IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

17 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 8 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Petrol prices in Newbury
Simon Kirby
post Aug 24 2013, 09:40 PM
Post #101


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 24 2013, 09:51 PM) *
What if the market is uncompetitive? What if garages have an agreement? Perhaps it might be because of Newbury having an inferior transportation system and also, being situated on a side of a steep hill thus necessitating more car journeys? If so, they are taking advantage, this 'rip off'.

I have already said, if prices are higher because it cost more to deliver fuel to cars in Newbury (wages, rent, depot location), then that is fine, if not, then it is a rip off, IMO.

I suspect all things considered, that higher prices allow garages to make more profit from fuel in Newbury than they might in other areas, though I still don't agree that this is a rip-off because the suppliers are not taking an unfair advantage. If there was actual price fixing then that would be different.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Aug 24 2013, 10:17 PM
Post #102


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 24 2013, 03:40 PM) *
: do you not see the benefit of the government promoting cycling as an alternative form of transport?

Yes I do and would support it wholeheartedly if, as a counter promotion, cyclists and their organisations promoted safe, considerate cycling. That includes observing the Highway Code and, when off road, including pavements (if they must), they appreciate that pedestrians have priority and respect that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
motormad
post Aug 25 2013, 08:37 AM
Post #103


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,970
Joined: 29-December 09
From: Dogging in a car park somewhere
Member No.: 592



QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 24 2013, 11:17 PM) *
Yes I do and would support it wholeheartedly if, as a counter promotion, cyclists and their organisations promoted safe, considerate cycling. That includes observing the Highway Code and, when off road, including pavements (if they must), they appreciate that pedestrians have priority and respect that.



However no cyclist does this.


--------------------
:p
Grammar: the difference between knowing your poop and knowing you're poop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Aug 25 2013, 09:19 AM
Post #104


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 23 2013, 08:24 PM) *
Who said anything about road tax?
Anyway whether it goes on the roads or whatever the motorist has to pay for the privilege.
Who said anything about the Highway Code?
Yes they should adhere to it but it goes further than that.
For example, I object to being passed at 25mph when walking peacefully along the canal tow-path!



So you are on about Road Tax!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Aug 25 2013, 09:36 AM
Post #105


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (motormad @ Aug 25 2013, 10:37 AM) *
However no cyclist does this.

A few maybe! wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Aug 25 2013, 09:38 AM
Post #106


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 24 2013, 11:17 PM) *
Yes I do and would support it wholeheartedly if, as a counter promotion, cyclists and their organisations promoted safe, considerate cycling. That includes observing the Highway Code and, when off road, including pavements (if they must), they appreciate that pedestrians have priority and respect that.

So your support is conditional? I would say cyclists suffer more from inconsiderate drivers than the other way round. When cyclists take to the road, people take their life in their hands, and it would be good to reduce that risk. There are disobedient cyclists, but I see it as a low importance issue, that isn't to say some people haven't had a bad experience. Just as being mugged in Newbury doesn't mean Newbury is a dangerous place to be.

I say getting people out of cars and trains but still able to traverse to work or school is a good thing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Aug 25 2013, 09:58 AM
Post #107


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 25 2013, 11:38 AM) *
So your support is conditional? I would say cyclists suffer more from inconsiderate drivers than the other way round. When cyclists take to the road, people take their life in their hands, and it would be good to reduce that risk. There are disobedient cyclists, but I see it as a low importance issue, that isn't to say some people haven't had a bad experience. Just as being mugged in Newbury doesn't mean Newbury is a dangerous place to be.

I say getting people out of cars and trains but still able to traverse to work or school is a good thing.

I agree with everything you say here apart from bold.
Manly because, in towns they, spend most of their time on the pavement or in a pedestrianised area.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
newres
post Aug 25 2013, 10:01 AM
Post #108


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,674
Joined: 27-November 12
Member No.: 8,961



QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 25 2013, 10:58 AM) *
I agree with everything you say here apart from bold.
Manly because, in towns they, spend most of their time on the pavement or in a pedestrianised area.

What ill informed rubbish.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Aug 25 2013, 10:07 AM
Post #109


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (newres @ Aug 25 2013, 12:01 PM) *
What ill informed rubbish.

Just what I observe.
How is that "ill informed"?
And your counter argument / observation is??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Aug 25 2013, 10:15 AM
Post #110


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 25 2013, 10:58 AM) *
I agree with everything you say here apart from bold.Manly because, in towns they, spend most of their time on the pavement or in a pedestrianised area.

That is a separate issue; however, I still maintain that cyclists being inconsiderate in town, whilst an occasional nuisance, is not really an issue to get too exited about. What I can't understand is how you don't believe that "cyclists suffer more from inconsiderate drivers than the other way round." Cyclists are continually inconvenience by inconsiderate drivers. It happens on a daily basis, particularly in towns and cities.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Aug 25 2013, 10:29 AM
Post #111


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 25 2013, 12:15 PM) *
What I can't understand is how you don't believe that "cyclists suffer more from inconsiderate drivers than the other way round." Cyclists are continually inconvenience by inconsiderate drivers. It happens on a daily basis, particularly in towns and cities.

