[David9694]

Strange, isn’t it Germans, Remainers and cyclists looking on grimly at the last few days of driver hysteria. 

The oddest thing is how badly affected London and the south-east are – the best connected area, ranking high among those having most public transport and other travel options. 

As a cyclist, this doesn’t seem like much of an attitude or behaviour changer.  It does reveal to a wider audience a bit about the weird attachment some people have to their cars; how desperation, violence and abuse lurk just below the surface. 

In the short term, fuel shortages mean more frustrated drivers  scratting around for their precious supplies; more danger, more disruption when they find it. 

Unsurprisingly, the anti-LTN voices purporting to be concerned about emergency ambulances remain silent throughout. 

I take no pleasure in any of the chaos as I have elderly relatives who are highly reliant on twice-daily carers. What if it gets so bad that they can’t do their job? Brexiters seem to suggest this is just a patch of turbulence,  a necessary temporary sacrifice on the way to the sunny uplands. I guess we’ve all got to tighten our belts and believe a bit more strongly. 

As a remainer, petrolgate feels highly potent – whether we on here like it or not, as a politician, you upset the driver lobby at your peril.  Brexit, in the form of not enough drivers is hitting a lot of people in a place it really hurts. “Sort it” will be the terse message from local MPs to the PM. 

Yes I know, it’s an area that had issues before – but one of several where Brexit has been randomly chucked in with no plan.  I get a sense of some parts of industry being inert and saying to the govt – “your mess…”

Sarah Everard  – It’s not the time to highlight this more broadly, but there are parallels at so many levels with road violence and the fight against both. 

The car as a facilitator of the patriarchy might sound a bit far fetched, but a car was a vital tool in perpetrating this terrible crime.  And countless others perpetrated by men against women and girls at a range of levels.  Yes, Against me when I’m cycling – that’s a parallel, a shared interest in countering bullying and worse.

The issue is evderday-ised, trivialised so it goes largely unnoticed.  Victims need to take greater care, more precautions.  Flag down a bus  – how very London.  I haven’t yet heard anyone say “what was she doing out on her own at that hour – silly girl” but you can bet plenty are thinking it.  The police response in the news, despite their having months to think about it, is so far bumbling and inappropriate.  Any “I know my rights” miscreant now has an ideal excuse to evade arrest. 

There are so many things that, as brought home by the e-scooters, could be done to make cars less dangerous, but drivers’ freedoms and privileges matter more than any safety or even crime reduction argument.  We could have black boxes that mean a car won’t go if it is abused in any way, that can’t exceed the speed limit – but we invest instead in ever more roads. 

I’m not qualified to say what needs to change as regards women’s safety and freedom: I’m not going to try and mansplain that one, although men have a major part to play in effecting change. It’s a time to listen, listen to women.

Topic

[Simon E]

mdavidford wrote:

mdavidford wrote:

I think ww’s point is that if those people have set out to put £60 in, they’re going to put £60 in despite not needing it, even if it means visiting two petrol stations and doubling the amount of queueing they do.

Some will but not all. Because, despite the panic, plenty will put £30 in today and think “Sod that, I’m not queueing again. I have enough for now”. The inconvenience of queueing a second will – for some, not all – outweigh the desire to get £60 worth of fuel. So those who do need it will noit have to queue for as long or find as many pumps empty.

Of course the most ideal option is for as many people as possible to avoid putting themselves in a position where you need to buy £60 of fuel at a time. If there was proper investment in public transport and provision for more people to use alternative methods of transport then this would be a realistic option for may more people.

But while so many bus services are woefully inadequate and expensive, trains similarly extortionate and cycling seen as dangerous then these options are often seen as not realistic.

Edit to add (from 2018): “One in three people regularly use the car for short trips that they admit could be completed just as easily by public transport or on foot.”

One in three lazy Brits use the car to travel less than a mile

 

[jaymack]

You only say ‘cos you’ve

You only say ‘cos you’ve absolutely no idea quite how liberating trousers for women are.

[hawkinspeter]

Velophaart_95 wrote:

I quite agree; far too many people want their cake, and eat it. So the cushy job in the town/city, the nice house in a rural/semi rural area, then send their kids to the best school. And all need travelling by motor vehicle. It has to end……but won’t.

