On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:21:00 +0100, "Michael C" 
wrote:

> wrote in message 
>news:09hd54du6vptpg1fns4ep5411oi4bua74t@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:33:19 +0100, "Michael C" 
>> wrote:
>>>>>Nonsense.  This strike has been known about for a while so there has 
>>>>>been
>>>plenty of time to get contigency plans in place.
>>>
>>>Many people can work from home.
>>
>> Probably true.  However many employers still aren't keen on it.  It'd
>> be nice if the government offered some incentives to employers to
>> encourage homeworking, but they seem far keener on punishing motorists
>> for driving to work.  But jst imagine if we could have more people
>> working from home on a regular basis.  Less cars on the road.  Less of
>> that nasty, polluting fuel being consumed.  Of course every silver
>> lining has a cloud, doesn't it?  If less fuel were needed then perhaps
>> some of those tanker drivers might end up out of a job.  They might
>> have to take up less skilled work - airline pilot, astrophysicist,
>> that kind of thing. :)
>
>Compared to not having people turn up at all, I would imagine most employers 
>would be quite in favour of them working from home.

Yes, but that assumes that they knew in advance that they would be
working from home and had everything there that they needed.  I
certainly couldn't decide right now to work from home tomorrow, as
many of the things I require to do my job are at work.

>>>Car sharing.
>>
>> Not practical for an awful lot of people.  I often wonder about people
>> who suggest this as a viable option.  Do they imagine we all live in
>> small villages, a couple of streets away from our colleagues?
>
>Are you for real?  It is hardly inconcievable for a bunch of people who work 
>together to also be living relatively close to each other, or for some 
>people to live along the route that many people would take anyway.

People tend to live within a particular radius of where they work, not
in a convenient straight line from it.  Perhaps in a large company
there might be enough employees grouped into certain areas to make
your suggestion viable, but I've worked in small companies where that
simply isn't the case.  Also, the problem with the larger companies is
that they often operate schemes such as flexible working, which means
people come in and leave at different times.  So, again, car sharing
may not be a workable solution.

>>>Live in the local B&B/Travelodge for a couple of nights.
>>
>> Hmm.  Spend £120 on two nights in a Travelodge or £10 making sure my
>> car's topped up with petrol.  That's a tough one.  Can you give me
>> some time to mull it over?
>
>Spend some time getting your facts right first - you can get rooms in a 
>Travelodge for £25 a night.

Don't know where you live, but not near me they can't.  I've just put
my postcode into their website and the cheapest they had was from
(note that weasel word, beloved of advertisers everywhere) £50 per
night.  And that Travelodge is further away from where I work than my
house.  To get one nearer to work would be around £60 per night.  So,
as I said, £120 for two nights.

>People can also share a double room if they have to, perhaps they can
>claim the cost on expenses.

LOL!  Yes, I can just see employers forking out for staff to stay in
hotels, just so that they don't have to queue up for some petrol.

>This is, of course, just one option available to people.
>
>>>At worst take a couple of days off and then make the time up during a 
>>>weekend.
>>
>> Great!  I'll fit my life around a bunch of lorry drivers who have
>> unrealistic pay expectations.  Nice one.
>
>By queuing up for petrol for 30 minutes these people already ARE fitting 
>their life around the lorry drivers.

Well, once again, there were no queues that I saw.  And if it's a
choice between 30 minutes of my time, and the much greater levels of
inconvenience that come with the suggestions you made, then I'll
sacrifice the 30 minutes.

>>>It's only a crisis if you make it seem like one.
>>
>> It's not a crisis at all for those of us who made sure we were well
>> prepared for all eventualities.
>
>And once again you are back to where you started - thinking that you are the 
>only person in this world.  It is not possible for every single person to 
>have a full tank at all times - some people will HAVE to go without and make 
>other arrangements.

Not everyone needs a full tank.  It just so happens that I did, or at
least knew the I very well might.

>I find it incredible that I list four perfectly legitimate alternatives that 
>people could take up for a few days yet you sit there trying to shoot each 
>one of them down without giving them a second thought.

No I didn't.  I addressed each one of them, and explained why they
weren't really viable alternatives.

>You are part of the problem in that you can't see beyond having petrol in your car.

I need petrol in my car to go about earning a living, as do many
others.

>You are like the people who think that the world stops turning if they leave their 
>mobile phone at home. 

