Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ Petrol prices in Newbury

Posted by: Jonno Aug 15 2013, 02:01 PM

I realise this has been discussed before but, for the last week, we have reached an even higher level of pricing inequality! It now costs 6p per litre more to buy petrol in Newbury than it does in Swindon. As I do about 20,000 miles per year that is £180 extra for the privilege of buying it at home. Possibly we should have a town-wide collection to help Asda fund a local store with a petrol station. I'd throw in £180........

Posted by: Ron Aug 15 2013, 03:05 PM

At the moment there is about 4p/litre difference between Tesco and Sainsburys

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 15 2013, 04:13 PM

QUOTE (Jonno @ Aug 15 2013, 03:01 PM) *
I realise this has been discussed before but, for the last week, we have reached an even higher level of pricing inequality! It now costs 6p per litre more to buy petrol in Newbury than it does in Swindon. As I do about 20,000 miles per year that is £180 extra for the privilege of buying it at home. Possibly we should have a town-wide collection to help Asda fund a local store with a petrol station. I'd throw in £180........

I see two options.

1. The Free Market.

In a free market the price garages charge is determined by the market. Garages can make more profit by charging more, but they risk losing sales as motorists shop elsewhere. http://www.petrolprices.com/search.html?search=Newbury%2C+Berkshire in Newbury is currently 137.9 pence, and the most expensive is 147.9 pence, so shopping around in Newbury can save the prudent motorist 10 pence per litre, and if you commute to local towns you might also be able to save more by filling up there, so for example in Swindon http://www.petrolprices.com/search.html?search=Swindon%2C+Wiltshire is currently 131.7 pence, and the most expensive is 139.9 pence. Buying fuel at the right Swindon garage can save you another 6.2 pence per litre as against the best Newbury price, but you do need to do your homework because the worst price in Swindon will cost you 2 pence a litre more than the best price in Newbury.

Under a free market then prices will vary by region - you can currently save 6.2 pence per litre by shopping in Swindon - but actually prices vary much more locally - you can save 10 pence per litre just by shopping at the right local garage.

2. State-Regulated Market

In a state-regulated market garages have to charge what the state tells them to charge. The state bureaucracy will set the price, but without a free market it will have to decide for itself how much that price should be. This is a difficult job, and the state bureaucracy will be large and expensive to administer, and that cost will also be borne by the motorist. Fuel suppliers will put pressure on the state bureaucracy to set the price as high as possible, and as with other state bureaucracies the price will be set to please the suppliers and not to please the motorist.

I vote free market.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 15 2013, 05:01 PM

I vote ASDA.

Posted by: gel Aug 15 2013, 05:52 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Aug 15 2013, 05:13 PM) *
I see two options.

1. The Free Market.

In a free market the price garages charge is determined by the market. Garages can make more profit by charging more, but they risk losing sales as motorists shop elsewhere. http://www.petrolprices.com/search.html?search=Newbury%2C+Berkshire in Newbury is currently 137.9 pence, and the most expensive is 147.9 pence, so shopping around in Newbury can save the prudent motorist 10 pence per litre, and if you commute to local towns you might also be able to save more by filling up there, so for example in Swindon http://www.petrolprices.com/search.html?search=Swindon%2C+Wiltshire is currently 131.7 pence, and the most expensive is 139.9 pence. Buying fuel at the right Swindon garage can save you another 6.2 pence per litre as against the best Newbury price, but you do need to do your homework because the worst price in Swindon will cost you 2 pence a litre more than the best price in Newbury.

Under a free market then prices will vary by region - you can currently save 6.2 pence per litre by shopping in Swindon - but actually prices vary much more locally - you can save 10 pence per litre just by shopping at the right local garage.

2. State-Regulated Market

In a state-regulated market garages have to charge what the state tells them to charge. The state bureaucracy will set the price, but without a free market it will have to decide for itself how much that price should be. This is a difficult job, and the state bureaucracy will be large and expensive to administer, and that cost will also be borne by the motorist. Fuel suppliers will put pressure on the state bureaucracy to set the price as high as possible, and as with other state bureaucracies the price will be set to please the suppliers and not to please the motorist.


########################################################

and as reported before Sainsburys Wantage where there are very few petrol outlets is 1p cheaper than Newbury. Strange market forces apply there.


Posted by: user23 Aug 15 2013, 06:14 PM

Simon's right, this is down to market forces and also Newbury being one of the wealthier and more desirable places to live in the country.

If you want to pay less for petrol, buy less or move somewhere worse off.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 15 2013, 06:22 PM

QUOTE (gel @ Aug 15 2013, 06:52 PM) *
and as reported before Sainsburys Wantage where there are very few petrol outlets is 1p cheaper than Newbury. Strange market forces apply there.


I don't know about strange, I just see market forces. Sainsbury's doesn't just sell you fuel, it wants you to shop there too, so you can't just look at Wantage in isolation, you need to look at it in context, sat in the middle of Swindon, Newbury, and Oxford, where a lot of the inhabitants will work and a good many might choose to shop as well.


QUOTE (gel @ Aug 15 2013, 06:52 PM) *
########################################################

Dude, that's a lot of hash.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 15 2013, 06:27 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Aug 15 2013, 07:14 PM) *
If you want to pay less for petrol, buy less or move somewhere worse off.

Indeed, we're talking about 10p on the price of a litre, and that's the same as finding an extra 3-4 mpg on the economy of a typical family saloon. So if you're price-conscious (and no reason why you shouldn't be) then driving more slowly and accelerating and braking less harshly will more than save you that, and if you're not already driving something that returns 70 mpg and costs nothing in road fund licence, then that's something to look at too.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 15 2013, 06:44 PM

QUOTE (gel @ Aug 15 2013, 06:52 PM) *
and as reported before Sainsburys Wantage where there are very few petrol outlets is 1p cheaper than Newbury. Strange market forces apply there.


Market forces don't mean that the price will fall or increase automatically. A pure 'Market' has two participants, buyers and sellers - sellers can do what they like with their prices and buyers can choose not to give their custom! There are many reasons why Sainsburys might want to offer a low price in Wantage.

Nevertheless, the answer is in your hands, don't like Sainsburys prices / tactics or whatever, simply stop using them. Better still tell them exactly why.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 15 2013, 07:28 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Aug 15 2013, 07:14 PM) *
Simon's right, this is down to market forces and also Newbury being one of the wealthier and more desirable places to live in the country. If you want to pay less for fuel, buy less or move somewhere worse off.
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Aug 15 2013, 07:27 PM) *
Indeed, we're talking about 10p on the price of a litre, and that's the same as finding an extra 3-4 mpg on the economy of a typical family saloon. So if you're price-conscious (and no reason why you shouldn't be) then driving more slowly and accelerating and braking less harshly will more than save you that, and if you're not already driving something that returns 70 mpg and costs nothing in road fund licence, then that's something to look at too.

None of this disguises supermarkets in Newbury taking the piss and I am also sure we are aware of the measures that can be taken to avoid Newbury's rip-off fuel prices, but the dumbness in Simon's suggestion is that one could make those savings as well as saving if petrol was cheaper.

The OP isn't about how one could save on petrol, but to complain about being ripped off by the price of fuel in Newbury.

PS - public services have to pay these rip-off prices too, thus raising the cost of public services in the area.

Posted by: user23 Aug 15 2013, 08:12 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 15 2013, 08:28 PM) *
The OP isn't about how one could save on petrol, but to complain about being ripped off by the price of fuel in Newbury.
We're under no obligation to buy from them, nor is their any hidden cost.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 15 2013, 08:31 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Aug 15 2013, 09:12 PM) *
We're under no obligation to buy from them, nor is their any hidden cost.

We are obliged to buy from them unless we want to pay even more buy travelling further to get cheaper petrol. I wonder if the extra cost in supplying the fuel compared to the other towns is due to extra cost of being located in Newbury.

Posted by: user23 Aug 15 2013, 08:48 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 15 2013, 09:31 PM) *
We are obliged to buy from them...
Let me stop you there.

No one is forcing you to buy from them. It was your choice to buy a car and yours to buy one that runs on petrol or diesel.

If this is now proving too expensive perhaps you should reconsider your choices or move to a less desirable location where fuel costs less?

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 15 2013, 08:53 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Aug 15 2013, 09:48 PM) *
Let me stop you there.

Too late; I've already posted! rolleyes.gif

QUOTE (user23 @ Aug 15 2013, 09:48 PM) *
No one is forcing you to buy from them. It was your choice to buy a car and yours to buy one that runs on petrol or diesel. If this is now proving too expensive because of the location you choose to live in perhaps you should reconsider your choices?

Let me stop you there: I am not forced to buy from Newbury, but unfortunately, cheaper alternatives are uneconomically distanced. I therefore have little choice but to accept Newbury's rip-off prices; well in actual fact: its pretty much West Berkshire rip-off prices. So in practical terms, I am forced to buy their fuel. Also, the cost of other vehicles that are not run on fossil fuel are not affordable by me. Third, where did I say I cannot afford the rip-off prices of Newbury? Forth, where did I say I chose to live here?

Thank you. rolleyes.gif

Now back to the point, I wonder if it costs petrol stations more to sell fuel than it does in neighbouring towns? dry.gif It seems to me, the reason is we don't have a supermarket chain that is prepared to aggressively compete with their fuel prices.

Posted by: user23 Aug 15 2013, 09:20 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 15 2013, 09:53 PM) *
Let me stop you there: I am not forced to buy from Newbury, but unfortunately, cheaper alternatives are uneconomically distanced. I therefore have little choice but to accept Newbury's rip-off prices; well in actual fact: its pretty much West Berkshire rip-off prices. So in practical terms, I am forced to buy their fuel. Also, the cost of other vehicles that are not run on fossil fuel are not affordable by me. Second, where did I say I cannot afford the rip-off prices of Newbury? Third, where did I say I chose to live here?
Like I said, no one's forcing you to own a car or buy fuel.

Why are petrol prices so high? Because despite all your protestations you choose to buy it at that price.

The question is, what's the highest price you'd pay before you change your choice of transport?

Posted by: On the edge Aug 15 2013, 09:21 PM

That last point is a very good one. Again an Adam Smith; the holders of the unearned increment, landlords. Wonder what the rents are in Newbury and so indeed the business rate. Landlords can severely damage commerce - just an instance, it took Wetherspoons far to long to open in Newbury.

Some direct action may be an answer. A boycott would doubtless be ineffective, because visitors and businesses would not want to join, but something like a concerted carefully check the pump for faults and spills then 'go slow' at the 'till, - simply to significantly reduce the take per hour.

Has Richard Garvey had any feedback from his Tesco contacts?




Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 15 2013, 09:43 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Aug 15 2013, 10:20 PM) *
Like I said, no one's forcing you to own a car or buy fuel.

That isn't what you originally said which includes the word 'forced', but never mind, as what is true is that I am compelled to buy in Newbury which in practical terms means the same thing as forced.

QUOTE (user23 @ Aug 15 2013, 10:20 PM) *
Why are petrol prices so high? Because despite all your protestations you choose to buy it at that price.

I very much doubt my buying fuel in Newbury makes any difference in what the garages charge. What would make a big difference in rip-off Newbury is if we had a fuel discounter. This was even admitted by a supermarket manager recently.

QUOTE (user23 @ Aug 15 2013, 10:20 PM) *
The question is, what's the highest price you'd pay before you change your choice of transport?

The cost of fuel accounts for about 5% of my net income, so the price doesn't affect me greatly, however, the cost of a train to do similar journey would be much more. About twice as much more in fact and would significantly increase my journey time to work, door to door.

No, my concern for the price of fuel in rip-off Newbury is more about how it affects others. Like I said, a number of public services are ripped off by the fuel outlets in Newbury and I am sure that adversely affect their costs too, which eventually will impact on others.

Take West Berkshire Council's fuel bill, or the Crime Commissioners bill. They would save about 6% of their fuel bill if Newbury wasn't being taken to the cleaners. So not only do we pay more than elsewhere, maybe we have to may more for our services because of it too.

Posted by: motormad Aug 15 2013, 09:56 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Aug 15 2013, 07:27 PM) *
Indeed, we're talking about 10p on the price of a litre, and that's the same as finding an extra 3-4 mpg on the economy of a typical family saloon. So if you're price-conscious (and no reason why you shouldn't be) then driving more slowly and accelerating and braking less harshly will more than save you that, and if you're not already driving something that returns 70 mpg and costs nothing in road fund licence, then that's something to look at too.


I'll stick with my big turbocharged beast thank you laugh.gif
Eco cars.. really.
although saying that I am looking at buying a second car (diesel) so I can take my daily off the road for modification without worrying about breaking it.

QUOTE (user23 @ Aug 15 2013, 07:14 PM) *
Simon's right, this is down to market forces and also Newbury being one of the wealthier and more desirable places to live in the country.

If you want to pay less for petrol, buy less or move somewhere worse off.



laugh.gif

Desirable places to live
You really do work for the council don't you, what a joffa! laugh.gif laugh.gif Newbury is not desirable in the same way that I am sexy and charming.


Posts like this come up regularly and yes it's annoying but what can you do about it? I put Vpower or BP Ultimate in regardless so cheap fuel is never going to matter to me.
MPG in your car can vary so much depending on even wind direction on a long motorway drive that you're never going to really be effected much more than the case of a quid per tank of fuel on average.

In a way I agree with Simon - buy less, buy elsewhere or move.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 16 2013, 12:53 AM

QUOTE (motormad @ Aug 15 2013, 10:56 PM) *
In a way I agree with Simon - buy less, buy elsewhere or move.

But naming and shaming on a public forum is a lot cheaper and easier, but just as pointless (a bit like user23's posts)! tongue.gif

Posted by: x2lls Aug 16 2013, 06:28 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Aug 15 2013, 10:21 PM) *
That last point is a very good one. Again an Adam Smith; the holders of the unearned increment, landlords. Wonder what the rents are in Newbury and so indeed the business rate. Landlords can severely damage commerce - just an instance, it took Wetherspoons far to long to open in Newbury.

Some direct action may be an answer. A boycott would doubtless be ineffective, because visitors and businesses would not want to join, but something like a concerted carefully check the pump for faults and spills then 'go slow' at the 'till, - simply to significantly reduce the take per hour.

Has Richard Garvey had any feedback from his Tesco contacts?



I like your idea, do what the Spanish do in Gibralter!!

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 16 2013, 08:11 AM

QUOTE (user23 @ Aug 15 2013, 10:48 PM) *
Let me stop you there.

No one is forcing you to buy from them. It was your choice to buy a car and yours to buy one that runs on petrol or diesel.

If this is now proving too expensive perhaps you should reconsider your choices or move to a less desirable location where fuel costs less?

How would you feel if gas or electricity prices were varied according to the affluence of the area?
How would you feel if they told you "if you don't like it, move"?

Posted by: On the edge Aug 16 2013, 10:51 AM

Interesting, because both prices are slightly different, however, only to pay for the 'monopoly' bit, i.e. the distribution cost. Again, 'monopoly' comes into play here. The best 'take it or leave it' cost is the Community Charge, not much good complaining about that!

Moving is the 'o' level economics theory answer of course, but if User23 had stayed on at school and done the next levels, this would have been explained. AndyC gave a good summation, moving isn't economically viable - or we'd all be in S****horpe! Elasticity is the buzz word.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 16 2013, 11:09 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Aug 16 2013, 11:51 AM) *
Interesting, because both prices are slightly different, however, only to pay for the 'monopoly' bit, i.e. the distribution cost. Again, 'monopoly' comes into play here. The best 'take it or leave it' cost is the Community Charge, not much good complaining about that!

Moving is the 'o' level economics theory answer of course, but if User23 had stayed on at school and done the next levels, this would have been explained. AndyC gave a good summation, moving isn't economically viable - or we'd all be in S****horpe! Elasticity is the buzz word.

Yes but user23 'solution' was never a serious proposition. Moving would just eventually 'move' the problem. No, the practical solution is to have a competitive fuel delivery market in Newbury instead of the unofficial agreement we seem to have between Tesco and Sainsbury's.

At the end of the day, the big petrol stations have found the level to balance price over sales. Newbury is (presumably) less sensitive to price hikes than other towns nearby, but that doesn't negate ones right or justification to complain. And contrary to some people's opinion, complaining about it on forums like this can sometimes have an effect, even if not in this particular case.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 16 2013, 11:44 AM

I seriously doubt that additional supermarket competition would actually lower prices in Newbury. Any new supermarket ( not only would they have to open a store it would have to have a petrol station ) would I fear simply charge the local 'going rate'.

For instance, Asda do not charge Swindon prices nationally I notice.

Posted by: r.bartlett Aug 18 2013, 02:26 PM

driving around 50k miles per year I do my best not to fill up in Newbury. I keep a very keen eye on prices around the whole southern UK region and there is no excuse for profiteering by the local suppliers.

Posted by: Blake Aug 18 2013, 05:20 PM

QUOTE (r.bartlett @ Aug 18 2013, 03:26 PM) *
driving around 50k miles per year I do my best not to fill up in Newbury. I keep a very keen eye on prices around the whole southern UK and there is no excuse for profiteering by the local suppliers.


I wholeheartedly agree.

We are being conned. I do not believe no accept the flimsy justifications for higher gas prices here in West Berks. I would welcome an ASDA store too or else greater competition from someone ready to uncut the robbers.

Meanwhile, I run my bikes as much as I can which will all do over 120mpg. I will do this until I can buy a hybrid or electric car when I shall laugh in the faces of the fuel robbers!

Oh and Richard Benyon and Garvie; what are you doing about this? You both made a lot of noise about this and then let the issue find a laissez-faire solution which has FAILED!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 18 2013, 07:16 PM

QUOTE (r.bartlett @ Aug 18 2013, 03:26 PM) *
driving around 50k miles per year I do my best not to fill up in Newbury. I keep a very keen eye on prices around the whole southern UK region and there is no excuse for profiteering by the local suppliers.

