Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Wed Jun 10, 2026 10:09

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:11 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
IIRC, during the protests of 2000 the police did have the power to remove the blockades had the tanker drivers wished to carry on working.
It was essentially the drivers themselves in a show of strength with the protesters perhaps, refusing to cross the lines that made the protest so effective.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:12 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 14:05
Posts: 498
correct. but isn't the point now that the police can without needing people to want them to break it up


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:28 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
It wasn't just the tanker drivers caused the situation. It was Joe Public filling every car they owned to the brim within 7 hours that emptied the pumps. I saw someone filling a classic Rolls that had cobwebs and dust all over .
( two tr4's + two toyota's=210 litres rather thatn the usual 35 :lol: )

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:45 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
anton wrote:
It wasn't just the tanker drivers caused the situation. It was Joe Public filling every car they owned to the brim within 7 hours that emptied the pumps. I saw someone filling a classic Rolls that had cobwebs and dust all over .


Yeah you are right about that, not only vehicles but wheely bins and any other receptacle that could hold liquids. Some f*ckwit even managed to set fire to themselves by trying to syphon fuel out of one car to put into another by using a vax machine :roll:

I suppose it would be good in such situations if everyone just kept their heads and tried to behave rationally, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way does it? Few people trust other people not to go out a hog all the fuel so they do it themselves and hence the whole thing escalates into a panic. One of my great fears is what would happen if there was a major failure in the system that gets food into our supermarkets. There really would be panic then.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:55 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
Darwin's theory kicks in. Those who prepared, have sustainable staple foods in, those that live on take-aways starve!

If you add a fuel crisis to the annual Christmas panic to empty the shelves we could have an interesting result. I don't care. I have a freezer of food, a cupboard of tins and rice, and a bread maker.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 13:08 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
I don’t know if it’s relevant but driving home last night (Suffolk to Cheshire) I’d never seen so many army vehicles on the roads. Maybe they are expecting the worst.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 13:49 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 18:17
Posts: 794
Location: Reading
AIUI you'd have to go without food for a number of weeks before you actually starved. Granted you'd get problems with malnourishment/malnutrition though, and possibly even things like scurvy if you got literally no vitamin C (although I think you can even get it from things like boiled pine needle tea if you're desperate).

It would mean that the doom-mongers shut up about obesity at any rate....

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 13:02 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
petrolprices.com

Quote:
Protesters to fire “warning shot” to the government.

Transaction 2007, the group behind the fuel protests taking place around the country tomorrow, have said that the protests are aiming to “fire a warning shot to the government.” David Handley, spokesperson for group, warned, “it's our intention to come back in January and let's put it like this, it won't be quite as peaceful as it's going to be tomorrow.”

He continued: “we have got contingency plans for where the next stage of this will go. I'm obviously not going to discuss that because the next element has got to be a surprise. That's the only way that you'll have the impact with government to make them realise that you mean business.”

Handley hopes the protests will show politicians how angry motorists are at rising fuel prices. Transaction 2007 blame the current tax system, whereby duty and VAT are added the price of petrol. He said: “we have not got an issue with tax if tax is totally transparent. It's got to be fair, it's got to be shown that the money that's drawn from the revenue from fuel, should be used to create a better infrastructure, better investment in transport and not used to prop up the inefficient management of the cash flow from government.”

The protests tomorrow will start at 10am at fuel refineries and depots across the country, including those in Manchester, Southampton, Liverpool, Essex, Cardiff, and Lincolnshire. Despite the threat of further, potentially more disruptive action early next year, Handley maintains that tomorrow's action will be peaceful. Transaction 2007 were involved in the fuel protests in 2000, where lorry drivers blockaded refineries, leading to nationwide fuel shortages. But Handley maintained: “we were accused last time by a lot of people who didn't want to take part of not doing it in the correct manner. This time we're doing it in the correct way. We're sending a message in a peaceful form, but if people don't address that and listen to us then 2000 is likely to happen all over again.”

Early indications from polls and comments on our blog have suggested that whilst motorists are angry at rising fuel prices, opinions are divided as to whether targeting refineries is the best method of protest. In addition, only 183 people have said they will be protesting tomorrow. It has been suggested that it would be better to send a petition to the government or protest in London, because they are responsible for the tax on fuel.