Nonsense.  I'm just someone who lives in the real world.

wrote in message 
news:fvjd54ln7jq54a3i7ep85nnj46u2ncv14g@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:21:00 +0100, "Michael C" 
> wrote:
>>
>>Compared to not having people turn up at all, I would imagine most 
>>employers
>>would be quite in favour of them working from home.
>
> Yes, but that assumes that they knew in advance that they would be
> working from home and had everything there that they needed.  I
> certainly couldn't decide right now to work from home tomorrow, as
> many of the things I require to do my job are at work.

This strike has been known about for AGES.  Plenty of time to make plans in 
case the need arises and it would only be for a few days.

Many people in my current company work either from home or at client sites - 
some of them hardly ever come into the office.

So this is a perfectly feasible alternative for some people.

>>Are you for real?  It is hardly inconcievable for a bunch of people who 
>>work
>>together to also be living relatively close to each other, or for some
>>people to live along the route that many people would take anyway.
>
> People tend to live within a particular radius of where they work, not
> in a convenient straight line from it.  Perhaps in a large company
> there might be enough employees grouped into certain areas to make
> your suggestion viable, but I've worked in small companies where that
> simply isn't the case.  Also, the problem with the larger companies is
> that they often operate schemes such as flexible working, which means
> people come in and leave at different times.  So, again, car sharing
> may not be a workable solution.

Key point here being MAY NOT.

I currently work for a large company and many people do car-sharing, some of 
them three or four to a car.  I used to work for a small company and out of 
the five of us, it was feasible for three of us.

So this is a perfectly feasible alternative for some people.

>>Spend some time getting your facts right first - you can get rooms in a
>>Travelodge for £25 a night.
>
> Don't know where you live, but not near me they can't.  I've just put
> my postcode into their website and the cheapest they had was from
> (note that weasel word, beloved of advertisers everywhere) £50 per
> night.  And that Travelodge is further away from where I work than my
> house.  To get one nearer to work would be around £60 per night.  So,
> as I said, £120 for two nights.

Which is not the case for everyone.

So this is a perfectly feasible alternative for some people.

>>People can also share a double room if they have to, perhaps they can
>>claim the cost on expenses.
>
> LOL!  Yes, I can just see employers forking out for staff to stay in
> hotels, just so that they don't have to queue up for some petrol.

As opposed to having them not turn up at all.

So this is a perfectly feasible alternative for some people.

>>This is, of course, just one option available to people.
>>
>>>>At worst take a couple of days off and then make the time up during a
>>>>weekend.
>>>
>>> Great!  I'll fit my life around a bunch of lorry drivers who have
>>> unrealistic pay expectations.  Nice one.
>>
>>By queuing up for petrol for 30 minutes these people already ARE fitting
>>their life around the lorry drivers.
>
> Well, once again, there were no queues that I saw.  And if it's a
> choice between 30 minutes of my time, and the much greater levels of
> inconvenience that come with the suggestions you made, then I'll
> sacrifice the 30 minutes.

What greater levels of inconvenience?  What is a great inconvenience about 
working from home?  Or sharing a car?  Or making up time on a weekend?

>>And once again you are back to where you started - thinking that you are 
>>the
>>only person in this world.  It is not possible for every single person to
>>have a full tank at all times - some people will HAVE to go without and 
>>make
>>other arrangements.
>
> Not everyone needs a full tank.  It just so happens that I did, or at
> least knew the I very well might.

If they are going to queue for 30 minutes they are hardly going to NOT fill 
the tank up.

>>I find it incredible that I list four perfectly legitimate alternatives 
>>that
>>people could take up for a few days yet you sit there trying to shoot each
>>one of them down without giving them a second thought.
>
> No I didn't.  I addressed each one of them, and explained why they
> weren't really viable alternatives.

You cannot be for real.  They are perfectly viable BECAUSE HALF THE PEOPLE I 
WORK WITH HAVE BEEN DOING SOME OF THEM FOR YEARS ANYWAY.

>>You are part of the problem in that you can't see beyond having petrol in 
>>your car.
>
> I need petrol in my car to go about earning a living, as do many
> others.

Out of interest what actually is your job?

>>You are like the people who think that the world stops turning if they 
>>leave their
>>mobile phone at home.
>
> Nonsense.  I'm just someone who lives in the real world.

No, you live in the inflexible world of the 1970s.