But it's not profiteering, not if you can choose to buy elsewhere.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 18 2013, 07:27 PM

QUOTE (Blake @ Aug 18 2013, 06:20 PM) *
We are being conned.


What economy do you get from your car?

Posted by: motormad Aug 18 2013, 10:46 PM

QUOTE (Blake @ Aug 18 2013, 06:20 PM) *
I will do this until I can buy a hybrid or electric car when I shall laugh in the faces of the fuel robbers!


My diesel Golf I had before (which also had nearly 400lb ft of torque and 220+bhp, so it was pretty quick) could do 65mpg on the motorway cruise. More than basically any hybrid (and most other cars) you could get today.
And it didn't make me a joffa. A hybrid is a normal car for idiots who THINK they are saving money or doing something good for the environment when actually they're buying a normal car with a Duracel AA hidden in the boot.


With a Nissan Leaf, which is a normal, medium hatchback sized car, that you can buy today, calculate how long it would take you to drive from here to Manchester. Then calculate the time it would take to drive home again. Then you will see why I am laughing the face of the electrically powered motorist laugh.gif Electric cars have never been, and never will be the answer. Hydrogen is the only possibility which keeps our modern way of travel alive - that is, ability to fill up in 5 minutes not 5 hours, with infrastructure already in place and acceptable range

Posted by: Richard Garvie Aug 19 2013, 07:52 AM

I've spoken on this issue here for many years. ASDA are the only retailer who charge a flat price for fuel. For example, the ASDA price for fuel at Kettering / Corby has been 132.9p over the weekend. In these towns, TESCO charge the same price. Where there is not an ASDA store, Tesco charge up to 6p a litre more. I wrote to TESCO CEO Phil Clarke on this issue and was then threatened with disciplinary action for raising the issue... needless to say no action was taken.

This issue will be in the national spotlight very soon, and I am doing what I can to fight the issue. Unfortunately, I can only see cheaper fuel prices in Newbury if we have a new ASDA store as TESCO, Sainsbury's and others simply do not have the stomach to take a hit on their profit margin.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 19 2013, 07:52 AM

QUOTE (motormad @ Aug 19 2013, 12:46 AM) *
Electric cars have never been, and never will be the answer. Hydrogen is the only possibility which keeps our modern way of travel alive - that is, ability to fill up in 5 minutes not 5 hours, with infrastructure already in place and acceptable range [/color]

Not sure I fancy driving around in a car that has a pressurised container of liquid hydrogen in it! ohmy.gif

Posted by: Blake Aug 19 2013, 08:09 AM

QUOTE (motormad @ Aug 18 2013, 11:46 PM) *
My diesel Golf I had before (which also had nearly 400lb ft of torque and 220+bhp, so it was pretty quick) could do 65mpg on the motorway cruise. More than basically any hybrid (and most other cars) you could get today.
And it didn't make me a joffa. A hybrid is a normal car for idiots who THINK they are saving money or doing something good for the environment when actually they're buying a normal car with a Duracel AA hidden in the boot.


With a Nissan Leaf, which is a normal, medium hatchback sized car, that you can buy today, calculate how long it would take you to drive from here to Manchester. Then calculate the time it would take to drive home again. Then you will see why I am laughing the face of the electrically powered motorist laugh.gif Electric cars have never been, and never will be the answer. Hydrogen is the only possibility which keeps our modern way of travel alive - that is, ability to fill up in 5 minutes not 5 hours, with infrastructure already in place and acceptable range


Rubbish and erroneous; The Toyota Prius can achieve over 70 mpg. A chipped one can do over 100+ mpg. Furthermore, the mark 1 Honda Insight could easily achieve over 100mpg without trying. In addition, as the CO2 emissions of these cars are so low, you pay no road tax; what's not to like? You save gas and help cut emissions!

The range of electric cars is improving the entire time. Anyway, some models by Tesla can do over 300 miles on a charge already. Your argument is false.

Posted by: motormad Aug 19 2013, 08:37 AM

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

No you can't get anywhere near that economy in the Prius or the Insight. What a load of tosh!! You really are clueless laugh.gif

FOR EXAMPLE -

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/toyota/prius/mpg

QUOTE
Running costs are a mixed bag, though. Yes, you’ll make substantial tax savings each year and strong demand for used cars means impressive resale values.
But although real-world economy is impressive in its own right, with 56.4mpg over our touring route and 47.5mpg overall, you’ll do well to match the ‘official’ average – forums are rife with tales of owners unable to get anywhere near those figures


You also know how else I know? One of my best mates brothers has one - and he gets 45-50 to the gallon!!

I could easily get more than that in my old TDI without trying. The most economical cars out there are little eco-diesels like the Polo PooBlueMotion . I had one as a courtesy car and got over 75mpg on the trip computer without trying. I got around 220 miles from about 13 quid / 3 gallons of diesel.

The Tesla has a real world range of about 150 miles and a 16 hour recharge time.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/tesla%E2%80%99s-244-mile-range-what-up-with-dat/

QUOTE
I was never so happy to get out of a $130K car in my life.


laugh.gif

If you were into cars you'd have an interest and knowledge about these things. rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif

Posted by: motormad Aug 19 2013, 08:52 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 19 2013, 08:52 AM) *
Not sure I fancy driving around in a car that has a pressurised container of liquid hydrogen in it! ohmy.gif


can't be any worse than LPG or petrol.. but imagine, what a way to go! laugh.gif laugh.gif

Posted by: Blake Aug 19 2013, 09:08 AM

[quote name='motormad' post='85157' date='Aug 19 2013, 09:37 AM']laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

No you can't get anywhere near that economy in the Prius or the Insight. What a load of tosh!! You really are clueless laugh.gif

FOR EXAMPLE -

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/toyota/prius/mpg



You also know how else I know? One of my best mates brothers has one - and he gets 45-50 to the gallon!!

I could easily get more than that in my old TDI without trying. The most economical cars out there are little eco-diesels like the Polo PooBlueMotion . I had one as a courtesy car and got over 75mpg on the trip computer without trying. I got around 220 miles from about 13 quid / 3 gallons of diesel.


Which model of Tesla are you referring to?

Like I said, I stand by my assertion that the Prius and mk1 Insight can make the gas mileage figures I quoted; it depends on your driving style and terrain.

Wayne Gerdes (the Hypermiler) has even got American SUVs to get over 100mpg. It can be done if you know how!
The Tesla has a real world range of about 150 miles and a 16 hour recharge time.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/tesla%E2%80%99s-244-mile-range-what-up-with-dat/




Which model of Tesla are you referring to?

Like I said, I stand by my assertion that the Prius and mk1 Insight can make the gas mileage figures I quoted; it depends on your driving style and terrain.

Wayne Gerdes (the Hypermiler) has even got American SUVs to get over 100mpg. It can be done if you know how!

Posted by: motormad Aug 19 2013, 09:19 AM

I could be a nuclear scientist, but I'm not.

I'm talking about REAL WORLD driving, not coasting around with the engine off.
You can stand by your assertion but it's completely wrong, and not based on the real world whatsoever.

After reading a bit about Wayne Gerdes, I think he's a moron.

Driving around without having the engine on, coasting up to lights and up to queues on the highway... all dangerous.
Turning the engine off is dangerous because of a) the lack of power steering and b.) the lack of servo assisted brakes which can absolutely cause an accident.

Taken from - http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/01/guy-can-get-59-mpg-plain-old-accord-beat-punk

QUOTE
"Buckle up tight, because this is the death turn," says Wayne. Death turn? We're moving at 50 mph. Wayne turns off the engine. He's bearing down on the exit, and as he turns the wheel sharply to the right, the tires squeal—which is what happens when you take a 25 mph turn going 50. Cathy, Terry's wife, who is sitting next to me in the backseat, grabs my leg. I grab the door handle. As we come out of the 270-degree turn, Cathy says, "I hope you have upholstery cleaner."


Yet if I were to post up saying the same, I'd be accused of being a chav, boy racer, idiot, unresponsible motorist, etc.

Posted by: gel Aug 19 2013, 10:23 AM

I sometimes go via Shell on A417 Fairford, where again there is no competition for miles.
Is a very rural location.Today's 4* price is 3p cheaper than lowest in Newbury. ie 133.9!

Posted by: Turin Machine Aug 19 2013, 10:27 AM

QUOTE (motormad @ Aug 19 2013, 10:19 AM) *
I could be a nuclear scientist, but I'm not.

I'm talking about REAL WORLD driving, not coasting around with the engine off.
You can stand by your assertion but it's completely wrong, and not based on the real world whatsoever.

After reading a bit about Wayne Gerdes, I think he's a moron.

Driving around without having the engine on, coasting up to lights and up to queues on the highway... all dangerous.
Turning the engine off is dangerous because of a) the lack of power steering and b.) the lack of servo assisted brakes which can absolutely cause an accident.

Taken from - http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/01/guy-can-get-59-mpg-plain-old-accord-beat-punk



Yet if I were to post up saying the same, I'd be accused of being a chav, boy racer, idiot, unresponsible motorist, etc.


well said, my other half gets 60mpg on a reg basis out of her 2.0ltr diesel, thats better than a prius in real world consumption. Fuel cells are the way forward but everyone is hooked on the idea of battery power which is a compleat dead end.

Posted by: Baffers100 Aug 19 2013, 11:28 AM

QUOTE (Blake @ Aug 19 2013, 09:09 AM) *
Rubbish and erroneous; The Toyota Prius can achieve over 70 mpg. A chipped one can do over 100+ mpg. Furthermore, the mark 1 Honda Insight could easily achieve over 100mpg without trying. In addition, as the CO2 emissions of these cars are so low, you pay no road tax; what's not to like? You save gas and help cut emissions!

The range of electric cars is improving the entire time. Anyway, some models by Tesla can do over 300 miles on a charge already. Your argument is false.


What's not to like? It's a Prius! Those things have a massive carbon footprint before they roll off the production line. You may as well buy an actual car, not a soul devoid milk float and benefit from an engaging, enjoyable driving experiece!
Anyway, the argument of buying a more fuel efficient car is not the answer to the rising petrol prices- not everybody can afford a newer and more fuel efficient car, and not everybody wants to drive some generic green peace wagon. This is about inequality in fuel prices in our area, it doesn't matter what the OP drives- his mpg is not the topic we're debating. (As for the "just move" opinion, are you kidding? Like that's a cost effective and sensible aternative, just keep quiet next time!)

The production that is needed to make a hybrid battery is as environmentally unfriendly as it gets. The nickel produced by the Canadian plant where the battery starts its life is shipped to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel goes to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. The carbon footprint attached to to manufacture is extremely high so you're not saving the world by driving one of these, at least until they can refine the process.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Aug 19 2013, 01:01 PM

They're nicknamed "Toyota Pious" for nothing...

Posted by: Nothing Much Aug 19 2013, 01:58 PM

They're nicknamed "Toyota Pious" for nothing...

Couldn't agree more. Motoring is about getting about safely and having a bit of style.
That is why the Merc ad failed to tickle an apprentice's fancy. Dull,family,old mans car.( Mixing my threads up here.)
There are no Mercedes parked in my area!. You can't take them seriously after Janis lampooned the brand.

Speaking of style, just to show I know about BOYBANDS. One chap by the name of Harry has a flat
in the same Victorian school conversion as my daughter in Stoke Newington.

She & Son in Law had just returned from a holiday in Germany to let his new Audi RS5 loose
when Harry was receiving delivery of a new Porsche. Of course the first thing
K does is check on google the new motor.... "Ha---Mine is £1,000 cheaper and 10 MPH faster" He said with relief.
That is what driving is all about in the real world. Mine is bigger/better than yours.

Posted by: Nothing Much Aug 19 2013, 02:14 PM

And another thing. As motormad pointed out the merc is carp. Out of interest I looked up
septic tank emptying in Newbury. Oh dear, yet another jumbling of threads. I will be banned again,

I live in london and Anglia. Thanks to the generosity of Thames Valley customers I am looking forward to a new sewerage infrastucture. Like "Plug and Play", "Fire 'n Forget" Its dump and flush here. But I have to get a nice farmer to
gulp my sludge in Nofolk so I do grumble about overuse and suggest males water the marrows instead.

The point of the last ramble was one company William Wilder was extolling the benefits of their new Mercedes-Benz
for getting down tight corners. They were also advertising for someone to join the company.
Apply to theboss@wilder.co.uk. Qualifications include,needs to be happy working with muck. That's mercs for you!.
Although they probably look good lined up in the taxi ranks outside airports.
ce

Posted by: motormad Aug 19 2013, 02:19 PM

QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Aug 19 2013, 11:27 AM) *
well said, my other half gets 60mpg on a reg basis out of her 2.0ltr diesel, thats better than a prius in real world consumption. Fuel cells are the way forward but everyone is hooked on the idea of battery power which is a compleat dead end.


Nice to know there's someone else with sense on these boards! dry.gif

Posted by: Blake Aug 19 2013, 02:30 PM

QUOTE (Nothing Much @ Aug 19 2013, 02:58 PM) *
They're nicknamed "Toyota Pious" for nothing...

Couldn't agree more. Motoring is about getting about safely and having a bit of style.
That is why the Merc ad failed to tickle an apprentice's fancy. Dull,family,old mans car.( Mixing my threads up here.)
There are no Mercedes parked in my area!. You can't take them seriously after Janis lampooned the brand.

Speaking of style, just to show I know about BOYBANDS. One chap by the name of Harry has a flat
in the same Victorian school conversion as my daughter in Stoke Newington.

She & Son in Law had just returned from a holiday in Germany to let his new Audi RS5 loose
when Harry was receiving delivery of a new Porsche. Of course the first thing
K does is check on google the new motor.... "Ha---Mine is £1,000 cheaper and 10 MPH faster" He said with relief.
That is what driving is all about in the real world. Mine is bigger/better than yours.



I agree about the bit about safe travel. However, we are amid a paradigm shift whereby there are more and more people live on this planet who want to consume an ever-diminishing quantity of resources. Given this, we all need to consider how we consumer those resources. This is one of the reason gas prices are spiking. Increasing CO2 emissions are also the core cause of climate change which will make life on earth as we know it IMPOSSIBLE.

We must perfect and support alternative sources of energy for all areas of life including transport. We must look to vehicles that give us the best possible gas-mileages and the lowest possible emissions (preferably none). The combustion engine is in fact woefully inefficient (with a mechanical efficiency of only about 22%). That means about 70% of the gas you put in your tank is NOT used to move your vehicle around.

I cannot help but think any other consumer product that inefficient and polluting would have been banned years ago.

Posted by: Nothing Much Aug 19 2013, 03:00 PM

Yes Blake, I agree with you. But it didn't quite fit in with my point. And yes I do enjoy getting around on foot where possible.
I have a bike which is fun for simple local drifting around country lanes. Cars are a big pain.

But one of the points of the present annoyance is the holy attitude of those who smugly look down on fools (such as I)
who pay shedloads of tax and insurance to get about for distances. Trains are not the answer and buses are
pretty useless outside built up areas. There will come a time when like 100watt bulbs I shall conform. Dark days ahead.

As a customer of Beamer smile.gif (doesn't that sound happier than Merk sad.gif ) I get leaflets for new kit and an electric version
that would buy a starter home is on the cards. Sadly not in my lifetime. The range is still a sticky point and the lack of
power ( charging) is like trying to cross the Gobi in days of old. A story in the Telegraph,which means it must be true, has it
that a set of charging points at a park and ride were used 4 times in a year.

I don't like flying anymore so for 6 years have saved the planet. I've done my bit.
But will accept the future when it is impossible to avoid. A bit like old age.
ce

Posted by: Turin Machine Aug 19 2013, 05:10 PM

QUOTE (Blake @ Aug 19 2013, 03:30 PM) *
I agree about the bit about safe travel. However, we are amid a paradigm shift whereby there are more and more people live on this planet who want to consume an ever-diminishing quantity of resources. Given this, we all need to consider how we consumer those resources. This is one of the reason gas prices are spiking. Increasing CO2 emissions are also the core cause of climate change which will make life on earth as we know it IMPOSSIBLE.

We must perfect and support alternative sources of energy for all areas of life including transport. We must look to vehicles that give us the best possible gas-mileages and the lowest possible emissions (preferably none). The combustion engine is in fact woefully inefficient (with a mechanical efficiency of only about 22%). That means about 70% of the gas you put in your tank is NOT used to move your vehicle around.

I cannot help but think any other consumer product that inefficient and polluting would have been banned years ago.

Tell you what, you stop China opening four new coal fired power stations per week and I'll start to listen.

Posted by: Nothing Much Aug 19 2013, 05:28 PM

Are there not permanent fires in some coal seams that are completely out of control in China?
Perhaps they could be tapped for ground heat power stations?...

(Is a reactor at Windscale still on fire after 50 years, sorry an old urban myth I like)
ce

Posted by: motormad Aug 19 2013, 06:51 PM

QUOTE (Blake @ Aug 19 2013, 03:30 PM) *
I cannot help but think any other consumer product that inefficient and polluting would have been banned years ago.


I can.

Meat (beef) and Milk.

Ban cows then talk to me about banning my car.


Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 19 2013, 07:23 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Aug 19 2013, 07:51 PM) *
I can.

Meat (beef) and Milk.

Ban cows then talk to me about banning my car.

Extremely good point. Methane from beef production is a significant cause of anthropogenic greenhouse warming, methane being twenty times as bad a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and the cows continually farting as they do. http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/meat-wastes-natural-resources.aspx, with the area of land and energy consumption that produces one meat meal able to produce ten vegetarian meals.

Posted by: blackdog Aug 19 2013, 10:14 PM

Am I the only one who wouldn't buy a Prius because I want somewhere to carry luggage?

Posted by: Blake Aug 19 2013, 10:17 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Aug 19 2013, 11:14 PM) *
Am I the only one who wouldn't buy a Prius because I want somewhere to carry luggage?