However, Stephen Joseph from the Campaign for Better Transport believes that reducing tax on fuel would be the worst thing the government could do. “It gives motorists the false sense of security that they can continue to drive around in their gas guzzlers. High tax acts as an incentive for motorists to switch to greener alternatives.” He continued, “fuel tax in the UK is not drastically higher than the rest of Europe. We are now only around 1% higher than countries such as Germany, France and the Netherlands.”

So are we paying too much in tax on our fuel in the UK? Should we ensure that all our tax gets spent on motoring? Or should we continue to tax at the current rate to encourage greener alternatives?

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: HGV,s Pay for damage
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 13:46 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 14:48
Posts: 244
Location: Warrington ex Sandgrounder[Southport]
Something you missed on this one "teabelly" !

HGV,s pay a lot more road fund licence then you do!

They also pay a lot more fuel duty than you do!

Any costs incurred such as your ridiculous statement about "pay per mile" used for damage would immediately be passed on to the consumer namely you the customer and then you would be complaining about higher prices in the shops and then what do we do take all the lorries off the roads?

Hauliers are having a hard enough problem making a living as it is now without having to contend with ridiculous statements such as "pay per mile" duties as this will only:

A) force MORE Haulage Companies to close down (due to lack of operational profits)!

B) Put more people out of work!

C) It is patently obvious we pay enough for our goods already so why exacerbate the problem by putting more costs on the transport network which as I have already said increases "OPERATING COSTS" which in the end are borne by the consumer!

_________________
"There But For The Grace of God Go I"

"He Who Ain,t Made Mistakes Ain,t Made Anything"

Spannernut


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 13:57 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Dixie wrote:
However, Stephen Joseph from the Campaign for Better Transport believes that reducing tax on fuel would be the worst thing the government could do. “It gives motorists the false sense of security that they can continue to drive around in their gas guzzlers. High tax acts as an incentive for motorists to switch to greener alternatives."

Just in case anyone has forgotten, CBT are Transport 2000 in a new guise. They advertise in the Guardian for staff.

Just look at the blind prejudice above. After reading this, I just had to go out for an aimless drive round in my 6 litre sportscar to calm down. :D

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 14:15 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 00:45
Posts: 1016
Location: Mighty Tamworth
malcolmw wrote:
Dixie wrote:
However, Stephen Joseph from the Campaign for Better Transport believes that reducing tax on fuel would be the worst thing the government could do. “It gives motorists the false sense of security that they can continue to drive around in their gas guzzlers. High tax acts as an incentive for motorists to switch to greener alternatives."

Just in case anyone has forgotten, CBT are Transport 2000 in a new guise. They advertise in the Guardian for staff.

Just look at the blind prejudice above. After reading this, I just had to go out for an aimless drive round in my 6 litre sportscar to calm down. :D


I wonder how he justifies the increase in public transport costs?

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 14:38 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 14:05
Posts: 498
by saying there are more buses than ever before (but failing to mention that this doesn't bring more profit, because most of them are empty outside peak hours)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 16:41 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
Daily Telegraph

Quote:
Fuel protests fail to gain widespread support
By Sarah Marcus and agencies
Last Updated: 2:31pm GMT 15/12/2007

Nationwide protests planned by rebel hauliers and farmers over the rising cost of fuel have failed to draw many supporters.

An umbrella group, Transaction 2007, had announced its intention to organise demonstrations “at a refinery or storage depot somewhere near you”.

The announcement sparked fears of a repeat of the blockades of 2000 which brought the country to a standstill.

However, it seemed that a combination of the cold weather and Christmas shopping kept many people away from the protests this time.

Eight people gathered at the Ellesmere refinery in Cheshire, where Tom Houghton, the local organiser, said the action was not a failure.

“We are sending the message to Mr Brown loud and clear,” he said. “It only takes a few trucks to bring this country to gridlock.”

At Purfleet in Essex just one pensioner turned up to protest. June Walker, 61, said "I've got nothing to do with the haulage industry. I'm just a pensioner who pays £57 to fill up a Peugeot 307.

"I am fed up of this Labour government. This is tax on the poor because, when you have to pay so much for fuel, it knocks on to everything else."

The largest turnout was at the Fawley refinery in Southampton, where there was a gathering of 25 people, while a demonstration outside the Texaco refinery at Cardiff’s Roath Dock drew a small group.

Stuart Andrews, a 54-year-old contractor from Usk, south Wales, said: "Fuel prices are getting out of control. We'll be out of business if it keeps going up like this.”