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:23:30 +0100, "Michael C" 
wrote:

> wrote in message 
>news:fvjd54ln7jq54a3i7ep85nnj46u2ncv14g@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:21:00 +0100, "Michael C" 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>Compared to not having people turn up at all, I would imagine most 
>>>employers
>>>would be quite in favour of them working from home.
>>
>> Yes, but that assumes that they knew in advance that they would be
>> working from home and had everything there that they needed.  I
>> certainly couldn't decide right now to work from home tomorrow, as
>> many of the things I require to do my job are at work.
>
>This strike has been known about for AGES.  Plenty of time to make plans in 
>case the need arises and it would only be for a few days.
>
>Many people in my current company work either from home or at client sites - 
>some of them hardly ever come into the office.
>
>So this is a perfectly feasible alternative for some people.
>
>>>Are you for real?  It is hardly inconcievable for a bunch of people who 
>>>work
>>>together to also be living relatively close to each other, or for some
>>>people to live along the route that many people would take anyway.
>>
>> People tend to live within a particular radius of where they work, not
>> in a convenient straight line from it.  Perhaps in a large company
>> there might be enough employees grouped into certain areas to make
>> your suggestion viable, but I've worked in small companies where that
>> simply isn't the case.  Also, the problem with the larger companies is
>> that they often operate schemes such as flexible working, which means
>> people come in and leave at different times.  So, again, car sharing
>> may not be a workable solution.
>
>Key point here being MAY NOT.
>
>I currently work for a large company and many people do car-sharing, some of 
>them three or four to a car.  I used to work for a small company and out of 
>the five of us, it was feasible for three of us.
>
>So this is a perfectly feasible alternative for some people.
>
>>>Spend some time getting your facts right first - you can get rooms in a
>>>Travelodge for £25 a night.
>>
>> Don't know where you live, but not near me they can't.  I've just put
>> my postcode into their website and the cheapest they had was from
>> (note that weasel word, beloved of advertisers everywhere) £50 per
>> night.  And that Travelodge is further away from where I work than my
>> house.  To get one nearer to work would be around £60 per night.  So,
>> as I said, £120 for two nights.
>
>Which is not the case for everyone.
>
>So this is a perfectly feasible alternative for some people.
>
>>>People can also share a double room if they have to, perhaps they can
>>>claim the cost on expenses.
>>
>> LOL!  Yes, I can just see employers forking out for staff to stay in
>> hotels, just so that they don't have to queue up for some petrol.
>
>As opposed to having them not turn up at all.
>
>So this is a perfectly feasible alternative for some people.
>
>>>This is, of course, just one option available to people.
>>>
>>>>>At worst take a couple of days off and then make the time up during a
>>>>>weekend.
>>>>
>>>> Great!  I'll fit my life around a bunch of lorry drivers who have
>>>> unrealistic pay expectations.  Nice one.
>>>
>>>By queuing up for petrol for 30 minutes these people already ARE fitting
>>>their life around the lorry drivers.
>>
>> Well, once again, there were no queues that I saw.  And if it's a
>> choice between 30 minutes of my time, and the much greater levels of
>> inconvenience that come with the suggestions you made, then I'll
>> sacrifice the 30 minutes.
>
>What greater levels of inconvenience?  What is a great inconvenience about 
>working from home?

None, if you're one of those people whose employer allows it.

>Or sharing a car?

None, if you happen to live along the same route that a colleague
takes into work.

>Or making up time on a weekend?

None, if you don't mind giving up your weekends.

>>>And once again you are back to where you started - thinking that you are 
>>>the
>>>only person in this world.  It is not possible for every single person to
>>>have a full tank at all times - some people will HAVE to go without and 
>>>make
>>>other arrangements.
>>
>> Not everyone needs a full tank.  It just so happens that I did, or at
>> least knew the I very well might.
>
>If they are going to queue for 30 minutes they are hardly going to NOT fill 
>the tank up.

I'm not sure where this 30 minute queue keeps coming from.  I've said
several times now that I saw no queues and joined no queues.

>>>I find it incredible that I list four perfectly legitimate alternatives 
>>>that
>>>people could take up for a few days yet you sit there trying to shoot each
>>>one of them down without giving them a second thought.
>>
>> No I didn't.  I addressed each one of them, and explained why they
>> weren't really viable alternatives.
>
>You cannot be for real.  They are perfectly viable BECAUSE HALF THE PEOPLE I 
>WORK WITH HAVE BEEN DOING SOME OF THEM FOR YEARS ANYWAY.

Well that's very nice for you.  But that's rather irrelevant to those
people who don't have those options available to them.  Perhaps you
should be focusing your finger wagging at those who could take up your
suggestions, rather than those who are simply trying to ensure they
can continue to earn a living next week.

>>>You are part of the problem in that you can't see beyond having petrol in 
>>>your car.
>>
>> I need petrol in my car to go about earning a living, as do many
>> others.
>
>Out of interest what actually is your job?