What do you mean? It has a boot and is not unlike the size of a Ford Focus.

Posted by: Turin Machine Aug 19 2013, 10:50 PM

Yes but at 56.5mpg (real world) it aint all that is it? I used to be able to get that out of my 05 Passat!! Still it gives the sandal wearing, hemp shirt brigade something to drive I suppose.

Posted by: motormad Aug 19 2013, 11:24 PM

QUOTE (Blake @ Aug 19 2013, 11:17 PM) *
What do you mean? It has a boot and is not unlike the size of a Ford Focus.




Posted by: Blake Aug 20 2013, 09:31 AM

I would strongly recommend this book for a sober and unbiased analysis of the facts. West Berks Library service has it in stock:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0713999233


Posted by: motormad Aug 20 2013, 09:54 AM

Nothing is ever unbiased.
Reading the description he doesn't once mention cows which are much more of a pollutant than cars.

Again.....


Posted by: Blake Aug 20 2013, 09:56 AM

Have a read of it and see what you think.

You cannot expect to read a whole book by reading the description.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 20 2013, 09:57 AM

QUOTE (motormad @ Aug 20 2013, 10:54 AM) *
Nothing is ever unbiased.
Reading the description he doesn't once mention cows which are much more of a pollutant than cars.

Again.....

They are working on the cows too.

In the meantime folk can still feel especially smug as they sit in the drive through, engine running, waiting for a burger.

Posted by: motormad Aug 20 2013, 10:42 AM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Aug 20 2013, 10:57 AM) *
In the meantime folk can still feel especially smug as they sit in the drive through, engine running, waiting for a burger.


It's nice 'aint it. laugh.gif

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 20 2013, 10:44 AM

QUOTE (motormad @ Aug 20 2013, 11:42 AM) *
It's nice 'aint it. laugh.gif

It is symptomatic of the modern age we live in.


Posted by: Berkshirelad Aug 20 2013, 10:58 AM

Monbiot? Unbiased?

I think not. He is one of the most vociferous 'global warming - we're all doomed' brigade

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 20 2013, 11:01 AM

QUOTE (Berkshirelad @ Aug 20 2013, 11:58 AM) *
Monbiot? Unbiased?

I think not. He is one of the most vociferous 'global warming - we're all doomed' brigade

We are. You can see it in this thread.

Posted by: blackdog Aug 20 2013, 04:19 PM

QUOTE (Blake @ Aug 19 2013, 11:17 PM) *
What do you mean? It has a boot and is not unlike the size of a Ford Focus.

Last time I looked at one (admittedly a fair few years back) it was all battery and no boot.

Posted by: Blake Aug 20 2013, 04:29 PM

The current generation is a huge advance on the previous.

Posted by: motormad Aug 20 2013, 07:35 PM

Do you work for Toyota?

Posted by: r.bartlett Aug 22 2013, 09:15 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Aug 18 2013, 07:16 PM) *
But it's not profiteering, not if you can choose to buy elsewhere.


just because I happen to visit far and wide is irrelevant in this discussion as many older drivers or invalids do not travel far for their own personal reason…

Motorway service stations are prime examples of profiteering in all the goods they sell by merely being there. Those motorists who are driving down the motorway looking for a small porcelain cottage to aid the journey may not know the local area off the motorway and the SS know it and abuse them because of it. Similarly buying a burger at Silverstone GP weekend. The list is endless.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 22 2013, 10:00 PM

QUOTE (r.bartlett @ Aug 22 2013, 10:15 PM) *
just because I happen to visit far and wide is irrelevant in this discussion as many older drivers or invalids do not travel far for their own personal reason…

Sure, but if you're doing such small mileage you're not going to be using so very much fuel, and for those drivers the down-side of living somewhere affluent like Newbury is that their annual petrol bill is going to be in the order of £10 more expensive than if they lived in somewhere grotty like Redditch. Just running a car costs you annually a couple of grand in insurance, tax, mot, serving, and depreciation, and compared to that the fuel cost difference is vanishingly small, whereas running a small efficient car will save maybe a thousand times as much.

QUOTE (r.bartlett @ Aug 22 2013, 10:15 PM) *
Motorway service stations are prime examples of profiteering in all the goods they sell by merely being there. Those motorists who are driving down the motorway looking for a small porcelain cottage to aid the journey may not know the local area off the motorway and the SS know it and abuse them because of it. Similarly buying a burger at Silverstone GP weekend. The list is endless.

Yes indeed, the precious things of the shop are much better value locally. Are you local?

Posted by: motormad Aug 22 2013, 11:23 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Aug 22 2013, 11:00 PM) *
Yes indeed, the precious things of the shop are much better value locally. Are you local?




This is why Simon and I get on so well.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2013, 12:26 AM

If we are to percive higher prices as a measure of higher demand, then I presume Newbury is bucking the trend in the country's cutting back on fuel expenditure?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/personal-finance/petrol-sales-slump-five-month-low-2207700

Posted by: JeffG Aug 23 2013, 08:57 AM

motormad - what exactly are those strange people doing in your animated gif?

Posted by: Blake Aug 23 2013, 10:20 AM

Still, one good thing is that the government is to invest £94 million in a cycling revolution akin to the infrastructure in the Netherlands. Cycling is a green and efficient means of local transport so it should help us stay fit, help cut CO2 emissions and save us money in gas.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 23 2013, 10:35 AM

QUOTE (Blake @ Aug 23 2013, 11:20 AM) *
Still, one good thing is that the government is to invest £94 million in a cycling revolution akin to the infrastructure in the Netherlands. Cycling is a green and efficient means of local transport so it should help us stay fit, help cut CO2 emissions and save us money in gas.

I don't understand how cycling saves money in gas. Is the government proposing some kind of compulsory installation of methane collecting apparatus attached to bike saddles?

Posted by: motormad Aug 23 2013, 10:37 AM

QUOTE (Blake @ Aug 23 2013, 11:20 AM) *
Still, one good thing is that the government is to invest £94 million in a cycling revolution akin to the infrastructure in the Netherlands. Cycling is a green and efficient means of local transport so it should help us stay fit, help cut CO2 emissions and save us money in gas.


It also means you arrive at work sweaty at best, and under a bus at the worst

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2013, 11:35 AM

Biking is OK, but bike technology is old fashioned and people still get too many punctures. Then there's wind, rain, hills (in Newbury), thieves, vandals, etc.

Posted by: motormad Aug 23 2013, 11:38 AM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Aug 23 2013, 09:57 AM) *
motormad - what exactly are those strange people doing in your animated gif?


If you have to ask you aren't ready.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 23 2013, 12:44 PM

QUOTE (Blake @ Aug 23 2013, 12:20 PM) *
Still, one good thing is that the government is to invest £94 million in a cycling revolution akin to the infrastructure in the Netherlands.

Pity that cyclists aren't paying for it!

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2013, 01:05 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 23 2013, 01:44 PM) *
Pity that cyclists aren't paying for it!

They are, along with everyone else! wink.gif

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 23 2013, 01:27 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 23 2013, 03:05 PM) *
along with everyone else! wink.gif

Exactly!
Why shouldn't cyclists contribute, as do other users of vehicles especially if they want all these wonderful facilities?

Posted by: Blake Aug 23 2013, 01:30 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 23 2013, 12:35 PM) *
Biking is OK, but bike technology is old fashioned and people still get too many punctures. Then there's wind, rain, hills (in Newbury), thieves, vandals, etc.


But car technology is old fashioned: they are about 75% mechanically inefficient, you get punctures, road tax, expensive repairs, parking tickets higher and higher gas prices, pile-ups, numpty BMW driving muppets, thieves, vandals etc. Also, if WBC gets its nasty way, more and more on-street parking charges!

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 23 2013, 01:52 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 23 2013, 02:27 PM) *
Exactly!
Why shouldn't cyclists contribute, as do other users of vehicles especially if they want all these wonderful facilities?


Most cyclists do pay tax and therefore will be paying towards these 'wonderful facilities'.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 23 2013, 02:11 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Aug 23 2013, 03:52 PM) *
Most cyclists do pay tax

Not many of the cyclists I see.
Probably on benefits and unlikely they even paid for the bike! wink.gif
Look, I'm not against cycling and cyclists and agree that it is a good thing both from a health and environmental point of view, but I think they should pay their way and they should adhere to the laws and regulations of the highway.
That's all I ask. huh.gif

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 23 2013, 02:19 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 23 2013, 03:11 PM) *
Not many of the cyclists I see.
Probably on benefits and unlikely they even paid for the bike! wink.gif
Look, I'm not against cycling and cyclists and agree that it is a good thing both from a health and environmental point of view, but I think they should pay their way and they should adhere to the laws and regulations of the highway.
That's all I ask. huh.gif



Ah, I see the old, 'road tax' misconception.

Road Tax was abolished in 1926 by the then Chancellor Winston Churchill. He had noticed that whilst all other forms of taxation went to central govt & was used for all manner of things the tax paid for by the few motorists there were back then was used only for roads. He argued that the tax paid by drinkers was not used just for pubs, therefore motorists should not expect the tax they paid to be spent solely upon them. So Road Tax became VED and is used to pay for all manner of things, including roads & cycle ways.

Yes, cyclist should follow the highway code.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2013, 02:26 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 23 2013, 03:11 PM) *
Not many of the cyclists I see.
Probably on benefits and unlikely they even paid for the bike! wink.gif
Look, I'm not against cycling and cyclists and agree that it is a good thing both from a health and environmental point of view, but I think they should pay their way and they should adhere to the laws and regulations of the highway.
That's all I ask. huh.gif

Such is the way of our capitalist democracy works, most people, let alone cyclists, pay tax (admittedly, some more than others). If public health and the environment can be improved and we can get car journeys taken of the road, we all benefit. Whether 90 million is enough is another question.

The idea of charging cyclists is ridiculous and would be counter productive. As for law breaking: there are times I see a cyclists behave inappropriately, but due to the infrequency I see this and because the damage they can do to others is slight, I see it as unimportant. However, it would be a different matter if cycle traffic was heavy.

Posted by: GhostMemory Aug 23 2013, 03:07 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 23 2013, 03:26 PM) *
As for law breaking: there are times I see a cyclists behave inappropriately, but due to the infrequency I see this and because the damage they can do to others is slight, I see it as unimportant.

The way I understand it, there seems to be a perception that even if it's the cyclist's fault in the case of a collision with a car, it will be the car driver penalised under law. I don't know if that's a fair perception or not, but I've heard quite a few car drivers believing this to be the case.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2013, 03:20 PM

QUOTE (GhostMemory @ Aug 23 2013, 04:07 PM) *
The way I understand it, there seems to be a perception that even if it's the cyclist's fault in the case of a collision with a car, it will be the car driver penalised under law. I don't know if that's a fair perception or not, but I've heard quite a few car drivers believing this to be the case.

A car driver could be liable for hospital bills and up-front costs, but would only be prosecuted if it was believed the car driver did something illegal. Other countries do have laws as you describe, but that isn't the case here.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 23 2013, 07:24 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Aug 23 2013, 04:19 PM) *
Ah, I see the old, 'road tax' misconception.

Road Tax was abolished in 1926 by the then Chancellor Winston Churchill. He had noticed that whilst all other forms of taxation went to central govt & was used for all manner of things the tax paid for by the few motorists there were back then was used only for roads. He argued that the tax paid by drinkers was not used just for pubs, therefore motorists should not expect the tax they paid to be spent solely upon them. So Road Tax became VED and is used to pay for all manner of things, including roads & cycle ways.

Yes, cyclist should follow the highway code.

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!

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 23 2013, 07:30 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 23 2013, 04:26 PM) *
The idea of charging cyclists is ridiculous and would be counter productive.

Fair enough but then don't expect large sums of money to be spent on their benefit.

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 23 2013, 04:26 PM) *
As for law breaking: there are times I see a cyclists behave inappropriately, but due to the infrequency I see this,

You must see different to what I do then.


QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 23 2013, 04:26 PM) *
because the damage they can do to others is slight,

I was knocked down by a cyclist ignoring a red light at a pedestrian crossing. (the one at the Pound Street junction)
The damage was not "slight".

Posted by: r.bartlett Aug 23 2013, 09:52 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Aug 22 2013, 10:00 PM) *
Sure, but if you're doing such small mileage you're not going to be using so very much fuel, and for those drivers the down-side of living somewhere affluent like Newbury is that their annual petrol bill is going to be in the order of £10 more expensive than if they lived in somewhere grotty like Redditch. Just running a car costs you annually a couple of grand in insurance, tax, mot, serving, and depreciation, and compared to that the fuel cost difference is vanishingly small, whereas running a small efficient car will save maybe a thousand times as much.


Yes indeed, the precious things of the shop are much better value locally. Are you local?


So if I read you right it's ok to rip off the elderly and infirmed if they live in Newbury because it's their own bloody fault.. .
oh and if they don't like it they can sod off to a poor part of the country and leave Newbury to the well abled with money and transport to go where they like..

Sounds reasonable

Posted by: Darren Aug 23 2013, 10:09 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 23 2013, 03:11 PM) *
Not many of the cyclists I see.
Probably on benefits and unlikely they even paid for the bike! wink.gif
Look, I'm not against cycling and cyclists and agree that it is a good thing both from a health and environmental point of view, but I think they should pay their way and they should adhere to the laws and regulations of the highway.
That's all I ask. huh.gif


When cars and motorcyles do too...

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 23 2013, 10:10 PM

QUOTE (r.bartlett @ Aug 23 2013, 10:52 PM) *
So if I read you right it's ok to rip off the elderly and infirmed if they live in Newbury because it's their own bloody fault.. .
oh and if they don't like it they can sod off to a poor part of the country and leave Newbury to the well abled with money and transport to go where they like..

Sounds reasonable

No, I don't think you've read me right. You said "many older drivers or invalids do not travel far for their own personal reason", and as I explained, if they're only driving low local mileage then the differential cost of their fuel with respect to some other notional place where the fuel is cheaper, is minimal, and insignificant compared to their motoring costs as a whole. On the other hand, if the elderly and infirmed [sic] are driving far enough abroad to make that differential fuel cost significant enough to worry about then they're also likely to be driving past cheaper petrol stations.

So where's the rip off? Yes, if you drive high mileage and you chose to buy your fuel at Newbury's most expensive garage then you will be paying quite a bit more for your fuel than you might, but that's the point - you're paying more than you might, because you have the option of buying it cheaper elsewhere. If you don't take that choice then fine, but no one is being ripped off here.

Posted by: motormad Aug 23 2013, 10:21 PM

Everyone is forgetting you can easily recoup 8p a litre price difference by adjusting your driving style. I get about 35mpg average, a majority of which is around town, in my 2L turbo petrol!

On an unrelated note, BP is bloody out of Ultimate again. GRRR

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2013, 11:43 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Aug 23 2013, 11:10 PM) *
you're paying more than you might, because you have the option of buying it cheaper elsewhere. If you don't take that choice then fine, but no one is being ripped off here.

I disagree. If fuel costs more in Newbury because it costs more to deliverer than elsewhere, then yes, but my understanding is that it doesn't.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 23 2013, 11:53 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Aug 23 2013, 11:21 PM) *
Everyone is forgetting you can easily recoup 8p a litre price difference by adjusting your driving style. I get about 35mpg average, a majority of which is around town, in my 2L turbo petrol!

35 around town in a 2L petrol turbo is remarkable.

Posted by: r.bartlett Aug 24 2013, 06:37 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Aug 23 2013, 10:10 PM) *
No, I don't think you've read me right. You said "many older drivers or invalids do not travel far for their own personal reason", and as I explained, if they're only driving low local mileage then the differential cost of their fuel with respect to some other notional place where the fuel is cheaper, is minimal, and insignificant compared to their motoring costs as a whole. On the other hand, if the elderly and infirmed [sic] are driving far enough abroad to make that differential fuel cost significant enough to worry about then they're also likely to be driving past cheaper petrol stations.

So where's the rip off? Yes, if you drive high mileage and you chose to buy your fuel at Newbury's most expensive garage then you will be paying quite a bit more for your fuel than you might, but that's the point - you're paying more than you might, because you have the option of buying it cheaper elsewhere. If you don't take that choice then fine, but no one is being ripped off here.



The amount of saving or expenditure either way is a red herring..The principle is robust.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2013, 10:30 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 23 2013, 08:30 PM) *
Fair enough but then don't expect large sums of money to be spent on their benefit.

People exchanging car journeys for bicycle journeys would be for everyone's benefit, especially if they could separated from other road or path users.

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 23 2013, 08:30 PM) *
I was knocked down by a cyclist ignoring a red light at a pedestrian crossing. (the one at the Pound Street junction) The damage was not "slight".

Because you had a bad moment doesn't prove that this is a big issue - you were unlucky - just like my motorcycling friend who was knocked off his bike by a pedestrian.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 24 2013, 01:18 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 24 2013, 12:30 PM) *
Because you had a bad moment doesn't prove that this is a big issue - you were unlucky - just like my motorcycling friend who was knocked off his bike by a pedestrian.

Oh!, my situation was unique was it?

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2013, 01:40 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 24 2013, 02:18 PM) *
Oh!, my situation was unique was it?

Where did I say that?

I'm not saying cyclists are faultless, but it is a fact cars and motorbikes pose a greater danger to cyclists than than it is the other way round. Notwithstanding this point is straying from the point: do you not see the benefit of the government promoting cycling as an alternative form of transport?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 24 2013, 06:05 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 24 2013, 12:43 AM) *
I disagree. If fuel costs more in Newbury because it costs more to deliverer than elsewhere, then yes, but my understanding is that it doesn't.