The rise in world oil prices and increased government taxes on petrol and diesel have recently seen average UK fuel prices pass the £1 a litre mark for the first time.

Meanwhile Friends of the Earth, WWF-UK and Greenpeace have called on the Government to increase fuel duty, saying that the cost of motoring had fallen 10% in real terms since Labour came to power in 1997, while the cost of public transport had risen, with bus fares up 13% and trains up by 6%.

The three leading environmental groups said that if the UK is to effectively tackle climate change, the country’s carbon emissions must fall by at least 80% by 2050.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 17:33 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Quote:
Meanwhile Friends of the Earth, WWF-UK and Greenpeace have called on the Government to increase fuel duty, saying that the cost of motoring had fallen 10% in real terms since Labour came to power in 1997, while the cost of public transport had risen, with bus fares up 13% and trains up by 6%.

So, a tribute to the efficency of the car and a criticism of the inefficiency of public transport then. Efficient and convenient cars should be encouraged to become even more efficient not proscribed by law so we all have to descend to the efficacy level of public (i.e. controlled by the Government) transport. Some faceless official decides that your local bus should route be cancelled? Tough.

These people just don't get it do they. The car represents freedom to the average person all over the world. For example, the average Chinese citizen aspires to get one. No amount of enviromental hand wringing will change this.

This is the tide they try to wish back. They won't succeed.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 18:16 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
Well said Malcolm, once people do start to realise what this government are up to, I hope the tide turns against them.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 02:26 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 14:05
Posts: 498
They can't even peddle the environment line about new cars. A line of the new diesel polos/golfs at 75% capacity i'm sure is more 'friendly' than a 75% full bus. Nothing to back this up, just the experience of sitting behind a bus on my bike compared to sitting behind cars on my bike

Also

"had fallen 10% in real terms since Labour came to power in 1997"

ARGHHH. 'real terms' is such a load of crap. When I started driving in 2002, petrol was 74.9p p/l. The minimum wage was 5.34 or something. The minimum wage now is what 5.50? Petrol is 103.9p/l. That's not a reduction is cost of motoring and in comparison to wage rise, it doesn't compare favourably


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 17:19 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
mmltonge wrote:
They can't even peddle the environment line about new cars. A line of the new diesel polos/golfs at 75% capacity i'm sure is more 'friendly' than a 75% full bus. Nothing to back this up, just the experience of sitting behind a bus on my bike compared to sitting behind cars on my bike



And the VAG group is bringing out Bluemotion - so perhaps we might see Polos/small engined Golfs /Seat / Skodas not paying any VED. Be carefull what you wish for Mr Brown. And it's reported that Smart are bringing out a 88mg car in the near future. One thing you can bet on - no politician will ever have to dip in pocket, or get shoehorned into a Smart (visions of a certain deputy PM being squeezed into the passenger seat of a Smart come to mind ) - there'll be some security or other reason for using Govt transport ( perhaps even to dodge the egg throwers )

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 19:02 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 14:05
Posts: 498
i'll be interested in what they say once cars have reached such a high level of efficiency that they definitely out do buses in terms of environmental impact (especially considering the stop-start journeys buses do no matter if the road is clear). Will they still be trying to stop us using cars? will the co/2 limits drop ever lower until it simply can't be achieved?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 21:31 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
mmltonge wrote:
i'll be interested in what they say once cars have reached such a high level of efficiency that they definitely out do buses in terms of environmental impact (especially considering the stop-start journeys buses do no matter if the road is clear).

Buses also run almost empty a lot of the time and have to run even if nobody wants to travel in order to offer a regular service. This is clearly not environmentally friendly.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 04:07 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 01:16
Posts: 917
Location: Northern England
malcolmw wrote:
Quote:
Meanwhile Friends of the Earth, WWF-UK and Greenpeace have called on the Government to increase fuel duty, saying that the cost of motoring had fallen 10% in real terms since Labour came to power in 1997, while the cost of public transport had risen, with bus fares up 13% and trains up by 6%.



And MalcolmW, What should have been said is that when you increase the price of PRIVATE CAR travel, the PRIVATE PUBLIC TRANSPORT COMPANIES will see an opportunity to increase THEIRS!.............

One good reason to Nationalise Public Transport full STOP!...............Then the price can be controlled.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.202s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]