of sudden external pressure (e.g. like the oil crises of the 70s - tripling and doubling the cost of oil) it's hard to see how this would happen. The pressure of demand is such. Interesting to note about the "oil crises" that in some other countries in Europe this did contribute to a lasting difference in travel policy - in the UK not so much.

I think you underestimate the resistance to change in the UK around this. There's a push - pull effect in that where people feel that there are no alternatives (whether or not this is "true") it is extremely hard to push them away from motor vehicles. The problem with cars etc. is - expensive or not - everything about transport here says "car first" and once you've committed to the ongoing expense the only sensible choice seems to get as much "benefit" from it as you can - even if e.g. fuel is costly. And currently even "cyclists" can fail to see beyond the motor vehicle such is its ubiquity and its roots in our culture.

Simon E wrote:

So many big wins yet no desire from politicians and their 'Blah, blah blah'.

Yeah - fascinating and puzzling, it's an open goal in so many ways yet no-one's taking the opportunity. My best guess is essentially a combination of the "Big Bung theory" and "the race to be second" or "runner up effect". The first is an extremely crude way of saying that for things to change they need to generate money and in ways that politicians and other powerful folk can benefit from. The second says that it's much safer to let someone else initiate a change. Those moving away from the current "consensus" first will usually fail - if only because those left behind will all fight them.  Even if the change does occur the change-leader will certainly have to expend lots of money / energy making the change.  You can simply switch to supporting the new normal if this occurs and still benefit from it without those costs.

At least in the UK decreasing the subsidy / promotion of the motor vehicle is seen as a major cultural change. Leaders are - with good reason - very wary of such things. To commit you'd either need a lot of push from business / the populace OR you'd want overwhelming (financial) benefits to show. Given how fickle people are those benefits better be large and along in pretty short order too.

So (Big Bung Theory) in financial terms you'd need:

• Money that people or organisations can directly benefit from - many of cycling's benefits (heath, personal mobility) are hard to get a chunk of cash from.
• If someone's making lots of money others (bankers, taxman) can easily share.
• Related - having things that you can easily sum up helps to "sell" an idea. The best way to do that in the arena of power seems to be having convincing positive money figures. That's simple to explain.
• Centralised things are easier to manage and indeed profit from. Cycling is a rather decentralised thing. Yes - so's people having their own motor transport but I'd suggest the high resource needs of these (tonnes of metal, refined fuels or large batteries + electricity etc.) lend themselves to larger corporations. Fewer of them to deal with.
• Many business sectors have discovered that the "service model" of lots of small payments can be at least as good as just getting a one-off large payment. However less resource-intensive businesses (e.g. to do with bikes) may initially struggle to compete at the same level as firms making things you can get lots of money out of (e.g. motor vehicles).

Essentially walking and cycling are "money savers" when compared to motor vehicles. A very crude and improbable example but if you switched from selling cars to bikes you're not making so much cash even if you're selling more.  One reason why eBikes are being promoted - now you can charge several thousand rather than several hundred per unit and you've got repeat business as batteries / motors fail.

The sad thing is - although I'm still trying to find time to check the research properly - there are some studies apparently showing that cycling is a net money gain to a region / country compared to private motoring. The problem there is this requires proper accounting e.g. the "externalities" - things we don't usually measure (like health effects). I suspect that makes it harder to argue. In the short to medium term motoring generates larger sums (cost of car, ongoing fuel use etc) and that is the money that people or organisations can directly benefit from.

chrisonatrike wrote:

I think you underestimate the resistance to change in the UK around this.

I very much doubt that. Perhaps you're interpreting my post in a way that wasn't intended.

chrisonatrike wrote:

There's a push - pull effect in that where people feel that there are no alternatives (whether or not this is "true") it is extremely hard to push them away from motor vehicles. The problem with cars etc. is - expensive or not - everything about transport here says "car first" and once you've committed to the ongoing expense the only sensible choice seems to get as much "benefit" from it as you can - even if e.g. fuel is costly.

I agree. So many parts of our daily lives are based on the idea that a car is the only reasonable option.

chrisonatrike wrote:

for things to change they need to generate money and in ways that politicians and other powerful folk can benefit from.

This is a huge stumbling block and part of why we don't see investment in public transport, cycling infrastructure etc. Privatisation of public services, along with the deliberate withdrawal of investment from Councils and other bodies, has a lot to answer for.

chrisonatrike wrote:

if you switched from selling cars to bikes you're not making so much cash even if you're selling more. 

This is part of the same problem. Building, selling and maintaining vehicles is a massive industry in countries like ours. Change will be painful but not changing will be worse.

But our government is doing the opposite, actively fighting change. £27 billion extra money for new roads. Putting climate protesters in prison and introducing wide-ranging new laws to make such protest illegal while inviting a huge delegation of fossil fuel companies at COP26, and MPs pocketing £millions in bribes from such companies lobbying for their interests, not ours.

chrisonatrike wrote:

there are some studies apparently showing that cycling is a net money gain to a region / country compared to private motoring. The problem there is this requires proper accounting e.g. the "externalities" - things we don't usually measure (like health effects).

I have seen figures online showing how much various transport options cost the economy and also articles about the negative externalities of car use (including for electric cars). A quick search...

https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-themes/sustainable-transport/in...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/01/24/motorists-should-pay...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/25/car-pollution-noise-accide...

https://thediscourse.ca/scarborough/full-cost-commute

You can also find articles showing the cost to the traveller of various transport modes in the UK. Unsurprisingly, the cost of driving has risen rather less than public transport. This uses ONS data:

https://www.racfoundation.org/data/cost-of-transport-index

https://twitter.com/mikeymagnetic/status/1397301344709533697

Thanks for the links, will check.

Quote:

This is a huge stumbling block and part of why we don't see investment in public transport, cycling infrastructure etc. Privatisation of public services, along with the deliberate withdrawal of investment from Councils and other bodies, has a lot to answer for. ... Change will be painful but not changing will be worse.

Withdrawal of investment - indeed, but if you gave my council (who are not bad for the UK) millions more today I'm not sure they'd spend much on good quality cycling infrastructure. I suspect it might just disappear or be spent on things we might be less thrilled with. Who marks the homework? What incentivises them - otherwise we might just add more potential for corruption and another layer of bureaucracy? The same also goes for private companies of course - especially as their dealings with public bodies never look much like a "free market" anyway.

As for "Not changing will be worse" - well, yes. But worse for whom? Plenty of current leaders / consumers won't live into the potential "interesting times" ahead. If I drive today the world won't end tomorrow. If the world keeps warming people in some cities will flood / suffer droughts but in Scotland I'll keep my feet dry and the reservoirs won't empty.

How to sell the need for change - and make it something positive?

There's also a demotivating factor in our sensitivity to fairness. Just about everyone can point at someone else (the West, the rich, politicians) who is not doing their bit, by hanging on to their priveledge / getting a bigger car / flying round the world. "I will when they do..."

More cake today is normally more interesting than the promise of bread and butter in the weeks ahead. Humans don't last all that long and have much shorter attention spans. Dreaming up systems which also consider the longer term is difficult!

chrisonatrike wrote:

If the world keeps warming people in some cities will flood / suffer droughts but in Scotland I'll keep my feet dry and the reservoirs won't empty.

Well put. Few are willing to make the changes needed unless they are forced to financially, and that just hits poorer people harder. Make petrol £10 per litre and people will still hammer it up to the lights, and they'll vote for a populist who promises to cut the tax.

Warren Buffet's line about the tide going out and you can see who's swimming naked doesn't work because no one has any Speedos in this one.