The reliance on the car is a damining indictment of modern life.

One aspect of the long work commute is that people inevitably feel emotionally distanced from where they work, so they don’t care about the dirt and pollution in the city (that’s work – it’s horrible) and only care about their home in the countryside. There’s also the windscreen effect – drivers are literally insulated from the places that they drive through which leads them to not being interested in them other than a place they try to drive through as quickly as possible. This also manifests as NIMBY – they don’t want to see their idyll being changed to help wider society. If we want to get a stronger sense of community, then we need to reduce the distances that people travel to get to work.

[mdavidford]

Simon E wrote:

But the majority are not driving anywhere near that far, as discussed already. Many are simply panic buying but while doing so getting as much fuel as possible.

I think ww’s point is that if those people have set out to put £60 in, they’re going to put £60 in despite not needing it, even if it means visiting two petrol stations and doubling the amount of queueing they do. Because people aren’t rational, particularly in a panic.

Meanwhile, those who do need it are also unnecessarily forced to queue twice.

[Velophaart_95]

I quite agree; far too many

I quite agree; far too many people want their cake, and eat it. So the cushy job in the town/city, the nice house in a rural/semi rural area, then send their kids to the best school. And all need travelling by motor vehicle. It has to end……but won’t.

The reliance on the car is a damining indictment of modern life.

[Simon E]

wycombewheeler wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

I’m not convinced this helps. If the rule is £30 only, then drivers will visit petrol stations when they have enough space in the tank to put £30 in, rather than waiting until near empty as normal.

Is what they’ve been doing this week ‘normal’? I don’t think so.

The cap simply means people can’t put £60 in at a time.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Last weekend I needed to transport my daughter to Durham uni, as my tank was nearly empty on friday, putting £30 in wasn’t going to cut it, so I had to visit two petrol stations to fill up. This does not reduce queues.

But the majority are not driving anywhere near that far, as discussed already. Many are simply panic buying but while doing so getting as much fuel as possible.

I wouldn’t have bought any fuel at all if I hadn’t been doing a similarly necessary journey to North Wales. I normally use my car once a week at most.

[wycombewheeler]

Simon E wrote:

I can’t help thinking that a quota system e.g. £30 per vehicle would have reduced the scale of the problem or perhaps ‘flattened the demand curve’ somewhat. But it’s the forecourt staff who would have to bear the brunt of the aggression and threats that some individuals appear to think is OK.

I’m not convinced this helps. If the rule is £30 only, then drivers will visit petrol stations when they have enough space in the tank to put £30 in, rather than waiting until near empty as normal.To allow petrol station stock to recover we need drivers to rvert to noral fuel levels in car tanks. Drivers will then also need twice as many trips to fill up, increasing the length of the queues. Possibily they will even drive directly between two petrol stations, or even just queue a second time. Last weekend I needed to transport my daughter to Durham uni, as my tank was nearly empty on friday, putting £30 in wasn’t going to cut it, so I had to visit two petrol stations to fill up. This does not reduce queues.

Interesting the the aggresion of drivers in response to anything which hinders their ability to drive where they like when they like as fast as they like, is not OK, now it is not being directed at cyclists.

[Simon E]

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Nigel Garrage wrote:

”The scarcity of fuel has reduced the number of vehicles on the road. Figures showed traffic volume down by six percentage points on Monday compared with the previous week.”

Anecdotally, this reduction has been magnified further over the past few days as people are still having difficulty finding fuel.

Anecdotally this doesn’t appear to have been the case on the roads around Shrewsbury. Would be interesting to know what changes people made to their driving patterns.

I had to buy some petrol on Thursday evening (put 20L in my modest 36L tank, the first time in 3 or 4 weeks). At the Shell on the A5 near Oswestry some of the diesel pumps were empty but they had plenty of unleaded. Salesperson said that they had been completely out of diesel briefly earlier in the week, since it is used by all commercial vehicles as well as many private drivers. The BP at the nearby Gledrid roundabout was worse, earlier in the week they had queues long enough to obstruct the roundabout and had to get the police there to manage the traffic.

I can’t help thinking that a quota system e.g. £30 per vehicle would have reduced the scale of the problem or perhaps ‘flattened the demand curve’ somewhat. But it’s the forecourt staff who would have to bear the brunt of the aggression and threats that some individuals appear to think is OK.

