Dogkennelhillbilly

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not that I am an economist but I know something > about this. Increasing costs of private car use > does not necessarily equate with reduced use - so > increased fuel price at a time of shortage may not > quell panic buying. The type of panic buying of petrol we have seen is discretionary and therefore highly price elastic - people are bringing forward their fuel purchases based on fear rather than actual consumption. The aggregate demand over the course of a month hasn't changed at all and in reality supply hadn't been reduced much either. A handful of petrol stations running a bit low on some types of fuel is what triggered this "crisis". A short term surcharge would soon shake out the people who really need fuel for today from the people panic buying - and that's all we need to even out turnaround at petrol stations. This is a 2-3 week problem. BTW that study is about the impact fuel prices (and other things) have on demand for roads. It's not about the impact fuel price have on demand for fuel. > fairest', by penalising those who can least afford to shoulder such a price increase - a wonderful if unintentional illustration of some of what is wrong in our society! Right now we have a situation in which the least wealthy who really need petrol for work either don't get it or wait hours unnecessarily because of the actions of a few. That's not fair either.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In the 80s if you were queuing for > bread in a Moscow shop would you say I'll just > have one loaf and hope they have some tomorrow or > would you buy a whole freezer's worth? You would not have been allowed to buy a freezerful of bread (and neither would it have been likely that you owned a freezer). There are only a handful of ways you can ration scarce goods: - by time - whoever has the most time to sit around in queues will get the goods. - by need - whoever needs it most should get it - but we have no time to build a system for working this out. - by money - by increasing the cost to reduce short term demand. There would be no queues if petrol was a tenner a litre! It's actually the last method that would probably be best, quickest and fairest in the short term: it could be done overnight. It would force the idiots to reconsider whether they actually need the petrol (in the toilet paper panic, people moaned about paying 10p extra for a nEcEsSiTy). It would increase the cost for people that really need fuel but at least they would be guaranteed of supply without waiting for hours. In fact what will actually happen is that idiots will disrupt everyone else for a short period by bringing their normal purchases forward a couple of weeks, and then in a couple of weeks there will be a dip in demand as people consume their stockpile - exactly like the toilet paper affair. Just because everyone buys 3 pints in the 10 minutes before closing time, it doesn't mean there's a shortage of beer...

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I could label those of you who voted > to leave the EU as idiots, but I don't. I mean, you just did, in a way!

There's not much money in selling petrol any more - not many other products where people pay attention to the price down to the penny and will drive half an hour out of their way to save peanuta. it's more a lure to get people through the door and sell people coffee, Red Bull and groceries. Place like Goose Green that has expensive property and not much store space? They'll need to charge a but extra just to keep afloat.

Yep alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So if car use switched to bikes in then > Bets we?re told how come the queues for petrol are > so long? Huh?

Grove Vale bus lane southbound currently blocked by cars queueing to get into petrol station. Occasional donkey trying to jump the queue by turning from the northbound lane (and therefore blocking the non-bus lane southbound) ain't helping either.

This is almost as bad as the great olive oil shortage of 2012. Anyone who was in Dulwich at that time will remember the scenes of devastation and panic

No need - if we have a CO2 supply interruption in the UK, we can just get a bunch trucked in from the EU. Oh...

Phil McCanister - always admired his work.

ed26 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Technically the bit in the middle is pavement, so > people shouldn't be cycling over there anyway. The > cycle gates are either side. Yeah but even when you ride through the cycle gate on the left, you've got to weave through the narrowed space between the white van and the blue BMW/the dickhead behind the blue BMW. Obviously BMW Driver would lose their mind if he got a scratch on their car.

Coach Beth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Personally, I think that one of the reasons > teenagers are the victims of crime so much is that > the criminals KNOW that crimes agains teens are > taken much less seriously. I'm not here to defend the police but around our way when there was a spate of after school teen on teen muggings, the Safer Neighbourhood Team did increase foot patrols after school. I have no idea whether it solved the problem or whether it continues today. > I feel there is > psychological mechansim that happens so we can > protect ourselves from feeling vulnerable ... if > we can find something that someone else MIGHT have > done that resulted in something terrible... > whether it be to become a victim of crime or to be > a victim of cancer ('well, if people just didn't > eat meat or drink milk, maybe their wouldn't have > gotton cancer), we can feel less vulnerable. There is a body of research (which tbf is not watertight and to which I can't now find the sodding link) that indicates that female jurors are more hostile to rape victims and believe the victims could have done more to protect themselves. The suggestion is that this is a form of psychological self-protection on the part of the jurors: "this awful thing won't happen to me because I know how to protect myself"...which is exactly what you're saying. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/feb/16/rape-blame-victims-women

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought Rockets qualified his statement by > saying not a single petrol or diesel car > "launched". > > Is it the case petrol and diesel cars were > launched? You've just referred to cars "at" the > show...not the same thing. > > Anyhow, I guess the point is it may be more > accurate to say the majority of cars were > electric. I don't know, I wasn't there and do not > follow car events, but to incorrectly quote > Rockets and then on that basis accuse him of > talking cobblers is a bit much. The Dacia Jogger (discussed in the link and launched at the show) is a fossil fuel car. Dacia has only one electric vehicle (that's not even on sale in the UK), and all the rest of its range is petrol, diesel and LNG . The company has "hopes" for a hybrid in the future - but in the meantime like everyone else they're still making and selling plenty of fossil fuel vehicles and blocking legislation that would force them to act quicker. In any case, electric cars are no panacea. > The car industry has gone electric This greenwash and bullshit is exactly what Greenpeace and thousands of people were objecting to at the car show - a point that has evidently gone over some people's heads. https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/24136/these-12-car-companies-are-setting-the-world-on-fire/ I wasn't suggesting Rockets was talking cobblers. The totally real and definitely not invented "someone" who said there were no petrol or diesel cars launched was talking cobblers.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > someone > pointed out to them that there was not a single > petrol or diesel car launched at the show - > everything was electric. Too bad that "someone" was talking complete cobblers. It's just not true that there wasn't a single petrol or diesel car at the show, even if most new cars were electric or at least hybrid. Why do people just make stuff up? https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motor-shows-munich-motor-show/munich-motor-show-2021-full-report-and-gallery