I don't agree with your reasoning. I don't know, but I doubt that the cost of delivery is a significant factor in the differential cost of fuel. One significant factor is likely to be that people in Newbury are prepared to pay more, though that is just one of many factors that influence the price of fuel. It's entirely possible that garages in Newbury need to pay a higher rent on their premises than other places because retail space in Newbury is more profitable, or they may need to pay their staff more to attract the right people because employment rates in Newbury are higher than elsewhere. I don't know, I'm just saying - at the end of the day the supplier sets the price to maximise profits - too high and sales will fall, too low and revenue will fall. In a sense it's not even the garage that sets the price, it's the market!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 24 2013, 06:17 PM

QUOTE (r.bartlett @ Aug 24 2013, 07:37 AM) *
The amount of saving or expenditure either way is a red herring..The principle is robust.

I agree that the saving or expenditure isn't what makes a rip-off, that's a matter of whether the supplier is taking unfair advantage of their market monopoly or the indigence or inexperience of their customers, but my contention is simply that in this situation that's not happening. What you're seeing is the free market, and the price differential is supported by the informed buying habits of a customer with a variety of suppliers to choose from.

Posted by: motormad Aug 24 2013, 07:27 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 24 2013, 12:53 AM) *
35 around town in a 2L petrol turbo is remarkable.


FSI innit.

My drive to work is 2 miles on a cold engine in start stop traffic.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 24 2013, 08:51 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Aug 24 2013, 07:05 PM) *
I don't agree with your reasoning. I don't know, but I doubt that the cost of delivery is a significant factor in the differential cost of fuel. One significant factor is likely to be that people in Newbury are prepared to pay more, though that is just one of many factors that influence the price of fuel. It's entirely possible that garages in Newbury need to pay a higher rent on their premises than other places because retail space in Newbury is more profitable, or they may need to pay their staff more to attract the right people because employment rates in Newbury are higher than elsewhere. I don't know, I'm just saying - at the end of the day the supplier sets the price to maximise profits - too high and sales will fall, too low and revenue will fall. In a sense it's not even the garage that sets the price, it's the market!

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.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 24 2013, 09:40 PM

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.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 24 2013, 10:17 PM

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.

Posted by: motormad Aug 25 2013, 08:37 AM

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.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 25 2013, 09:19 AM

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!

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 25 2013, 09:36 AM

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

A few maybe! wink.gif

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 25 2013, 09:38 AM

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.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 25 2013, 09:58 AM

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.

Posted by: newres Aug 25 2013, 10:01 AM

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.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 25 2013, 10:07 AM

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??

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 25 2013, 10:15 AM

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.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 25 2013, 10:29 AM

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?

Posted by: motormad Aug 25 2013, 11:13 AM

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.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 25 2013, 11:16 AM

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

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 25 2013, 12:23 PM

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.

Posted by: motormad Aug 25 2013, 01:33 PM

EXACTLY where you wanted to go?

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

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 25 2013, 01:44 PM

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.

Posted by: motormad Aug 25 2013, 01:49 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.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 25 2013, 02:05 PM

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.


Posted by: Berkshirelad Aug 25 2013, 03:20 PM

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.

Posted by: motormad Aug 25 2013, 09:13 PM

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?

Posted by: newres Aug 26 2013, 05:58 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 25 2013, 11:07 AM) *
Just what I observe.
How is that "ill informed"?
And your counter argument / observation is??

Just one observation, Newbury has one small area pedestrianised. Northbrook Street etc, yet you state that people on bikes spend most of their time there. Is that not a ridiculous assertion?

Posted by: user23 Aug 26 2013, 07:47 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Aug 24 2013, 07:17 PM) *
I agree that the saving or expenditure isn't what makes a rip-off, that's a matter of whether the supplier is taking unfair advantage of their market monopoly...
I can think of at least 7 suppliers in or around Newbury. How is this a monopoly?

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 26 2013, 08:10 AM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 26 2013, 07:58 AM) *
Just one observation, Newbury has one small area pedestrianised. Northbrook Street etc, yet you state that people on bikes spend most of their time there. Is that not a ridiculous assertion?

My comment was that they spend most of their time on the pavement in towns NOT that they spend most of their time in the pedestrianised area.
But as you raise the pedestrianised issue.
MOST of the main part of Newbury Town Centre is pedestrianised.
Why do cyclists have to cycle, often at breakneck speed, in that area where there are pedestrians everywhere?
Why can't they walk, with their bike, like everyone else?

Posted by: Berkshirelad Aug 26 2013, 09:10 AM

None of the centre of Newbury is pedestrianised

Some areas are restricted at certain times - that is all

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 26 2013, 09:21 AM

QUOTE (Berkshirelad @ Aug 26 2013, 11:10 AM) *
None of the centre of Newbury is pedestrianised

That's funny, because the signs say "pedestrianised".
Anyway, whether the term is technically correct or not it does not answer my question?

Posted by: newres Aug 26 2013, 10:39 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 26 2013, 10:21 AM) *
That's funny, because the signs say "pedestrianised".
Anyway, whether the term is technically correct or not it does not answer my question?

I cycle in the "pedestrianised" area. Why shouldn't I? Bikes are pemitted.

By your thinking, cars shouldn't be allowed on the roads while cyclists are on them, since I guess your reasoning is that cyclists put pedestrians at risk. I sometimes cycle on the pavement, it just depends on the road. Mostly I cycle on the road though.



Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 26 2013, 10:43 AM

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.

I already pay tax for my car use and and have various insurances, the last thing I would welcome is even more punitive charges for an activity that benefits everyone (except if I cycle on the road along Hambridge Road! tongue.gif ).

QUOTE (motormad @ Aug 25 2013, 12:13 PM) *
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 anything more than a few miles when you don't need to carry anything.

Like I said, getting people to use a push-bike instead of a car can only benefit everyone.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 26 2013, 10:47 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 26 2013, 09:10 AM) *
My comment was that they spend most of their time on the pavement in towns NOT that they spend most of their time in the pedestrianised area.
But as you raise the pedestrianised issue.
MOST of the main part of Newbury Town Centre is pedestrianised.
Why do cyclists have to cycle, often at breakneck speed, in that area where there are pedestrians everywhere?
Why can't they walk, with their bike, like everyone else?

Because they don't have to.

As for break-neck speed, that is silly, most cyclists would have difficulty in going any more than 15 mph in the high street and the majority of cyclists don't even do that.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 26 2013, 10:52 AM

QUOTE (motormad @ Aug 25 2013, 10:13 PM) *
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.

Not really.

Unless you can park directly outside where you drive, then a car is often no better than the train. In some cases it is a far worse option. A trip to central London for instance.


Posted by: blackdog Aug 26 2013, 03:31 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Aug 26 2013, 08:47 AM) *
I can think of at least 7 suppliers in or around Newbury. How is this a monopoly?

If it is acting as a cartel.

Posted by: user23 Aug 26 2013, 04:16 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Aug 26 2013, 04:31 PM) *
If it is acting as a cartel.
And are they?

Posted by: newres Aug 26 2013, 04:41 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 26 2013, 11:43 AM) *
I already pay tax for my car use and and have various insurances, the last thing I would welcome is even more punitive charges for an activity that benefits everyone (except if I cycle on the road along Hambridge Road! tongue.gif ).

I have been beeped at along there for cycling on the road. Probably by a dork who walks through town moaning about cyclist in the "pedestrianised" zone.

Incidentally, my wife was ordered off her bike by one of the seurity people in Parkway. There are no signs to say no cycling there, although I know after WBC gave the land away it is now private property.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 26 2013, 05:31 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 26 2013, 12:39 PM) *
I cycle in the "pedestrianised" area. Why shouldn't I? Bikes are pemitted.

since I guess your reasoning is that cyclists put pedestrians at risk.

You answered your own question.
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 26 2013, 12:47 PM) *
Because they don't have to.

I fail to see that as a reason.
What about courtesy and safety towards pedestrians?
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 26 2013, 12:47 PM) *
As for break-neck speed, that is silly, most cyclists would have difficulty in going any more than 15 mph in the high street and the majority of cyclists don't even do that.

I disagree!

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 26 2013, 05:49 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 26 2013, 06:41 PM) *
Incidentally, my wife was ordered off her bike by one of the seurity people in Parkway.

Good! tongue.gif
QUOTE (newres @ Aug 26 2013, 06:41 PM) *
There are no signs to say no cycling there,

Use your common sense (assuming you're not a "dork"! tongue.gif

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 26 2013, 07:05 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Aug 26 2013, 08:47 AM) *
I can think of at least 7 suppliers in or around Newbury. How is this a monopoly?

That's my point, there is no monopoly, so there is no unfair advantage, so there is no rip off.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 26 2013, 07:47 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 26 2013, 06:31 PM) *
I fail to see that as a reason.

So?

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 26 2013, 06:31 PM) *
What about courtesy and safety towards pedestrians?

That is why most who cycle do so with care.

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 26 2013, 06:31 PM) *
I disagree!

So do I.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 26 2013, 07:53 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Aug 26 2013, 08:05 PM) *
That's my point, there is no monopoly, so there is no unfair advantage, so there is no rip off.

Under those circumstances maybe; however, all other immediate towns have cheaper fuel, so unless it costs more to deliver it, Newbury drivers are being ripped off. As pointed out by a supermarket manager, those towns that offer cheaper petrol have suppliers that are more competitive than in Newbury.

Posted by: newres Aug 26 2013, 07:58 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 26 2013, 06:49 PM) *
Use your common sense (assuming you're not a "dork"! tongue.gif

Explain? It is an open area with wide alleys and it has bicycle racks. It is merely an extension of Northbrook Street in which cycling is pemitted, so if cycling suddenly is not permitted, surely a sign asking cyclists to dismount is in order?

Why the bitter attitude towards cyclists? Are you too fat to ride one? tongue.gif

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 26 2013, 09:03 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 26 2013, 08:53 PM) *
Under those circumstances maybe; however, all other immediate towns have cheaper fuel, so unless it costs more to deliver it, Newbury drivers are being ripped off. As pointed out by a supermarket manager, those towns that offer cheaper petrol have suppliers that are more competitive than in Newbury.

Can you say why it's a rip off? Just because two suppliers charge different amounts for the same product does not make one a rip-off, even if they make a bigger profit. A rip-off needs an unfair advantage, and there's no unfairness here. Yes, you pay more in Newbury, but you can buy fuel elsewhere if you choose. If there is something about Newbury that supports a higher profit to be made from fuel sales then fine, that's how a free market works - the price is higher because the market supports that price.

Posted by: Strafin Aug 26 2013, 09:18 PM

That's not strictly true though, that's why we have laws about price fixing.

Posted by: desres123 Aug 26 2013, 09:34 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Aug 26 2013, 09:03 PM) *
Can you say why it's a rip off? Just because two suppliers charge different amounts for the same product does not make one a rip-off, even if they make a bigger profit. A rip-off needs an unfair advantage, and there's no unfairness here. Yes, you pay more in Newbury, but you can buy fuel elsewhere if you choose. If there is something about Newbury that supports a higher profit to be made from fuel sales then fine, that's how a free market works - the price is higher because the market supports that price.


Its not that the market supports the higher price its because there is no decent competion and its naive to say you can go elsewhere. It is not pratical to drive to reading just to buy fuel unless you are going there to work or do other shopping. Tesco and sainsbury know this thats how they get away with it and i cant see any justification in why they charge more here other than ripping us off its not as if it costs more to supply fuel to the forecourts

Posted by: motormad Aug 26 2013, 10:16 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Aug 26 2013, 11:52 AM) *
Not really.

Unless you can park directly outside where you drive, then a car is often no better than the train. In some cases it is a far worse option. A trip to central London for instance.



That is the ONLY time I take a train (weekdays)

On weekend trips to London (for example out of hours site visit) I will drive. Costs £2 all day to park most places in London and no congestion charge.
Costs £28 basically for off-peak travel return. It's about 60 miles so let's say at 42mpg it costs me about £15 in fuel there and back.

Ultimately cost is a moot point as being in my car makes me comfortable. I don't mind sitting in traffic in my car but stick me in a train full of other people and it irritates me. On an evironmental basis per mile my car is better on co2 emissions than a train and trains are stupid, archaic forms of transportation anyway.

Taking the train to London makes me miserable. The last time I went, the train we were on (rush hour from Paddington) broke down at Reading and everyone had to get on an already pretty packed train. It was worse than the underground.
All I could smell was BO from sweaty middle aged businessmen who don't know what deodourant is.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 26 2013, 10:20 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Aug 26 2013, 10:03 PM) *
Can you say why it's a rip off?

Yes, because we are charged more than elsewhere without it costing more to deliver it.

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Aug 26 2013, 10:03 PM) *
Just because two suppliers charge different amounts for the same product does not make one a rip-off, even if they make a bigger profit. A rip-off needs an unfair advantage, and there's no unfairness here.

Well clearly there is, otherwise we wouldn't be paying more than elsewhere.

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Aug 26 2013, 10:03 PM) *
Yes, you pay more in Newbury, but you can buy fuel elsewhere if you choose. If there is something about Newbury that supports a higher profit to be made from fuel sales then fine, that's how a free market works - the price is higher because the market supports that price.

Just because it has the appearance of a free market doesn't stop it being a rip-off. We pay more than elsewhere without any reasonable justification: rip-off.

The problem is Simon, is that 'rip-off' is a subjective term, so I doubt we could ever persuade the other on this issue. I'd only concede if it can be shown that it cost more to deliver fuel in Newbury than else where, or it is being delivered with better quality.

Posted by: blackdog Aug 27 2013, 12:01 AM

QUOTE (user23 @ Aug 26 2013, 05:16 PM) *
And are they?

A cartel would agree to charge higher prices than the norm.

Newbury petrol prices are universally above the norm.

Is a cartel operating? No idea. But if not what is the difference?

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 27 2013, 08:24 AM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 26 2013, 09:58 PM) *
Explain? It is an open area with wide alleys and it has bicycle racks. It is merely an extension of Northbrook Street in which cycling is pemitted, so if cycling suddenly is not permitted, surely a sign asking cyclists to dismount is in order?

If we all needed a sign to tell us that to do something was unsafe and stupid then we would be somewhat innudated with them eh? rolleyes.gif
It is not allowed and illegal to ride bicycles on railway station platforms but there are no signs saying so.
You would think common sense would tell people that it was unsafe to do so however some still do!
QUOTE (newres @ Aug 26 2013, 09:58 PM) *
Why the bitter attitude towards cyclists? Are you too fat to ride one? tongue.gif

I am not "bitter", like I said before I appreciate the benefits of cycling to the individual and society as a whole.
I just wish they would behave in a responsible, safe manner. - that's all! biggrin.gif

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 27 2013, 08:26 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 26 2013, 09:47 PM) *
That is why most who cycle do so with care.

Again, I disagree.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 27 2013, 08:29 AM

QUOTE (motormad @ Aug 26 2013, 11:16 PM) *
That is the ONLY time I take a train (weekdays)

On weekend trips to London (for example out of hours site visit) I will drive. Costs £2 all day to park most places in London and no congestion charge.
Costs £28 basically for off-peak travel return. It's about 60 miles so let's say at 42mpg it costs me about £15 in fuel there and back.

Ultimately cost is a moot point as being in my car makes me comfortable. I don't mind sitting in traffic in my car but stick me in a train full of other people and it irritates me. On an evironmental basis per mile my car is better on co2 emissions than a train and trains are stupid, archaic forms of transportation anyway.

Taking the train to London makes me miserable. The last time I went, the train we were on (rush hour from Paddington) broke down at Reading and everyone had to get on an already pretty packed train. It was worse than the underground.
All I could smell was BO from sweaty middle aged businessmen who don't know what deodourant is.

So despite your own prejudices you still take the train to central London.

See I was right all along.

Just think what your fellow passengers might have been thinking about you!

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 27 2013, 09:27 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 27 2013, 09:26 AM) *
Again, I disagree.

And there is no higher authority? wink.gif

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 27 2013, 09:31 AM

QUOTE (motormad @ Aug 26 2013, 11:16 PM) *
That is the ONLY time I take a train (weekdays)

On weekend trips to London (for example out of hours site visit) I will drive. Costs £2 all day to park most places in London and no congestion charge.
Costs £28 basically for off-peak travel return. It's about 60 miles so let's say at 42mpg it costs me about £15 in fuel there and back.

Ultimately cost is a moot point as being in my car makes me comfortable. I don't mind sitting in traffic in my car but stick me in a train full of other people and it irritates me. On an evironmental basis per mile my car is better on co2 emissions than a train and trains are stupid, archaic forms of transportation anyway.

Taking the train to London makes me miserable. The last time I went, the train we were on (rush hour from Paddington) broke down at Reading and everyone had to get on an already pretty packed train. It was worse than the underground.
All I could smell was BO from sweaty middle aged businessmen who don't know what deodourant is.

I agree, trains are another rip-off: an expensive way to stand all the way to London. If you go up as a group, its even worse, although discounts can be had.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 27 2013, 09:37 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 27 2013, 10:31 AM) *
I agree, trains are another rip-off: an expensive way to stand all the way to London. If you go up as a group, its even worse, although discounts can be had.

But still you take the train over the car. Which was my point - that the car isn't the be all & end all.

Shame that, unlike the redt of Europe we have not invested in our rail network.


Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 27 2013, 09:40 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 27 2013, 09:24 AM) *
If we all needed a sign to tell us that to do something was unsafe and stupid then we would be somewhat innudated with them eh? rolleyes.gif It is not allowed and illegal to ride bicycles on railway station platforms but there are no signs saying so.

You would think common sense would tell people that it was unsafe to do so however some still do!

Like breaking the speed limit, it is not always unsafe to do so, albeit against the law. Cycling in the high street is not dangerous if one is careful, notwithstanding one is permitted to do so, so I will cycle on it. If it is too busy, then I will dismount. It depends on the circumstances.

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 27 2013, 09:40 AM

QUOTE (motormad @ Aug 27 2013, 12:16 AM) *
All I could smell was BO from sweaty middle aged businessmen who don't know what deodourant is.