[mdavidford]

wycombewheeler wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

sounds very inefficient sending out part deliveries

But I didn’t say anything about part deliveries.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Even if there is 10% extra capcity in the industry, it would take 10 weeks for petrol stations to be restored to normal as long as drivers keep their tanks full, while only two weeks if everyone reverts to refilling once the light comes on.

Well, that’s kind of my point – the reason that it’s persisting is not so much that everybody’s driving around with full tanks topping them up the whole time, but that not everybody has managed to fill their tanks yet, and won’t manage to for some time, even with more fuel being delivered than normal, so any excess will keep getting sucked in to cars that aren’t full yet.

I’m not disputing that a more sensible resolution would be for everyone to go back to refilling only when needed. I’m just saying that a more realistic one is a lengthy period of oversupply to get to the point where no more will fit in to people’s tanks. Because people.

[wycombewheeler]

Nigel Garrage wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Consumption isn’t normal, it’s been reduced because people are deferring non-essential car journeys due to fuel anxiety. So your point doubly stands, and something doesn’t add up.

ho ho. I have seen no reduction in traffic levels on the roads.

From your friends at the Guardian: “The scarcity of fuel has reduced the number of vehicles on the road. Figures showed traffic volume down by six percentage points on Monday compared with the previous week.”

Anecdotally, this reduction has been magnified further over the past few days as people are still having difficulty finding fuel.

6%, only 15 weeks to recover the situation then

[wycombewheeler]

mdavidford wrote:

That assumes that there is absolutely no spare delivery capacity, rather than just very marginal. It also assumes that they’re locked in to their existing delivery patterns, whereas in reality they will be able to redirect deliveries from areas and stations that aren’t experiencing shortages to those that are. You only need to get each station to the point where it has just enough to cover it until the next delivery, not restore it to where it was before all this began.

sounds very inefficient sending out part deliveries, just as long to do the travelling and pre delivery safety procedures but less fuel delivered. that will result in less fuel being delivered to the stations by the same number of drivers working the same number of hours.

Even if there is 10% extra capcity in the industry, it would take 10 weeks for petrol stations to be restored to normal as long as drivers keep their tanks full, while only two weeks if everyone reverts to refilling once the light comes on.

[mdavidford]

That assumes that there is

That assumes that there is absolutely no spare delivery capacity, rather than just very marginal. It also assumes that they’re locked in to their existing delivery patterns, whereas in reality they will be able to redirect deliveries from areas and stations that aren’t experiencing shortages to those that are. You only need to get each station to the point where it has just enough to cover it until the next delivery, not restore it to where it was before all this began.

[Anonymous]

wycombewheeler wrote:

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Consumption isn’t normal, it’s been reduced because people are deferring non-essential car journeys due to fuel anxiety. So your point doubly stands, and something doesn’t add up.

ho ho. I have seen no reduction in traffic levels on the roads.

From your friends at the Guardian: “The scarcity of fuel has reduced the number of vehicles on the road. Figures showed traffic volume down by six percentage points on Monday compared with the previous week.”

Anecdotally, this reduction has been magnified further over the past few days as people are still having difficulty finding fuel.

[wycombewheeler]

mdavidford wrote:

But if consumption is normal, and deliveries are normal, then you get back to the normal state of equilibrium, with the only difference being that everyone’s driving around with a full tank. Even if a handful of stations then have issues because of driver shortages, that can’t trigger a fresh round of panic buying, because everyone’s tank is already full.

if the petrol stations are empty at the begining of the week, and 760m litres are used, 760m litres are bought, and 760m litres delivered, how does the situaiton change?

A fresh round of panic buying should not be triggered because as you say, there is no enough sopace for the fuel to go into. But there will still be a pattern of empty stations.

Yes the cars now have full tanks, but the petrol stations do not.

It was reported that there was a 500% increase in fuel sales over the weekend when the shortages were first announced.

[wycombewheeler]

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Consumption isn’t normal, it’s been reduced because people are deferring non-essential car journeys due to fuel anxiety. So your point doubly stands, and something doesn’t add up.

ho ho. I have seen no reduction in traffic levels on the roads.

[Author]

Replies