tomskip Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ban anyone from outside walking distance from > coming to school here. > > See how that goes down. Sounds good to me. Ban motorised deliveries from outside the postcode (except by Royal Mail once a day) and I think we'll have solved the whole problem.

P3girl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 2. They actively prompted cycling clubs to vote > support for road closures. Similarly they lectured > school pupils into voting for LTNs. They stuck > poster and placards on lamp posts promoting LTNs. > > 3. They issued massive volumes of leaflets and > other promotions in favour of LTNs... What's interesting is how vague the #SouthwarkDerangementSyndrome posters are: usually they simply assert that whatever they disagree with as an individual is necessarily undemocratic. When they do make specific claims, they are like the above - patent nonsense. Still no comment of course from P3girl (who might be one trip short of a P4) on whether these people genuinely believe they live in a dictatorship or whether they think they will overthrow Southwark Bleeding Council by force over a road closure. > Roll on May 2022! Where are the (thus far) interestingly well-funded OneDulwich and Dulwich Alliance getting their funds from? 🤔

slarti b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > peckhamside Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > Other workable suggestions? Key one is improving > public transport You mean like making buses faster and more reliable by reducing and timeshifting the volume of private car, minicab and delivery van traffic?

P3girl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >What it will take is > mass action in the form of protests and demos on > the streets of Southwark -particularly at Tooley > St and Southwark Town Hall....something along this modest attempt? You think you live in a dictatorship and you're going to overthrow a suburban traffic management scheme by seizing town hall?

TheCat Wrote: > > > Im the guy that those media > outlets call for an expert comment to write those > articles...Doesn't mean I'm right in what I say.. Well, quite.

teddyboy23 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Connect to my neighbours This winter, I shall mostly be burning wet sticks foraged from Dulwich Wood and spare tyres stolen off the tailgates of luxury SUVs.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But the UK's reliance on Nat gas peak load style > generation (as a result of closure of base load > and replacement with intermittent renewable > capacity) means that the whole system is > vulnerable to Nat gas price rises. The cost of Nat > gas electricity generation is also far more > sensitive to the price of gas, than coal fired > generation is to the cost of coal, or nuclear to > the cost of U308. So the increases in the cost of > coal and uranium we've seen recently would not > flow through to the cost of generation in the same > way as they have for Nat gas...we have low > proportion of coal or nuclear baseload, which > would not have seen the same rise in cost of > generation as we have seen with Nat gas, despite > the increase in cost of those generation fuels. What you're ignoring is the cross-elasticity of global demand between coal and gas (even when it's dampened in the UK because there are so few coal fired power plants). Having a whole bunch of coal fired power plants lying around wouldn't have meant the UK could switch from gas to coal in response to gas getting more expensive - because everyone else in the world will have had the same idea, driving up the cost of coal. And that is exactly what has happened in reality, with the price of coal going up 300% in the past year. Your argument doesn't work in theory and doesn't work in practice. https://www.ft.com/content/b696720f-fed4-4f4b-acbd-302f8935c73e https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal

The consumer price rises have nothing to do with capacity (baseload or aggregate) and nothing to do with increasing renewable capacity. They are a result of high global energy prices. Gas prices were rising months before the not-windy month, which has had only an incremental impact. Coal prices have also risen sharply for reasons that are obvious. We could have double the present baseload capacity but it wouldn't make gas or coal any cheaper for power generating companies. More nuclear power plants would insulate us from gas and coal price rises but the failure to maintain and expand atomic energy is not a result of the introduction of renewables - it's a total failure of government to articulate a sensible policy to the market. More renewable capacity would also dampen the impact of global fuel prices - but of course their output varies in this country.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it is telling that the council are saying > they will improve signage - is this an admission > that the current signage is not sufficient - could > someone challenge the ?3m worth of fines to date > on that basis? There is no way that will work. The blue signage is perfectly legal and as specified in law at national level. If drivers are driving through oblivious to the meaning of the signs then fundamentally the issue is lack of driver awareness of the Highway Code. If they're not seeing the signs then it's a lack of attention while driving. No-one likes being fined (including me, who got one in the last year) but using signage that doesn't comply with the Highway Code is going to make things worse, not better. There were already supplementary red signs on approach routes and new ones have gone up in the last month. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/traffic-signs

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > when you don't have enough > baseload generation...it leaves you vulnerable to things > like spikes in gas prices and failure of > interconnectors. > > So it has everything to do with reckless > acceleration of changes in the generation mix. You're mixing capacity and fuel mix issues here. The price rises are not to do with capacity - we have plenty of capacity. Neither would retaining dirty coal have been the answer - you know that the price of thermal coal has gone up 300% since September 2020 (from USD 48 per tonne to USD 177 per tonne)? Coal prices are 50% higher today than they have been at any time in the last decade.

Dimelda Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?ve already said (& won?t be repeating)... ...and yet there you go repeating it...

Yes.