I'm middle aged but not sweaty or a businessman but what's "deodourant"? tongue.gif wink.gif

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 27 2013, 09:41 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 27 2013, 11:27 AM) *
And there is no higher authority? wink.gif

No!! tongue.gif

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 27 2013, 09:47 AM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Aug 27 2013, 10:37 AM) *
But still you take the train over the car. Which was my point - that the car isn't the be all & end all.

That is not always true. If I go to London it would be more likely by car as it is much cheaper to do so as a group; however, I have been by train, but that is because either: it is paid for, we all intend on having a drink, or someone in the family has entitlement to discounts (works for GW). The cost of using the train for me is prohibitive except for extraordinary journeys.

Posted by: motormad Aug 27 2013, 10:55 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 27 2013, 10:40 AM) *
I'm middle aged but not sweaty or a businessman but what's "deodourant"? tongue.gif wink.gif


It's an naggarma.

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Aug 27 2013, 09:29 AM) *
So despite your own prejudices you still take the train to central London.

See I was right all along.

Just think what your fellow passengers might have been thinking about you!


You really are an idiot aren't you.

If I am going to London work pays for my train ticket and give it to me. Driving into London in the day would cost me substantilly more on the weekdays. Congestion charge is basically a tenner plus it's £18 to park all day if you can find a space. I'm not a complete moron.
They are probably thinking "my, who's that attractive, sexy man with beautiful eyes". - even the blokes. I'm like Justin Beiber.

I don't like needles but i wouldn't not go to the doctor to get a shot if I had to.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 27 2013, 01:21 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Aug 27 2013, 11:55 AM) *
It's an naggarma.



You really are an idiot aren't you.

If I am going to London work pays for my train ticket and give it to me. Driving into London in the day would cost me substantilly more on the weekdays. Congestion charge is basically a tenner plus it's £18 to park all day if you can find a space. I'm not a complete moron.They are probably thinking "my, who's that attractive, sexy man with beautiful eyes". - even the blokes. I'm like Justin Beiber.

I don't like needles but i wouldn't not go to the doctor to get a shot if I had to.

Just like I said.

Sometimes the train is better.

say it slowly, I know you can. You can have a few tinnies as well on the way home. Result.

Posted by: JeffG Aug 27 2013, 03:54 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Aug 27 2013, 11:55 AM) *
Congestion charge is basically a tenner plus it's £18 to park all day if you can find a space.

How about a hybrid journey? I found a site where private individuals outside the congestion zone and close to underground stations hire out their drives for 4-5 quid a day. You book a free date on line. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Posted by: user23 Aug 27 2013, 04:52 PM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Aug 27 2013, 01:01 AM) *
A cartel would agree to charge higher prices than the norm.

Newbury petrol prices are universally above the norm.

Is a cartel operating? No idea. But if not what is the difference?
This is also true of local house prices.

Should their price be regulated and perhaps brought down to the national average to avoid property buyers being ripped off?

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 27 2013, 04:58 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Aug 27 2013, 05:52 PM) *
This is also true of local house prices.

Should their price be regulated and perhaps brought down to the national average to avoid property buyers being ripped off?

petrol is a little more homogenous than a house..........

I mean I was at the Vineyard & a 125ml of house wine is £8.00. Thing is you can get a bottle of house wine in the Bacon arms for £6.99. Is one a rip off?

Posted by: Strafin Aug 27 2013, 05:25 PM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Aug 27 2013, 04:54 PM) *
How about a hybrid journey? I found a site where private individuals outside the congestion zone and close to underground stations hire out their drives for 4-5 quid a day. You book a free date on line. Sounds like a good idea to me.

I recently did that, it was ideal. Would have been close to £70 for me and the missus on the train. £120 on a weekday. Instead we paid about £15 in fuel, a tenner for the parking and a tenner for the underground.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 27 2013, 05:43 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Aug 27 2013, 05:52 PM) *
This is also true of local house prices. Should their price be regulated and perhaps brought down to the national average to avoid property buyers being ripped off?

Devaluing a person's house might be a bit mean considering the government has already devalued pensions to the point of nothing, but some form of house price regulation might have been prudent 30 years ago.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 27 2013, 05:44 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Aug 27 2013, 05:58 PM) *
petrol is a little more homogenous than a house..........

I mean I was at the Vineyard & a 125ml of house wine is £8.00. Thing is you can get a bottle of house wine in the Bacon arms for £6.99. Is one a rip off?

That depends if you think £8.00 is fair, but at least you possibly could see where the extra money was being spent on delivery. Unlike petrol stations in Berkshire.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 27 2013, 06:13 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Aug 27 2013, 05:52 PM) *
This is also true of local house prices.

Should their price be regulated and perhaps brought down to the national average to avoid property buyers being ripped off?

I agree with the general thrust of your argument, but I feel that house prices are indeed a rip-off, because the state unfairly restricts the availability of building land through the rationing of planning permission, and because it disrupts the market with funny-money "affordable" schemes.

Posted by: newres Aug 27 2013, 06:25 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Aug 27 2013, 09:24 AM) *
If we all needed a sign to tell us that to do something was unsafe and stupid then we would be somewhat innudated with them eh? rolleyes.gif
It is not allowed and illegal to ride bicycles on railway station platforms but there are no signs saying so.
You would think common sense would tell people that it was unsafe to do so however some still do!

It is as safe to cycle in Parkway as it is in Norhbrook Street so I don't see your point. Although I have sen bicycle racks in Parkway, I have never seen any on a railway platform. You just have a bitter attitude towards cyclists and that is what is fueling your anti-cyclist ranting. Have you ever considered relaxation techniques?

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 27 2013, 06:27 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Aug 27 2013, 06:44 PM) *
That depends if you think £8.00 is fair, but at least you possibly could see where the extra money was being spent on delivery. Unlike petrol stations in Berkshire.



There is no reason petrol should be a few pence more in Newbury than anywhere else.

Trying to compare the price of houses regionally, noever mind nationally to the price of petrol is a pointless excercise.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 27 2013, 07:11 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Aug 27 2013, 07:27 PM) *
There is no reason petrol should be a few pence more in Newbury than anywhere else.

Trying to compare the price of houses regionally, noever mind nationally to the price of petrol is a pointless excercise.

Being pointless is what this forum is made for! tongue.gif

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 27 2013, 07:13 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Aug 27 2013, 07:13 PM) *
I agree with the general thrust of your argument, but I feel that house prices are indeed a rip-off, because the state unfairly restricts the availability of building land through the rationing of planning permission, and because it disrupts the market with funny-money "affordable" schemes.

Yes: getting people in to debt they otherwise wouldn't be able to 'afford'. Sound familiar?

Posted by: Biker1 Aug 28 2013, 07:28 AM

QUOTE (newres @ Aug 27 2013, 08:25 PM) *
It is as safe to cycle in Parkway as it is in Norhbrook Street so I don't see your point.

Or as unsafe.
QUOTE (newres @ Aug 27 2013, 08:25 PM) *
Although I have sen bicycle racks in Parkway, I have never seen any on a railway platform.

Pay another visit and this time open your eyes then!! tongue.gif
QUOTE (newres @ Aug 27 2013, 08:25 PM) *
You just have a bitter attitude towards cyclists and that is what is fueling your anti-cyclist ranting.

Not bitter, just wish they would respect other road / pavement / footpath users.
How many times do I have to say this.? sad.gif
You seem to be bitter towards me just because my views differ to yours.
Relax!! tongue.gif

Posted by: Jonno Oct 2 2013, 01:34 PM

At the risk of bringing this thread back onto the topic (:-)) I am pleased to see that we now have price parity between Newbury and Swindon at both Tesco and Sainsbury's! The really good news is this has been achieved by reducing the cost of petrol in Newbury rather than increasing the price in Swindon.

I can't claim the NewburyToday Forum has played much of a part in this outcome but, hopefully, the more people raising this sort of issue the better.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 2 2013, 01:39 PM

QUOTE (Jonno @ Oct 2 2013, 02:34 PM) *
At the risk of bringing this thread back onto the topic (:-)) I am pleased to see that we now have price parity between Newbury and Swindon at both Tesco and Sainsbury's! The really good news is this has been achieved by reducing the cost of petrol in Newbury rather than increasing the price in Swindon.

I can't claim the NewburyToday Forum has played much of a part in this outcome but, hopefully, the more people raising this sort of issue the better.

Sainsbury's seem to have started a price war.

there was 5p a litre difference between them & teco at the weekend. I'm guessing there is parity now?

Posted by: motormad Oct 2 2013, 01:59 PM

QUOTE (Jonno @ Oct 2 2013, 02:34 PM) *
At the risk of bringing this thread back onto the topic (:-)) I am pleased to see that we now have price parity between Newbury and Swindon at both Tesco and Sainsbury's! The really good news is this has been achieved by reducing the cost of petrol in Newbury rather than increasing the price in Swindon.

I can't claim the NewburyToday Forum has played much of a part in this outcome but, hopefully, the more people raising this sort of issue the better.



Not of help to those who have to run our cars on high octane (Vpower!)
Tesco 99 is from Tesco..

Posted by: JeffG Oct 2 2013, 02:13 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Oct 2 2013, 02:59 PM) *
Not of help to those who have to run our cars on high octane (Vpower!)
Tesco 99 is from Tesco..

Does it actually make any difference?

Posted by: Claude Oct 2 2013, 02:42 PM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Oct 2 2013, 03:13 PM) *
Does it actually make any difference?

I believe it does. My car has been mapped to run on higher octane fuel and if you standard RON fuel it runs lumpy, is lower on power and has a very uneven idle. My car also has a manufacturer's sticker inside the filler cap, which says super-unleaded is advised.

Posted by: HJD Oct 2 2013, 02:42 PM

I called in the Shell garage at Tothill last Saturday & noticed Unleaded was 136.9p per Litre. ''I thought the price was supposed to have gone down I said to the cashier''. ''Yes sir it did yesterday'' he replied. ''Well how come it's still the same price as it was in a Shell garage in Swindon a week ago !!'' I asked. No reply, ''Next Mug customer'' he said. angry.gif

Posted by: Claude Oct 2 2013, 02:56 PM

QUOTE (HJD @ Oct 2 2013, 03:42 PM) *
I called in the Shell garage at Tothill last Saturday & noticed Unleaded was 136.9p per Litre. ''I thought the price was supposed to have gone down I said to the cashier''. ''Yes sir it did yesterday'' he replied. ''Well how come it's still the same price as it was in a Shell garage in Swindon a week ago !!'' I asked. No reply, ''Next Mug customer'' he said. angry.gif

I wonder what the price differential is between Shell Tothill and Shell Speen. Does anyone have access to the various petrol price comparison websites?

Posted by: motormad Oct 2 2013, 03:22 PM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Oct 2 2013, 03:13 PM) *
Does it actually make any difference?


As Claude says, yes.

On FSI engines they make a big difference. If you have had your car mapped as well on a higher octane of fuel you need to run it on the good stuff all the time.
95 is "alright" but recommended min 97RON.

Posted by: Nothing Much Oct 2 2013, 03:26 PM

Does the Tesco 99 include rolleyes.gif sparkles?
ce.

Posted by: motormad Oct 2 2013, 03:36 PM

QUOTE (Nothing Much @ Oct 2 2013, 04:26 PM) *
Does the Tesco 99 include rolleyes.gif sparkles?
ce.


No but you get a flake!

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 2 2013, 03:41 PM

QUOTE (JeffG @ Oct 2 2013, 03:13 PM) *
Does it actually make any difference?

Surely it must do, otherwise why would anyone be stupid enough to pay the extra?? wink.gif
Can anyone verify that?
(That is, someone in a normal car and not an MM super-car!)

Posted by: motormad Oct 2 2013, 03:48 PM

Claude verified it?

Basically any high performance engine will benefit from higher octane fuel.
TFSI engines (google how they work) especially so. You can get some annoying problems if you use 95RON constantly.

Posted by: Jonno Oct 2 2013, 04:08 PM

QUOTE (Claude @ Oct 2 2013, 03:56 PM) *
I wonder what the price differential is between Shell Tothill and Shell Speen. Does anyone have access to the various petrol price comparison websites?


Here is the latest from the comparison site, but I notice the Speen one is a little out of date. I have included the Super Unleaded for Motormad. The higher octane fuel is essential for higher compression engines.

129.9p Tesco Newbury Extra

Pinchington Lane, Greenham, Newbury, RG14 7HU

Tesco, last updated on 30 September


129.9p Sainsburys Newbury

Kings Road, Newbury, RG14 5RB

Sainsburys, last updated on 30 September


130.9p Swanbridge Sf Connect

London Road, Newbury, RG14 2BS

BP, last updated on 30 September


131.9p Rss Falkland

Andover Road, Wash Common, Newbury, RG14 6NT

Esso, last updated on 30 September


134.9p Shell Newbury

Bath Road, Speen, Newbury, RG14 1QT

Shell, last updated on 29 September

Cheapest stations within 5 miles of Swindon for Unleaded

129.9p Sainsburys Stratton

Oxford Road, Stratton St Margaret, Swindon, SN3 4EW

Sainsburys, last updated on 30 September


129.9p Tesco Swindon Extra

Ocotal Way, Swindon, SN1 2EH

Tesco, last updated on 30 September


131.9p Kingshill Otr Service Station

Kingshill Road, Swindon, SN1 4NG

Esso, last updated on 25 September


132.9p Dorcan Way Service Station

Dorcan Way, Swindon, SN3 3RA

Esso, last updated on 26 September


132.9p Mrh Fleming Way

Fleming Way, Swindon, SN1 2NG

Texaco, last updated on 30 September

Cheapest stations within 5 miles of Newbury for Super Unleaded

134.9p Tesco Newbury Extra

Pinchington Lane, Greenham, Newbury, RG14 7HU

Tesco, last updated on 30 September


134.9p Sainsburys Newbury

Kings Road, Newbury, RG14 5RB

Sainsburys, last updated on 29 September


138.9p Swanbridge Sf Connect

London Road, Newbury, RG14 2BS

BP, last updated on 30 September


142.9p Shell Newbury

Bath Road, Speen, Newbury, RG14 1QT

Shell, last updated on 29 September


146.9p A34 Shell Tothill Service Area

Newbury Bypass, Newbury, RG20 9BX

Shell, last updated on 25 September


Posted by: CBW137Y Oct 2 2013, 04:27 PM

I drove through Newbury and nearly lost control of the car as I passed the Shell garage in Speen! I filled up at my local garage before setting off at 140.9p per litre unleaded and rather wished I hadn't!! I could have saved myself some money angry.gif

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 2 2013, 06:00 PM

QUOTE (motormad @ Oct 2 2013, 04:48 PM) *
Claude verified it?

Basically any high performance engine will benefit from higher octane fuel.
TFSI engines (google how they work) especially so. You can get some annoying problems if you use 95RON constantly.

Like I said "(That is, someone in a normal car and not an MM super-car!) " blink.gif
Would anyone in say a Ford Fiesta (a normal one as most are without direct injection) notice?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 2 2013, 06:08 PM

Before I left Tesco, I wrote to the CEO and was threatened with disciplinary action. Hopefully Tesco will now keep prices at the same level as other local towns that have an ASDA. There is a huge investigation needed into price manipulation from TESCO, Sainsbury's and to a lesser extent Morrisons.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 2 2013, 06:35 PM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 2 2013, 07:08 PM) *
Before I left Tesco, I wrote to the CEO and was threatened with disciplinary action. Hopefully Tesco will now keep prices at the same level as other local towns that have an ASDA. There is a huge investigation needed into price manipulation from TESCO, Sainsbury's and to a lesser extent Morrisons.

what manipulation?

Sainsbury's dropped their prices & three days later Tesco matched them.

Posted by: user23 Oct 2 2013, 07:00 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 2 2013, 07:35 PM) *
what manipulation?

Sainsbury's dropped their prices & three days later Tesco matched them.
I wonder if there should be an investigation into local house prices too?

They seem a lot more than some other areas.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 2 2013, 09:22 PM

Richard, can you not find out why we supermarkets price things differently in different areas? That is to say, why are they lower in similarly sized towns else where? What is the driver, or threshold that effects the price?

Posted by: Jonno Oct 3 2013, 08:12 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Oct 2 2013, 07:00 PM) *
Like I said "(That is, someone in a normal car and not an MM super-car!) " blink.gif
Would anyone in say a Ford Fiesta (a normal one as most are without direct injection) notice?

The increased octane rating means the fuel can be used in a higher compression engine or with a high pressure turbo. The higher octane fuel does not 'self ignite' before the sparkplug fires - if it did detonate before the spark then it causes a knocking noise, excessive temperature and, normally, damage to the engine. Most engines in the UK are designed to work with a *minimum* octane rating of 95. Those engines will not see any benefit by using a higher octane rating. Engines designed to use a minimum of 98 will suffer either a damaged engine or a loss of performance if they use 95 octane. Some petrol companies try and convince you to buy the more expensive fuels by adding extra detergents but these are generally of very little benefit.

In summary - would anyone in a normal Ford Fiesta notice a difference(?) - no.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 3 2013, 08:45 AM

QUOTE (user23 @ Oct 2 2013, 08:00 PM) *
I wonder if there should be an investigation into local house prices too?

They seem a lot more than some other areas.

Local house prices are governed by completely different criteria to that of petrol prices.

Posted by: motormad Oct 3 2013, 09:19 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Oct 2 2013, 07:00 PM) *
Like I said "(That is, someone in a normal car and not an MM super-car!) " blink.gif
Would anyone in say a Ford Fiesta (a normal one as most are without direct injection) notice?


Generally no but it can help clean things within the fuel system. You would need to run through a few tanks to see if you notice anything.
Mine is not a super MM car, it's a normal Golf GTI.

Posted by: user23 Oct 3 2013, 04:36 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Oct 3 2013, 09:45 AM) *
Local house prices are governed by completely different criteria to that of petrol prices.
How is the local price of petrol governed?