I think there is a compromise needed here.
Whether or not cyclists or drivers suffer more, it is a problem.
There is, of course, the old adage "there are bad and good cyclists an there are bad and good drivers".
Maybe the only solution is to come back to the original issue which is to segregate vehicles and bicycles.
Which comes back to my first question - who pays for it?
As for the problem that I see, which is that cyclists and pedestrians don't mix, unless the cyclist shows due consideration (which I still maintain a large number don't), then unfortunately it will continue.
To you this is a minor issue, to me it is not. A matter of perception maybe?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
motormad
post Aug 25 2013, 11:13 AM
Post #112


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,970
Joined: 29-December 09
From: Dogging in a car park somewhere
Member No.: 592



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 25 2013, 10:38 AM) *
I say getting people out of cars and trains but still able to traverse to work or school is a good thing.


Until cyclists are registered and have insurance I think they should be banned from the roads entirely.

And on the subject of the quoted section, that's a physical impossibility. Because cars are personal transport for any distance, and can carry most of your belongings, and trains etc are public transport. As in, takes you anywhere aside from where you actually want to go.

Bicycles are stupid for anythiing more than a few miles when you don't need to carry anything.


--------------------
:p
Grammar: the difference between knowing your poop and knowing you're poop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Aug 25 2013, 11:16 AM
Post #113


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (motormad @ Aug 25 2013, 01:13 PM) *
Until cyclists are registered and have insurance I think they should be banned from the roads entirely.

Careful MM you may be classified as "ill informed"! laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Aug 25 2013, 12:23 PM
Post #114


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (motormad @ Aug 25 2013, 12:13 PM) *
Until cyclists are registered and have insurance I think they should be banned from the roads entirely.

And on the subject of the quoted section, that's a physical impossibility. Because cars are personal transport for any distance, and can carry most of your belongings, and trains etc are public transport. As in, takes you anywhere aside from where you actually want to go.

Bicycles are stupid for anythiing more than a few miles when you don't need to carry anything.

Last time I caught the train it took me exactly where I wanted to go.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
motormad
post Aug 25 2013, 01:33 PM
Post #115


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,970
Joined: 29-December 09
From: Dogging in a car park somewhere
Member No.: 592



EXACTLY where you wanted to go?

Or just the train station in the town you wanted to go.


--------------------
:p
Grammar: the difference between knowing your poop and knowing you're poop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Aug 25 2013, 01:44 PM
Post #116


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (motormad @ Aug 25 2013, 02:33 PM) *
EXACTLY where you wanted to go?

Or just the train station in the town you wanted to go.


That is akin to asking did your car take you where you wanted to go or to the car park in the town where you wanted to go.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
motormad
post Aug 25 2013, 01:49 PM
Post #117


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,970
Joined: 29-December 09
From: Dogging in a car park somewhere
Member No.: 592



Well, technically yes - But not really. It's a moot point.

I went to Sainsburys today and did I have to drive to the train station and walk?

No, I parked in Sainsburys Car Park. Did I have to carry bags of shopping to the train station and break my fingers in the process? No I put them in my boot.


--------------------
:p
Grammar: the difference between knowing your poop and knowing you're poop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Aug 25 2013, 02:05 PM
Post #118


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (motormad @ Aug 25 2013, 02:49 PM) *
Well, technically yes - But not really. It's a moot point.

I went to Sainsburys today and did I have to drive to the train station and walk?

No, I parked in Sainsburys Car Park. Did I have to carry bags of shopping to the train station and break my fingers in the process? No I put them in my boot.

but we are not talking about your specific journey today.

you said "trains etc are public transport. As in, takes you anywhere aside from where you actually want to go" which apart from being a sweeping generalization is one which was proved to be invalid by my last train journey.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Berkshirelad
post Aug 25 2013, 03:20 PM
Post #119


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 810
Joined: 13-August 09
Member No.: 271



QUOTE (motormad @ Aug 25 2013, 12:13 PM) *
Until cyclists are registered and have insurance I think they should be banned from the roads entirely.


Until it is limited to adults (or at least those over 10 years of age) this would be impossible.

For somebody under 10 (the age of criminal responsibility), in your scenario, there can be no offence committed if they were to be on the road unregistered and uninsured.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
motormad
post Aug 25 2013, 09:13 PM
Post #120


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,970
Joined: 29-December 09
From: Dogging in a car park somewhere
Member No.: 592



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Aug 25 2013, 03:05 PM) *
but we are not talking about your specific journey today.

you said "trains etc are public transport. As in, takes you anywhere aside from where you actually want to go" which apart from being a sweeping generalization is one which was proved to be invalid by my last train journey.


No, you're being pendantic.

My point is trains don't actually take you where you need to go.
You always need to walk (more than a few meters...........) or catch another train, or a bus, or a taxi, to get to anything of interest.
For those of us who don't enjoy hanging out in trainstations, my statement is completely true.

QUOTE (Berkshirelad @ Aug 25 2013, 04:20 PM) *
Until it is limited to adults (or at least those over 10 years of age) this would be impossible.

For somebody under 10 (the age of criminal responsibility), in your scenario, there can be no offence committed if they were to be on the road unregistered and uninsured.


It would be the responsibility of the parent then?


--------------------
:p
Grammar: the difference between knowing your poop and knowing you're poop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

17 Pages V  « < 4 5 6 7 8 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 02:07 PM