Posted by: Nothing Much Oct 3 2013, 04:42 PM

Tax it until the pips squeak.
ce

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 3 2013, 05:04 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Oct 3 2013, 05:36 PM) *
How is the local price of petrol governed?

I think that is what we are trying to establish on here isn't it?
At the moment there seems no reason why it should be more expensive in Newbury apart from the fact that we are all awash with cash! tongue.gif

Posted by: user23 Oct 3 2013, 05:51 PM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Oct 3 2013, 06:04 PM) *
I think that is what we are trying to establish on here isn't it?
Then how can you say they're different factors if you're not sure what one set is?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 3 2013, 06:08 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Oct 3 2013, 06:51 PM) *
Then how can you say they're different factors if you're not sure what one set is?

The principles of buying and selling a house is similar to petrol, but I'd like to know how it works with petrol.

Do Tesco Newbury every morning get out their binoculars and see what Sainsury's are selling for, or is there some kind of lower sales threshold that has to be reached before they drop prices. If so, how does that compare to Swindon, for example.

Posted by: user23 Oct 3 2013, 06:27 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 3 2013, 07:08 PM) *
The principles of buying and selling a house is similar to petrol, but I'd like to know how it works with petrol.

Do Tesco Newbury every morning get out their binoculars and see what Sainsury's are selling for, or is there some kind of lower sales threshold that has to be reached before they drop prices. If so, how does that compare to Swindon, for example.
When you put your house on the market you see what other similar houses are selling for locally. Things like tax, relative wealth of the local population, where it's being sold and desirability of the larger area to live in all affect the price. House prices can go up and down depending on the market, but generally they go up.

I reckon it's the same for petrol.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 3 2013, 06:36 PM

QUOTE (user23 @ Oct 3 2013, 07:27 PM) *
When you put your house on the market you see what other similar houses are selling for locally. Things like tax, relative wealth of the local population, where it's being sold and desirability of the larger area to live in all affect the price. House prices can go up and down depending on the market, but generally they go up.

I reckon it's the same for petrol.

I know that, but I'm interested in what the actually figures are. What makes the price drop on a forecourt and how have they decided what the wealth of Newbury is, where's the borders? Presumably they have a sales figure to hit, whether in value or units.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 3 2013, 06:48 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 3 2013, 07:36 PM) *
I now that, I'm interested in what the actually figures are. What makes the price drop on a forecourt and how have they decided what the wealth of Newbury is, where's the borders? Presumably they have a sales figure to hit, whether in value or units.

I think you have a point. It's rather odd that the prices change, in effect, within moments equilibrium is restored.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 3 2013, 06:54 PM

For fun. I wonder if petrol pump prices are roughly in this order?

UK house prices April to June 2013

Windsor and Maidenhead Average house price £444,558
Detached £775,787
Semi-detached £382,174
Terrace £349,516
Flat £278,245
Annual change in house price -3.3%
Quarterly change -0.3%
Total number of sales: 459


Winchester Average house price £388,295
Detached £546,994
Semi-detached £351,597
Terrace £321,127
Flat £203,940
Annual change in house price +5.9%
Quarterly change +3.7%
Total number of sales: 411


South Oxfordshire Average house price £381,529
Detached £609,713
Semi-detached £310,172
Terrace £275,487
Flat £201,650
Annual change in house price +6.6%
Quarterly change +8.3%
Total number of sales: 482


West Berkshire Average house price £296,587
Detached £450,481
Semi-detached £266,098
Terrace £225,580
Flat £172,502
Annual change in house price -0.6%
Quarterly change -4.3%
Total number of sales: 592


Test Valley Average house price £281,243
Detached £422,293
Semi-detached £234,136
Terrace £195,085
Flat £134,855
Annual change in house price -0.9%
Quarterly change +1.1%
Total number of sales: 392


Basingstoke and Deane Average house price £258,528
Detached £411,902
Semi-detached £239,338
Terrace £189,033
Flat £137,849
Annual change in house price -0.3%
Quarterly change +7.2%
Total number of sales: 646


Reading Average house price £226,790
Detached £419,547
Semi-detached £276,894
Terrace £202,866
Flat £168,225
Annual change in house price -5.5%
Quarterly change -1.6%
Total number of sales: 612


Swindon - Average house price £168,824
Detached £257,796
Semi-detached £171,637
Terrace £134,772
Flat £102,508
Annual change in house price +0.7%
Quarterly change +0.8%
Total number of sales: 739

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 4 2013, 05:07 AM

QUOTE (user23 @ Oct 3 2013, 06:51 PM) *
Then how can you say they're different factors if you're not sure what one set is?

I'm sure, but it seems many on here aren't.
Surely you can see that the price of petrol is governed by many different factors to that of houses even if you are unsure why petrol should be more round here.
Take Andy's prices above. I was in Oxford last week and the price of fuel was less than Newbury.
Doesn't work does it?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 4 2013, 09:40 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Oct 4 2013, 06:07 AM) *
I'm sure, but it seems many on here aren't.
Surely you can see that the price of petrol is governed by many different factors to that of houses even if you are unsure why petrol should be more round here.
Take Andy's prices above. I was in Oxford last week and the price of fuel was less than Newbury.
Doesn't work does it?

+1 wink.gif

Posted by: motormad Oct 5 2013, 10:36 PM

I'm in Edinburgh at the moment and I cannae tell youz that petrol is 1.28 at Asda.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 6 2013, 08:29 AM

According to http://www.petrolprices.com/ there is a vast difference across the UK.
And we are nowhere near the top!! cool.gif

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 6 2013, 11:42 AM

QUOTE (Biker1 @ Oct 6 2013, 09:29 AM) *
According to http://www.petrolprices.com/ there is a vast difference across the UK.
And we are nowhere near the top!! cool.gif


Well I am sure they will soon rectify that as soon as they read this! rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 8 2013, 07:42 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 2 2013, 10:22 PM) *
Richard, can you not find out why we supermarkets price things differently in different areas? That is to say, why are they lower in similarly sized towns else where? What is the driver, or threshold that effects the price?


Tesco and Sainsbury's simply match the lowest price. ASDA pride themselves on being the cheapest on fuel / grocery prices and competitors will only ever match them where they have a store. The recent fuel price reductions were part of a move by all retailers to cut prices in line with supply costs which fell a few weeks ago. As fuel is bought in advance, it usually takes a few weeks for the savings to be passed on (if at all).

What you'll find is ASDA don't do fuel price gimmicks like "spend £50 to get 5p off", they just charge the cheapest price they can. Other retailers try to boost sales in store by offering the loyalty coupons.

I asked lots of questions of the CEO at TESCO and also Justin King at Sainsbury's, and let's say Phil Clarke wasn't best pleased!! To be fair to Sainsbury's, they basically said there wasn't a law against charging more when there was not a discounter in certain markets, and they are right. Until the government look at the price manipulation, they will carry on doing it.

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 8 2013, 07:47 PM

I see the price at Tesco has gone up 1p.......

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 8 2013, 07:50 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Oct 8 2013, 08:47 PM) *
I see the price at Tesco has gone up 1p.......


It will. When they drop like they did, it's usually in reaction to cuts by ASDA and Morrisons. If you look at the headlines in the Standard etc over the past few weeks, they typically read "ASDA to cut fuel by 3p" "Morrisons to follow ASDA on fuel price cut" and then there will be something about the others. Tesco and Sainsbury's always the last to lower prices, and shortly after they float slowly up. Wait until Xmas, and the bank holidays. Sainsbury's are renowned for putting 2p on the price of fuel for the bank holiday days, and then it drops again. Very, very strange.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 8 2013, 10:19 PM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 8 2013, 08:42 PM) *
I asked lots of questions of the CEO at TESCO and also Justin King at Sainsbury's, and let's say Phil Clarke wasn't best pleased!! To be fair to Sainsbury's, they basically said there wasn't a law against charging more when there was not a discounter in certain markets, and they are right. Until the government look at the price manipulation, they will carry on doing it.

In effect, you are saying there is a lack of local competition.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 9 2013, 11:00 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 8 2013, 11:19 PM) *
In effect, you are saying there is a lack of local competition.

No I think he is saying 'Can I have a job please ASDA'

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 9 2013, 11:24 AM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 8 2013, 08:42 PM) *
Until the government look at the price manipulation, they will carry on doing it.

You lose credibility talking about "price manipulation". This is just how the free-market works, and even if there isn't a "discounter" in Newbury the market is still perfectly free because there is plenty of competition and consumers are free to buy from where they choose, be that around Newbury or at the other end of any regular commute.

You vision of the government fixing this "price manipulation" shouts loud of the very worst kind of socialist big-state centralist meddling - very much like Red Ed's idea of fixing energy prices.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 9 2013, 11:26 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 9 2013, 12:24 PM) *
You lose credibility talking about "price manipulation". This is just how the free-market works, and even if there isn't a "discounter" in Newbury the market is still perfectly free because there is plenty of competition and consumers are free to buy from where they choose, be that around Newbury or at the other end of any regular commute.

You vision of the government fixing this "price manipulation" shouts loud of the very worst kind of socialist big-state centralist meddling - very much like Red Ed's idea of fixing energy prices.

Hear Hear!!

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 9 2013, 12:29 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 9 2013, 12:24 PM) *
You lose credibility talking about "price manipulation". This is just how the free-market works, and even if there isn't a "discounter" in Newbury the market is still perfectly free because there is plenty of competition and consumers are free to buy from where they choose, be that around Newbury or at the other end of any regular commute.

You vision of the government fixing this "price manipulation" shouts loud of the very worst kind of socialist big-state centralist meddling - very much like Red Ed's idea of fixing energy prices.

So 'free market' = best? What Newbury exemplifies is what happens when you have a postcode lottery.

The illusion of choice.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 9 2013, 12:30 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 9 2013, 12:00 PM) *
No I think he is saying 'Can I have a job please ASDA'

So I was right first time.

Posted by: newres Oct 9 2013, 03:28 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 9 2013, 12:24 PM) *
You lose credibility talking about "price manipulation". This is just how the free-market works, and even if there isn't a "discounter" in Newbury the market is still perfectly free because there is plenty of competition and consumers are free to buy from where they choose, be that around Newbury or at the other end of any regular commute.

You vision of the government fixing this "price manipulation" shouts loud of the very worst kind of socialist big-state centralist meddling - very much like Red Ed's idea of fixing energy prices.

I feel uneasy about a supermarket charging a different price for the same item in different parts of the country. They control our food right through the supply chain. It perhaps isn't manipulation, but it smacks of profiteering.

Incidentally, I don't think Ed Milliband was talking about fixing prices. More, he seemed to be implying tighter regulation. A good thing I think.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 9 2013, 03:48 PM

Due to the intrinsic value of fuel compared to, say, chocolate, I think they should be treated a little differently. The biggest enemy of fuel buyers, however, is the commodities market. Ultimately, the price of fuel is 'fixed'.

Posted by: The Hatter Oct 9 2013, 04:11 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Oct 9 2013, 04:28 PM) *
I feel uneasy about a supermarket charging a different price for the same item in different parts of the country. They control our food right through the supply chain. It perhaps isn't manipulation, but it smacks of profiteering.

Incidentally, I don't think Ed Milliband was talking about fixing prices. More, he seemed to be implying tighter regulation. A good thing I think.


The Regulator agreed that my season ticket should go up dread to think what they'd do to petrol prices.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 9 2013, 04:30 PM

The big four supermarkets have played an absolute blinder, they are an oligopoly. Probably one of the key reasons they've failed in the US. That's why it's such a good fit with retail oil.

Milliband's regulatory quest isn't likely to succeed if it's based on the British model - as the Hatter rightly points out, their record as customer champion isn't distinguished.

Our market trading model has to change so that participants see it as a marathon rather than a horse race. Until then, you won't see any change in behaviour.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 9 2013, 04:31 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Oct 9 2013, 04:28 PM) *
I feel uneasy about a supermarket charging a different price for the same item in different parts of the country. They control our food right through the supply chain. It perhaps isn't manipulation, but it smacks of profiteering.

If it was one single supermarket that controlled the whole market then that wouldn't be a free market and the lack of competition would be a problem, with higher prices and poor efficiency. As it is there are a number of independent supermarkets competing with each other and competing too against a range of smaller local players so it's as free as a market can be, and food is more or less cheaper now than it has ever been.

If a shop (be it supermarket, corner shop, farmers market, whatever) had cornered the supply of a scarce and desirable commodity and was taking advantage of the consumer's need and their monopoly of supply by selling the commodity at an inflated price then that would be profiteering, but simply charging a different price for an item in different locations is just good business nous, taking advantage of the regional differences in taste and affluence. You wouldn't expect independent retailers to charge the exact same price for the same item in different locations - why would they - so I don't see why you'd expect different branches of the same retailer to charge the same unless the retailer was so centralised and rigid that it's systems couldn't cope with regional differences, and I doubt any national that inflexible would last long outside of a socialist autocracy.

QUOTE (newres @ Oct 9 2013, 04:28 PM) *
Incidentally, I don't think Ed Milliband was talking about fixing prices. More, he seemed to be implying tighter regulation. A good thing I think.


Milliband is http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24396400 "For too long the companies have been able to over-charge people. Somebody's got to stand up and be counted. We're absolutely confident the companies can stomach this, can make this happen, and we're going to make this happen. That's why we'll freeze energy bills until the beginning of 2017 if we win the election. That will benefit 1.5 million businesses across our country, make a big difference to them."

Posted by: newres Oct 9 2013, 04:40 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 9 2013, 05:31 PM) *
If a shop (be it supermarket, corner shop, farmers market, whatever) had cornered the supply of a scarce and desirable commodity and was taking advantage of the consumer's need and their monopoly of supply by selling the commodity at an inflated price then that would be profiteering, but simply charging a different price for an item in different locations is just good business nous, taking advantage of the regional differences in taste and affluence. You wouldn't expect independent retailers to charge the exact same price for the same item in different locations - why would they - so I don't see why you'd expect different branches of the same retailer to charge the same unless the retailer was so centralised and rigid that it's systems couldn't cope with regional differences, and I doubt any national that inflexible would last long outside of a socialist autocracy.

"

But they don't charge different prices for anything else. Just fuel.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 9 2013, 04:45 PM

Big Ed's proposal would be quite easy to deliver, but be very careful what you wish for. Most of the big energy companies offer fixed term deals. They'd just make that compulsory. What happens at the end of the period? I think we know the answer!

I'm old enough to remember (just!) Darlin' Arold doing the same thing back in the 70s. Electricity prices were held down; but a 'fuel cost adjustment' was introduced to cover the 'very genuine increases in the price of coal at the pit'. Electricity didn't go up, prices were simply adjusted that way!

If we really want to bring prices down, do we know some like minded transport drivers?

Posted by: Nothing Much Oct 9 2013, 04:57 PM

do we know some like minded transport drivers?

French ones would do nicely.Every little helps.Grrp smile.gif
ce

Posted by: Nothing Much Oct 9 2013, 05:03 PM

As old folk may remember this was a good idea at the time... huh.gif
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=676WpTKtqLw.
Selective Employment Tax. Good auld Arold. KGB or not angry.gif
ce

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 9 2013, 05:17 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 9 2013, 05:31 PM) *
If a shop (be it supermarket, corner shop, farmers market, whatever) had cornered the supply of a scarce and desirable commodity and was taking advantage of the consumer's need and their monopoly of supply by selling the commodity at an inflated price then that would be profiteering, but simply charging a different price for an item in different locations is just good business nous, taking advantage of the regional differences in taste and affluence. You wouldn't expect independent retailers to charge the exact same price for the same item in different locations - why would they - so I don't see why you'd expect different branches of the same retailer to charge the same unless the retailer was so centralised and rigid that it's systems couldn't cope with regional differences, and I doubt any national that inflexible would last long outside of a socialist autocracy.

What is also true is that Newbury doesn't have all the outlets enjoyed by other towns, which means we don't quite have the choice you suggest.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 9 2013, 07:36 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 9 2013, 06:17 PM) *
What is also true is that Newbury doesn't have all the outlets enjoyed by other towns, which means we don't quite have the choice you suggest.

No, we have exactly the choice I suggest, but I think you're expecting too much from that choice. We have a range of fuel retailers in Newbury, both supermarket and traditional, and that along with the mobility of fuel customers creates a free market, so it follows that the price of fuel in Newbury is the free-market price and the more expensive retailers are still making enough sales at that price to remain profitable even though cheaper fuel is available in town, and cheaper still within a commute. If you want Newbury to have fuel as cheap as anywhere else then you're asking for more than a free-market can deliver.

It may well be true that if we had an Asda selling fuel that they'd sell it more cheaply than anywhere else which would bring the prices down across town.

Posted by: Exhausted Oct 9 2013, 07:39 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 9 2013, 08:36 PM) *
It may well be true that if we had an Asda selling fuel that they'd sell it more cheaply than anywhere else which would bring the prices down across town.


Perhaps they would, but why would they.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 9 2013, 07:42 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 9 2013, 08:36 PM) *
No, we have exactly the choice I suggest, but I think you're expecting too much from that choice. We have a range of fuel retailers in Newbury, both supermarket and traditional, and that along with the mobility of fuel customers creates a free market, so it follows that the price of fuel in Newbury is the free-market price and the more expensive retailers are still making enough sales at that price to remain profitable even though cheaper fuel is available in town, and cheaper still within a commute. If you want Newbury to have fuel as cheap as anywhere else then you're asking for more than a free-market can deliver.

It may well be true that if we had an Asda selling fuel that they'd sell it more cheaply than anywhere else which would bring the prices down across town.

Which was my point. We are not free to make the choice we would like and the absence of enterprises like Asda means we don't have the competition for best price that other towns enjoy. As for the free-market mantra, that carries no real guarantee of anything either, partly because it doesn't truly exist.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 9 2013, 08:28 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 9 2013, 08:42 PM) *
Which was my point. We are not free to make the choice we would like and the absence of enterprises like Asda means we don't have the competition for best price that other towns enjoy.

For sure, you don't have the option of buying cheap fuel at Asda, but you still have a choice between many independent fuel retailers so the price you pay is set by the market. If you don't like the price that the market sets then I can't help you because that's all a free market can guarantee. If the price of fuel is an issue then I think you should complain about fuel duty because that is a far more significant factor than the margin the retailer charges on a litre, but the state needs that money and if it isn't raised on fuel it'll have to come from somewhere else. Better still, complain about the size of the state, because if we didn't have to support such an over-bloated state apparatus you could have your cheaper fuel.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 9 2013, 08:43 PM

QUOTE (Exhausted @ Oct 9 2013, 08:39 PM) *
Perhaps they would, but why would they.

Asda are running a campaign right now to be the cheapest petrol retailer. Why? Their marketing people doubtless believe that this will make the grocery punters think their grocery prices are cheapest too and they will therefore flock to their store.

Basic supermarketing, there are only a few commodities we know the price of, keep theses low and the punter thinks you are giving good value.

BUT because the competition will generally follow suit AND they have to make money and generally pay the same wholesale price, they can only do this for short periods unless they are willing to take a hit on profits, or other overheads like wages......

So, today, Asda in your area is an advantage, but tomorrow?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 9 2013, 11:01 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 9 2013, 09:28 PM) *
For sure, you don't have the option of buying cheap fuel at Asda, but you still have a choice between many independent fuel retailers so the price you pay is set by the market. If you don't like the price that the market sets then I can't help you because that's all a free market can guarantee.

So we have identified a problem with free-market economies: they can fail to encourage (aggressive) competition and therefore reduce pressure to push down prices?

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 9 2013, 09:28 PM) *
If the price of fuel is an issue then I think you should complain about fuel duty because that is a far more significant factor than the margin the retailer charges on a litre, but the state needs that money and if it isn't raised on fuel it'll have to come from somewhere else. Better still, complain about the size of the state, because if we didn't have to support such an over-bloated state apparatus you could have your cheaper fuel.

Where have I complained about the price (petrol is about 5% of my liabilities), it's the lack of proper competition I dislike? Asda, for example, still pay the same duty as Tesco, so the tax yield per unit would be similar, so the state get their money.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 10 2013, 07:06 AM

Free markets don't necessarily mean lowest price, they mean best price. In the case of Asda, arguably they are undercutting the local market price for short term advantage. You can still take up their offer; no one is stopping you - just drive there, move or get a stake in a local outlet; answer is in your hands, so its a free market.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 10 2013, 11:22 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Oct 10 2013, 08:06 AM) *
Free markets don't necessarily mean lowest price, they mean best price. In the case of Asda, arguably they are undercutting the local market price for short term advantage. You can still take up their offer; no one is stopping you - just drive there, move or get a stake in a local outlet; answer is in your hands, so its a free market.

I know it is a (semi) free market, but that isn't my point. My point is that Newbury doesn't have the competition other towns enjoy. If Asda undercut to their own detriment, than in free market that is there choice and it is them that will pay. But none of what you and Simon says removes the fact that Tesco et al. are able to capitalise on a less than completely competitive local market.

Of course, the flip side to this is perhaps higher fuel has benefits too. Perhaps we have less congestion because of it, but even then, that doesn't negate my original point.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 10 2013, 03:14 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 10 2013, 12:22 PM) *
I know it is a (semi) free market, but that isn't my point. My point is that Newbury doesn't have the competition other towns enjoy. If Asda undercut to their own detriment, than in free market that is there choice and it is them that will pay. But none of what you and Simon says removes the fact that Tesco et al. are able to capitalise on a less than completely competitive local market.

The free-market price isn't necessarily the cheapest price possible. More competition will generally give you a cheaper price, and with an Asda in town you might well get cheaper fuel, but the existing fuel market is already completely competitive because there are enough independent retailers in town and the consumer is mobile and able to buy out of the district too.

With an Asda in town yoou may well get cheaper fuel, but as OtE has said you might very well not see any change in the aggregate basket price because Asda, just like the current supermarkets, don't look at product lines in isolation, rather they look at a basket of lines and price those lines to optimise the profit on the basket as a whole. Different retailers do it differently, so Asda may well discount their fuel in order to get you into their shop where they'll hope to recoup the discount without you noticing.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 10 2013, 03:40 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 10 2013, 04:14 PM) *
The free-market price isn't necessarily the cheapest price possible. More competition will generally give you a cheaper price, and with an Asda in town you might well get cheaper fuel, but the existing fuel market is already completely competitive because there are enough independent retailers in town and the consumer is mobile and able to buy out of the district too.

No fuel discounter means we don't have a completely competitive environment. Independents do not bring down the cost of fuel to the end user, they are the 'cornershop' suppliers and tend to charge more for their convenience than supermarkets.

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 10 2013, 04:14 PM) *
With an Asda in town yoou may well get cheaper fuel, but as OtE has said you might very well not see any change in the aggregate basket price because Asda, just like the current supermarkets, don't look at product lines in isolation, rather they look at a basket of lines and price those lines to optimise the profit on the basket as a whole. Different retailers do it differently, so Asda may well discount their fuel in order to get you into their shop where they'll hope to recoup the discount without you noticing.

If that is true, perhaps you have some examples? However, if we had an Asda I could stop off there on my way to a cheaper shop for my groceries.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 10 2013, 04:03 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 10 2013, 04:40 PM) *
No fuel discounter means we don't have a completely competitive environment. Independents do not bring down the cost of fuel to the end user, they are the 'cornershop' suppliers and tend to charge more for their convenience than supermarkets.

Your complaint starts from the position that fuel should be cheaper, but that's wrong. The starting position is that in a free market the market sets the price, and as long as there are independent retailers who are not colluding on price then the market is free and whatever price the market sets, that's the free-market price. You might like the price to be lower than that, and with a different mix of retailers the price may well be lower as it would appear to be in other towns, but that doesn't make Newbury's fuel price a rip-off, it just means Newbury is willing t pay for for its fuel than elsewhere.

Posted by: newres Oct 10 2013, 04:42 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 10 2013, 05:03 PM) *
Your complaint starts from the position that fuel should be cheaper, but that's wrong. The starting position is that in a free market the market sets the price, and as long as there are independent retailers who are not colluding on price then the market is free and whatever price the market sets, that's the free-market price. You might like the price to be lower than that, and with a different mix of retailers the price may well be lower as it would appear to be in other towns, but that doesn't make Newbury's fuel price a rip-off, it just means Newbury is willing t pay for for its fuel than elsewhere.

Certain goods need strict monitoring because sometimes the free market doesn't work. Without regulation, things go awry. A totally free market is as mad as total state control.

Posted by: Andy1 Oct 10 2013, 05:02 PM

Surely the duty is the rip off and then paying more tax on top.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 10 2013, 05:14 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Oct 10 2013, 05:42 PM) *
Certain goods need strict monitoring because sometimes the free market doesn't work. Without regulation, things go awry. A totally free market is as mad as total state control.

Err, could you explain that one?

Posted by: newres Oct 10 2013, 05:28 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 10 2013, 06:14 PM) *
Err, could you explain that one?

Err, credit crunch.


Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 10 2013, 05:32 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 10 2013, 05:03 PM) *
Your complaint starts from the position that fuel should be cheaper

No. My position starts from wondering why we pay more than some places elsewhere. It seems we pay more because the local outlets don't price aggressively, and this is because we don't have anyone preprepared to do that. Other towns have outlets that do price aggressively, and these towns have outlets that Newbury doesn't.

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 10 2013, 05:03 PM) *
but that's wrong.

I agree, but you are creating an straw-man argument.

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 10 2013, 05:03 PM) *
The starting position is that in a free market the market sets the price, and as long as there are independent retailers who are not colluding on price then the market is free and whatever price the market sets, that's the free-market price. You might like the price to be lower than that, and with a different mix of retailers the price may well be lower as it would appear to be in other towns, but that doesn't make Newbury's fuel price a rip-off, it just means Newbury is willing t pay for for its fuel than elsewhere.

OR Newbury lacks competition to push prices down.

I am not saying we SHOULD have cheaper fuel.
I am not saying cheaper fuel is only a good thing.
I am not saying that our shopping basket is made more expensive for having more expensive fuel.

It is true that fuel in supermarkets like Asda might be a form of 'loss leader', but that doesn't negate my simple point: We don't have a fuel discounter in town, it would seem because of that, we pay more than adjacent towns.

Now, if you wish to promote the idea that while we pay a bit more for our fuel, our groceries might be cheaper, then lets see some examples. It is a plausible idea.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 10 2013, 05:34 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 10 2013, 06:14 PM) *
Err, could you explain that one?

Banking.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 10 2013, 05:55 PM

QUOTE (newres @ Oct 10 2013, 06:28 PM) *
Err, credit crunch.

What has lending money to people who shouldn't have been lent to got to do with a free market economy?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 10 2013, 06:15 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 10 2013, 06:55 PM) *
What has lending money to people who shouldn't have been lent to got to do with a free market economy?

The market was free to do it.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 10 2013, 06:19 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 10 2013, 07:15 PM) *
The market was free to do it.

but not free enought to sustain it.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 10 2013, 06:20 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 10 2013, 06:32 PM) *
Now, if you wish to promote the idea that while we pay a bit more for our fuel, our groceries might be cheaper, then lets see some examples. It is a plausible idea.

http://www.which.co.uk/home-and-garden/leisure/guides/food-and-grocery-prices-what-you-need-to-know/supermarket-prices-compared/. A quick look suggests that Asda just charge less for the groceries. To be honest I have no idea whether Asda charge less for their fuel or not, I've simply taken what Richard said to be true, so if Asda do indeed charge less for their fuel while at the same time charging less for their groceries then, if the quality is the same, that sounds like a good deal for the consumer.

Posted by: newres Oct 10 2013, 06:27 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 10 2013, 06:55 PM) *
What has lending money to people who shouldn't have been lent to got to do with a free market economy?

That is either simplistic and ignorant view or you are trolling and doesn't deserve an answer.

Posted by: newres Oct 10 2013, 06:30 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 10 2013, 07:20 PM) *
http://www.which.co.uk/home-and-garden/leisure/guides/food-and-grocery-prices-what-you-need-to-know/supermarket-prices-compared/. A quick look suggests that Asda just charge less for the groceries. To be honest I have no idea whether Asda charge less for their fuel or not, I've simply taken what Richard said to be true, so if Asda do indeed charge less for their fuel while at the same time charging less for their groceries then, if the quality is the same, that sounds like a good deal for the consumer.

Not necessarily for the producer though. Google Vlasic pickles if you don't know about it. Symptomatic of Walmart's way of doing business.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 10 2013, 06:34 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 10 2013, 07:20 PM) *
http://www.which.co.uk/home-and-garden/leisure/guides/food-and-grocery-prices-what-you-need-to-know/supermarket-prices-compared/. A quick look suggests that Asda just charge less for the groceries. To be honest I have no idea whether Asda charge less for their fuel or not, I've simply taken what Richard said to be true, so if Asda do indeed charge less for their fuel while at the same time charging less for their groceries then, if the quality is the same, that sounds like a good deal for the consumer.

That is a good point. Often things aren't necessarily like for like. While Asda and similar places are very keen on price, you have to wonder why. What do they do that makes things cheaper. Is quality compromised; who is paying for this discount. So while we squabble about the finer details of the economic environment, I think we both realise that there's no such thing as a free lunch, notwithstanding that these places have taught us to devalue good food.


However, where were we...? huh.gif

Posted by: On the edge Oct 10 2013, 06:35 PM

In banking, arguably the market worked. What went wrong was unlawful action by some participants - who were subsequently prosecuted. Regulation was in place, but as is the experience in other places they exist, it didn't work.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 10 2013, 06:36 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 10 2013, 07:19 PM) *
but not free enought to sustain it.

Exactly, hence the OP's point.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 10 2013, 06:37 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Oct 10 2013, 07:35 PM) *
In banking, arguably the market worked. What went wrong was unlawful action by some participants - who were subsequently prosecuted. Regulation was in place, but as is the experience in other places they exist, it didn't work.

Yes, but it serves to illustrate why we might need regulation, so the point still stands I think. A completely free market has no conscience.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 10 2013, 06:43 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 10 2013, 07:36 PM) *
Exactly, hence the OP's point.

No what was needed was less regulation. The market wasn't free enough.

Posted by: The Hatter Oct 10 2013, 06:44 PM

Does anyone know the actual difference between filling up in Newbury rather than Reading? I don't do a massive mileage but for me it would't be much extra. Then again, I'm paying over the odds for a train season.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 10 2013, 06:44 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 10 2013, 07:43 PM) *
No what was needed was less regulation. The market wasn't free enough.

Cobblers. What was and is needed, was effective regulation.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 10 2013, 06:45 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 10 2013, 07:34 PM) *
That is a good point. Often things aren't necessarily like for like. While Asda and similar places are very keen on price, you have to wonder why. What do they do that makes things cheaper. Is quality compromised; who is paying for this discount. So while we squabble about the finer details of the economic environment, I think we both realise that there's no such thing as a free lunch, notwithstanding that these places have taught us to devalue good food.


However, where were we...? huh.gif

About to tuck in to a Smart Price tv diner for one?

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 10 2013, 06:46 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 10 2013, 07:44 PM) *
Cobblers. What was and is needed, was effective regulation.

Cobblers to you too.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 10 2013, 06:46 PM

QUOTE (The Hatter @ Oct 10 2013, 07:44 PM) *
Does anyone know the actual difference between filling up in Newbury rather than Reading? I don't do a massive mileage but for me it would't be much extra. Then again, I'm paying over the odds for a train season.

From empty to full on a 40L tank is 40 x ~5p. About £2.00.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 10 2013, 06:46 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 10 2013, 07:45 PM) *
About to tuck in to a Smart Price tv diner for one?

laugh.gif The equestrian special tonight then!

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 10 2013, 06:47 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 10 2013, 07:46 PM) *
laugh.gif The equestrian special tonight then!

Dolphin Friendly mind......

Posted by: The Hatter Oct 10 2013, 06:48 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 10 2013, 07:37 PM) *
Yes, but it serves to illustrate why we might need regulation, so the point still stands I think. A completely free market has no conscience.


Your last comment is right but why should it? Put it this way, have you ever turned down a pay rise or a bonus?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 10 2013, 06:51 PM

QUOTE (The Hatter @ Oct 10 2013, 07:48 PM) *
Your last comment is right but why should it? Put it this way, have you ever turned down a pay rise or a bonus?

In actual fact no, but I would defiantly be mindful of pricing myself out of the market if I was at the top of my pay scale. The more you earn, the more reason to find a cheaper alternative.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 10 2013, 06:59 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 10 2013, 07:19 PM) *
but not free enought to sustain it.

Or rather the market wasn't free enough to let it fail.

I agree with the point newres makes. The essential failing was that a lack of regulation made banking failure a possibility as it appears that banks had lent their depositors' money without telling their depositors that their investments were at risk if the wheels fell off, and it appears that they used their depositors' money to buy magic beans on the way to the market. In any other enterprise that would be fraud, and anti-fraud legislation is indeed a market regulation.

Without the regulation to prevent the banks fraudulently lending money the free market was not allowed to balance the banks' enthusiasm for exotic investments against the banks' depositors' aversion to risk.

I don't necessarily agree that there should be regulation to limit how much a consumer should be allowed to borrow as a multiple of their salary, but I would expect a bank to decide for itself on a modest multiple which balances the profit to be made on the loan against the risk of default, and that balance would be influenced by the risk that the bank's deposit customers whose money the banks are lending were willing to accept. There is the problem that the deposit customers are likely to accept much higher risk when the borrowers are not actually defaulting and cry like babies when they lose their deposits having allowed the bank to lend their money recklessly, but that's their choice so what the hey. As long as banks are up front about the risk there will always be a range of risk, so the risk-averse can put their savings somewhere safe.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 10 2013, 08:16 PM

regulation meant that the banks were on a win win.

if it had been a completely free system they'd never have gambled like they did. but knowing that the tax payer wouold pick up the tab, it was & is business usual.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 10 2013, 09:47 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 10 2013, 09:16 PM) *
regulation meant that the banks were on a win win. if it had been a completely free system they'd never have gambled like they did. but knowing that the tax payer wouold pick up the tab, it was & is business usual.

As regulation was rolled back, banking risks increased. Having the wrong regulation isn't proof that regulation is not required. Regulation didn't bail the banks out, government policy did.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 10 2013, 11:04 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 10 2013, 10:47 PM) *
As regulation was rolled back, banking risks increased. Having the wrong regulation isn't proof that regulation is not required. Regulation didn't bail the banks out, government policy did.

and who puts the regulation in place?

Trebles all round.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 11 2013, 12:12 AM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 11 2013, 12:04 AM) *
and who puts the regulation in place?

What has that got to do with anything, especially the price difference in petrol compared to other neighbouring towns?

Posted by: motormad Oct 11 2013, 07:14 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 10 2013, 07:59 PM) *
I don't necessarily agree that there should be regulation to limit how much a consumer should be allowed to borrow as a multiple of their salary, but I would expect a bank to decide for itself on a modest multiple which balances the profit to be made on the loan against the risk of default, and that balance would be influenced by the risk that the bank's deposit customers whose money the banks are lending were willing to accept.



The whole banking thing anyway is a moot point.

People will borrow and then blame the bank for being unable to pay it back.. oh the interest it too high, they scream. I can't afford the monthly repayments, they moan.

Surely they are aware of these things, and need to take responsibility?

Just like people moaning about mobile betting apps.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 11 2013, 07:24 AM

If the price of petrol is too high locally, there are other alternatives. This fuel issue doesn't seem to make the local press, so I guess most people don't see it as a massive issue. That means those who are significantly disadvantaged need some alternatives themselves. If you work in a place that is only accessible by car, how about suggesting they implement a green policy so staff can get there by other means. Most good employers do this anyway. There is also a range of electric cars where fuel cost would be very low.

Posted by: Mr Brown Oct 11 2013, 07:31 AM

That's quite a neat idea. We have a town centre office, near station and bus stops. One of our people joined us, even though she took a slight drop in pay, simply because her last employer had an office just outside Newbury. Beautiful location, but the busses only ran in the afternoon! She doesn't drive so getting to work was a nightmare.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 11 2013, 09:31 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Oct 11 2013, 08:24 AM) *
If the price of petrol is too high locally, there are other alternatives. This fuel issue doesn't seem to make the local press, so I guess most people don't see it as a massive issue. That means those who are significantly disadvantaged need some alternatives themselves. If you work in a place that is only accessible by car, how about suggesting they implement a green policy so staff can get there by other means. Most good employers do this anyway. There is also a range of electric cars where fuel cost would be very low.

The price of petrol is high compared to a few years ago, but the discussion is about the apparent disparity rather than the actual cost. I think most people can figure out that if you can't or won't afford something, then they need to seek alternatives, that is just common sense and a fact of life.

People strive for independence, so unless the discount is significant, or an overwhelmingly more practical idea, many people will just struggle on.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 11 2013, 09:34 AM

QUOTE (motormad @ Oct 11 2013, 08:14 AM) *
The whole banking thing anyway is a moot point.

People will borrow and then blame the bank for being unable to pay it back.. oh the interest it too high, they scream. I can't afford the monthly repayments, they moan.

Surely they are aware of these things, and need to take responsibility?

Just like people moaning about mobile betting apps.

This is why you need guidelines or regulation: to protect others from peoples profligacy. It is all very well say it is their fault, but those people are impacting on sensible people too.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 11 2013, 11:17 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 11 2013, 01:12 AM) *
What has that got to do with anything, especially the price difference in petrol compared to other neighbouring towns?


Because Newbury is a relatively affluent town. The few pennies extra we pay makes up for the lower prices charged in less well off towns.


Beer in pubs isn't the same price across the country too.

Whetherspoons for instance.

Regulate them too.

Posted by: motormad Oct 11 2013, 12:09 PM

£2 for a pint in Scotland I saw! laugh.gif

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 11 2013, 12:16 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 11 2013, 12:17 PM) *
Because Newbury is a relatively affluent town. The few pennies extra we pay makes up for the lower prices charged in less well off towns.

We are told the main reason is that Newbury doesn't have a fuel discounter. It has been argued that regional variances in fuel costs are not necessarily closely tied to average wealth.

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 11 2013, 12:17 PM) *
Beer in pubs isn't the same price across the country too.

That is easily more explained, but the big variations in cost to sell. that sis believe not to be such an issue in this region.

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 11 2013, 12:17 PM) *
Whetherspoons for instance. Regulate them too.

rolleyes.gif

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 11 2013, 12:21 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 11 2013, 01:16 PM) *
We are told the main reason is that Newbury doesn't have a fuel discounter. It has been argued that regional variances in fuel costs are not necessarily closely tied to average wealth.


That is easily more explained, but the big variations in cost to sell. that sis believe not to be such an issue in this region.


rolleyes.gif

Why is the cost to sell in flogging beer any different to flogging fuel?

I'd be willing to bet that if Asda did move into Newbury, we'd see no change.

Remember when Walmart bought the entire chain? Everyone was gleefully expecting pricing in libne with that in the USA. What did we get - nothing.

Posted by: Jonno Oct 11 2013, 01:13 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 11 2013, 01:21 PM) *
I'd be willing to bet that if Asda did move into Newbury, we'd see no change.

ASDA advertise that they have a single national fuel pricing policy, so we would see a sustained drop in price. This was seen at 127.8p yesterday.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 11 2013, 01:28 PM

QUOTE (Jonno @ Oct 11 2013, 02:13 PM) *
ASDA advertise that they have a single national fuel pricing policy, so we would see a sustained drop in price. This was seen at 127.8p yesterday.



I think you mean 1.287.

With Sainsbury currently 1.299 I doubt they'd bother to match it. Tesco haven't matched Sainsbury & are still at £1.309



Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 11 2013, 01:47 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 11 2013, 01:21 PM) *
Why is the cost to sell in flogging beer any different to flogging fuel?

Fuel stations pretty much offer the the same facilities whereever you go; with beer, the 'landlord' may, or may not invest more in the business than a filling station. This might be entertainment, facilities, more exclusive products, wider variation in local rental price (rent tending to be more expensive in the town centre than the suburbs where you are more likely to find filling stations).

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 11 2013, 01:21 PM) *
I'd be willing to bet that if Asda did move into Newbury, we'd see no change.

That is an easy bet to make under the current circumstances.

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 11 2013, 01:21 PM) *
Remember when Walmart bought the entire chain? Everyone was gleefully expecting pricing in libne with that in the USA. What did we get - nothing.

rolleyes.gif

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 11 2013, 01:51 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 11 2013, 02:47 PM) *
Fuel stations are pretty much offer the the same where ever you go; with beer, the 'landlord' will invest more in the environment than a filling station. This might be entertainment, facilities, more exclusive products, wider variation in local rental price (rent tending to be more expensive in the town centre than the suburbs where you are more likely to find filling stations).


That is an easy bet to make under the current circumstances.


rolleyes.gif

So beer in a town centre pub, that is clean & well furnished, with a wide & changing range of beers & exclusive offers is going to be more expensive than an out of town pub that is tied to a chain & never has a guest beer?

Posted by: On the edge Oct 11 2013, 01:55 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 11 2013, 10:31 AM) *
The price of petrol is high compared to a few years ago, but the discussion is about the apparent disparity rather than the actual cost. I think most people can figure out that if you can't or won't afford something, then they need to seek alternatives, that is just common sense and a fact of life.

People strive for independence, so unless the discount is significant, or an overwhelmingly more practical idea, many people will just struggle on.


There you go! Most people don't see this as an important problem. The argument is about fractions of a penny after all. Using public transport makes you no less independent, after all as a car driver you are at the mercy of the fuel companies and the maintenance firms. If a train breaks down with serious mechanical problems, there is likely to be another. All the time we live in a capitalist democracy you are likely to see difference. If it were all the same, you'd likely have to fill your Trabant at the State fuel station.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 11 2013, 01:56 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 11 2013, 02:51 PM) *
So beer in a town centre pub, that is clean & well furnished, with a wide & changing range of beers & exclusive offers is going to be more expensive than an out of town pub that is tied to a chain & never has a guest beer?

huh.gif WTFAYOA?

My point is quite simply that with selling beer, there can be more reasons for why beer has a wider price variation than filling stations.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 11 2013, 01:57 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 11 2013, 02:47 PM) *
Fuel stations pretty much offer the the same facilities whereever you go; with beer, the 'landlord' may, or may not invest more in the business than a filling station. This might be entertainment, facilities, more exclusive products, wider variation in local rental price (rent tending to be more expensive in the town centre than the suburbs where you are more likely to find filling stations).


That is an easy bet to make under the current circumstances.


rolleyes.gif

it is an easy bet.

Sainsbury's are only 1.2p a litre off Asda's prices. On a 60 litre fill up that's £0.72. The calls for 'Newbury needs a fuel discounter now' are unfounded. I say there would be no change. ( other than being able to buy George clothing of course ).

Posted by: On the edge Oct 11 2013, 01:58 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 11 2013, 02:56 PM) *
huh.gif WTFAYOA?

My point is quite simply that with selling beer, there can be more reasons for why beer has a wider price variation than filling stations.

I must admit, I couldn't see any other reasons as to why beer has wider variations either.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 11 2013, 01:59 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 11 2013, 02:56 PM) *
huh.gif WTFAYOA?

My point is quite simply that with selling beer, there can be more reasons for why beer has a wider price variation than filling stations.



There could be more reasons, but thats isn't actually borne out. Fullers charge what they do in Newbury simply because they know that can get away with it.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 11 2013, 02:03 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Oct 11 2013, 02:55 PM) *
The argument is about fractions of a penny after all.

It can be a matter of only a fraction of a pence, but it can be much wider too.

QUOTE (On the edge @ Oct 11 2013, 02:55 PM) *
Using public transport makes you no less independent, after all as a car driver you are at the mercy of the fuel companies and the maintenance firms.

You don't live in Newbury, do you? Public transport in London is a viable option, but not necessarily in towns like Newbury; as we all have gas-guzzling 4x4s, public transport is rather patchy! tongue.gif

QUOTE (On the edge @ Oct 11 2013, 02:55 PM) *
If a train breaks down with serious mechanical problems, there is likely to be another. All the time we live in a capitalist democracy you are likely to see difference. If it were all the same, you'd likely have to fill your Trabant at the State fuel station.

Sorry, I don't really see the point you are trying to make. huh.gif

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 11 2013, 02:04 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 11 2013, 02:59 PM) *
There could be more reasons, but thats isn't actually borne out. Fullers charge what they do in Newbury simply because they know that can get away with it.

Yes, like Tesco et al. with their fuel. IN other towns with a more competitive supplier base, they wouldn't .. maybe?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 11 2013, 02:06 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 11 2013, 02:57 PM) *
it is an easy bet.

Sainsbury's are only 1.2p a litre off Asda's prices. On a 60 litre fill up that's £0.72. The calls for 'Newbury needs a fuel discounter now' are unfounded. I say there would be no change. ( other than being able to buy George clothing of course ).

You arguments are getting more and more churlish. This is the case today, but the gap has been much wider too. Perhaps the fuel barons in their ivory supermarket towers have been reading this thread! tongue.gif

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 11 2013, 02:11 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Oct 11 2013, 02:58 PM) *
I must admit, I couldn't see any other reasons as to why beer has wider variations either.

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 11 2013, 02:47 PM) *
Fuel stations pretty much offer the the same facilities whereever you go; with beer, the 'landlord' may, or may not invest more in the business than a filling station. This might be entertainment, facilities, more exclusive products, wider variation in local rental price (rent tending to be more expensive in the town centre than the suburbs where you are more likely to find filling stations).

And some landlords might make their prices more expensive to simply repel the 'undesirables'. I doubt filling stations care who they serve so long as they pay. Comparing the two industries is daft and I'm surprised you and 'dannyrandompost' would even use the two as examples.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 11 2013, 02:16 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 11 2013, 03:06 PM) *
You arguments are getting more and more churlish. This is the case today, but the gap has been much wider too. Perhaps the fuel barons in their ivory supermarket towers have been reading this thread! tongue.gif

Churlish? I thought that was a pre-requsite of this forum.


Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 11 2013, 02:19 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 11 2013, 03:16 PM) *
Churlish? I thought that was a pre-requsite of this forum.

That explains a lot! tongue.gif

What I mean is, you are not a daft person, but some of your arguments are intellectually of a lower standard than I would expect from you! wink.gif

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 11 2013, 02:20 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 11 2013, 03:04 PM) *
Yes, like Tesco et al. with their fuel. IN other towns with a more competitive supplier base, they wouldn't .. maybe?

I don't believe that either Tesco or Sainsbury would match Asda if there was one in Newbury.


Posted by: dannyboy Oct 11 2013, 02:21 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 11 2013, 03:19 PM) *
That explains a lot! tongue.gif

What I mean is, you are not a daft person, but some of your arguments are intellectually of a lower standard than I would expect from you! wink.gif

Look I started my new job with Tesco yesterday & I'm having to actually cioncentrate for a change.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 11 2013, 02:59 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 11 2013, 03:21 PM) *
Look I started my new job with Tesco yesterday & I'm having to actually cioncentrate for a change.

Good point!

Posted by: On the edge Oct 11 2013, 04:09 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 11 2013, 03:21 PM) *
Look I started my new job with Tesco yesterday & I'm having to actually cioncentrate for a change.

Does that mean I won't see you at the job centre next week?

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 11 2013, 04:12 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Oct 11 2013, 05:09 PM) *
Does that mean I won't see you at the job centre next week?

So long as I can remember to get up each morning & don't get sacked - I'm afraid I won't.


Posted by: On the edge Oct 11 2013, 04:16 PM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 11 2013, 03:11 PM) *
And some landlords might make their prices more expensive to simply repel the 'undesirables'. I doubt filling stations care who they serve so long as they pay. Comparing the two industries is daft and I'm surprised you and 'dannyrandompost' would even use the two as examples.


Strange as it might be, in some rural areas, garages have a similar pricing policy. One I'm very familiar with in North Scotland charges an exorbitant rate for passing trade, simply because he needs to conserve supplies for locals.

The comparison is a good one, if you look at it in simple market / product terms. A brand of keg beer is an undifferentiated product, just like a brand of petrol. Whatever pub it gets sold in makes no real difference. So the question is the same - why significant differences between towns.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 11 2013, 10:57 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Oct 11 2013, 05:16 PM) *
Strange as it might be, in some rural areas, garages have a similar pricing policy. One I'm very familiar with in North Scotland charges an exorbitant rate for passing trade, simply because he needs to conserve supplies for locals.

The comparison is a good one, if you look at it in simple market / product terms. A brand of keg beer is an undifferentiated product, just like a brand of petrol. Whatever pub it gets sold in makes no real difference. So the question is the same - why significant differences between towns.

How does this point relate to the differentiation in Newbury petrol (or any other automotive fuel) prices with adjacent towns? Is discrimination likely to be a reason for a difference in price for fuel in Newbury and Swindon? I doubt it, and this is one reason why I think the beer analogy is specious.

In any case, your assertion that "A brand of keg beer is an undifferentiated product" is not true. There are a number of reasons why beer can be a different price without it simply being about supply and demand.

So! If we are to continue with this squabble, can you produce any proof that the price of fuel in Newbury would be no more competitive if we had a recognise fuel discounter in town? If not, I have nothing more worthwhile to add to this argument.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 12 2013, 07:16 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 11 2013, 11:57 PM) *
How does this point relate to the differentiation in Newbury petrol (or any other automotive fuel) prices with adjacent towns? Is discrimination likely to be a reason for a difference in price for fuel in Newbury and Swindon? I doubt it, and this is one reason why I think the beer analogy is specious.

In any case, your assertion that "A brand of keg beer is an undifferentiated product" is not true. There are a number of reasons why beer can be a different price without it simply being about supply and demand.

So! If we are to continue with this squabble, can you produce any proof that the price of fuel in Newbury would be no more competitive if we had a recognise fuel discounter in town? If not, I have nothing more worthwhile to add to this argument.


Beer does not change in taste or quality because the price changes. There is no difference between the beer in Pub A who charge £y per pint or Pub B who charge £x - hence undifferentiated. Of course, if another player comes on the scene and charges less, the effect will be to drive prices down. Weatherspoon being a good example. However, when the started trading not all the local pubs changed their price.

So, I'd wholly agree, at this moment in time, with Asda in the district you would be able to get cheap petrol, that does not necessarily mean the other providers would follow suit. With rock bottom prices, there will be an effect on profit, so in many circumstances the other players may well be quite content to let the discounter take the loss, which could, of course, eventually drive them out of business.

As for Regulation, I think you'll find this is how the UK's existing industry regulators see a market working - so they wouldn't do anything to hinder what is happening now.

In fact, in the electricity industry, the 'big 6' all charge near enough the same price and are significantly increasing them. As the Regulator can do nothing about that (not being a Russian Gas provider) they are trying to grow some more competition - but only by removing a new entrant's obligation to pay the green levies. In other words, giving some players a subsidy.



Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 12 2013, 09:32 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Oct 12 2013, 08:16 AM) *
Beer does not change in taste or quality because the price changes.

That isn't strictly true, although I'd reverse the logic: the more one charges, the greater expectation that beer is well kept and served in a nicer or more impressive environment; hence price differentiation.

QUOTE (On the edge @ Oct 12 2013, 08:16 AM) *
There is no difference between the beer in Pub A who charge £y per pint or Pub B who charge £x - hence undifferentiated.

But there is a difference between beer1a and beer1b, notwithstanding all the other reasons I have listed as to why it is quite understandable that pubs will charge different prices.

QUOTE (On the edge @ Oct 12 2013, 08:16 AM) *
Of course, if another player comes on the scene and charges less, the effect will be to drive prices down. Weatherspoon being a good example. However, when the started trading not all the local pubs changed their price.

But the choice was there to decide. Unlike fuel prices in Newbury. Not only that, but the price of drinks is of less importance to customers when deciding where to go for a beer, than for customers deciding where to buy petrol, although I know there are limits. Some people fear using supermarket fuel due to its presumed quality.

Your argument would carry more weight if you were to compare filling stations with off-licence sales, as that is a more like for like comparison; however, I understand alcohol in the local supermarkets is very aggressively priced by most, and the ones that don't perhaps have a more 'esoteric' stock, or are more particular about who shops in their emporium! tongue.gif

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 12 2013, 09:44 AM

QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Oct 12 2013, 10:32 AM) *
That isn't strictly true, although I'd reverse the logic: the more one charges, the greater expectation that beer is well kept buy a better cellarman, and served in a nicer, or more impressive environment; hence price differentiation.

I agree. The same beer does taste different in different pubs which must be down to how well it is kept, but you're also paying for the vibe and ambiance of the pub you're drinking in and that's worth an awful lot.

None of that applies to petrol however, unless there really are some people so snobbish that they wouldn't be seen filling up at one of the cheaper supermarkets - it could happen.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 12 2013, 09:45 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 12 2013, 10:44 AM) *
I agree. The same beer does taste different in different pubs which must be down to how well it is kept, but you're also paying for the vibe and ambiance of the pub you're drinking in and that's worth an awful lot.

None of that applies to petrol however, unless there really are some people so snobbish that they wouldn't be seen filling up at one of the cheaper supermarkets - it could happen.

That is exaclty my argument and why I think comparing the price of beer in pubs with the price of petrol at the pump is specious. There are some similarities, but there are some big differences in the commercial model too.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)