It's of no relevance to this discussion.  Even if I *were* to tell
you, doubtless you'd know someone who used to do the same job while
living in a treehouse in the New Forest without even needing a car. :)

>>>You are like the people who think that the world stops turning if they 
>>>leave their
>>>mobile phone at home.
>>
>> Nonsense.  I'm just someone who lives in the real world.
>
>No, you live in the inflexible world of the 1970s. 

Nope.  The real world.  The one where employers usually try to be
flexible with employees who find themselves genuinely unable to get
into work, but don't have much time for those who made no attempt to
make provision for their travel needs for the coming week.

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:23:30 +0100, "Michael C" 
wrote:

>>>People can also share a double room if they have to, perhaps they can
>>>claim the cost on expenses.
>>
>> LOL!  Yes, I can just see employers forking out for staff to stay in
>> hotels, just so that they don't have to queue up for some petrol.
>
>As opposed to having them not turn up at all.

"There's going to be a petrol shortage, and some guy on a newsgroup
says that I shouldn't prepare for it by filling my tank because it
will add to the demand.  So I intend to deliberately run out of petrol
instead, and want the company to pay for a couple of nights in a hotel
so I can get in to work."

Yes, I can see that the average employer is going to go for that one
...

-- 
Cynic

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:gm9f54p73jbtooc503m3ovvn6sqsq8pe39@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:23:30 +0100, "Michael C" 
> wrote:
>>
>>As opposed to having them not turn up at all.
>
> "There's going to be a petrol shortage, and some guy on a newsgroup
> says that I shouldn't prepare for it by filling my tank because it
> will add to the demand.  So I intend to deliberately run out of petrol
> instead, and want the company to pay for a couple of nights in a hotel
> so I can get in to work."
>
> Yes, I can see that the average employer is going to go for that one

Sorry, what point are you trying to make here?

wrote in message 
news:qhmd549vp6u48ice4hg1rsqolv1vd4t0kn@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:23:30 +0100, "Michael C" 
> wrote:
>>
>>What greater levels of inconvenience?  What is a great inconvenience about
>>working from home?
>
> None, if you're one of those people whose employer allows it.
>
>>Or sharing a car?
>
> None, if you happen to live along the same route that a colleague
> takes into work.
>
>>Or making up time on a weekend?
>
> None, if you don't mind giving up your weekends.

So there are, in fact, no great inconveniences then?

>>If they are going to queue for 30 minutes they are hardly going to NOT 
>>fill
>>the tank up.
>
> I'm not sure where this 30 minute queue keeps coming from.  I've said
> several times now that I saw no queues and joined no queues.

Here you go again, thinking that you are the only person who exists in the 
world.

>>You cannot be for real.  They are perfectly viable BECAUSE HALF THE PEOPLE 
>>I
>>WORK WITH HAVE BEEN DOING SOME OF THEM FOR YEARS ANYWAY.
>
> Well that's very nice for you.  But that's rather irrelevant to those
> people who don't have those options available to them.  Perhaps you
> should be focusing your finger wagging at those who could take up your
> suggestions, rather than those who are simply trying to ensure they
> can continue to earn a living next week.

So you now admit that my suggestions ARE feasible...?

>>>>You are like the people who think that the world stops turning if they
>>>>leave their
>>>>mobile phone at home.
>>>
>>> Nonsense.  I'm just someone who lives in the real world.
>>
>>No, you live in the inflexible world of the 1970s.
>
> Nope.  The real world.  The one where employers usually try to be
> flexible with employees who find themselves genuinely unable to get
> into work, but don't have much time for those who made no attempt to
> make provision for their travel needs for the coming week.

This makes no sense.  If there is not enough fuel to go around, how can they 
make provisions to get to work without making use of the alternatives that I 
suggested...?

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:39:45 +0100, "Michael C" 
wrote:

> wrote in message 
>news:qhmd549vp6u48ice4hg1rsqolv1vd4t0kn@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:23:30 +0100, "Michael C" 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>What greater levels of inconvenience?  What is a great inconvenience about
>>>working from home?
>>
>> None, if you're one of those people whose employer allows it.
>>
>>>Or sharing a car?
>>
>> None, if you happen to live along the same route that a colleague
>> takes into work.
>>
>>>Or making up time on a weekend?
>>
>> None, if you don't mind giving up your weekends.
>
>So there are, in fact, no great inconveniences then?

Depends on your definition of a great inconvenience.  I'd class giving
up my free time as more than a minor one.  YMMV.

>>>If they are going to queue for 30 minutes they are hardly going to NOT 
>>>fill
>>>the tank up.
>>
>> I'm not sure where this 30 minute queue keeps coming from.  I've said
>> several times now that I saw no queues and joined no queues.
>
>Here you go again, thinking that you are the only person who exists in the 
>world.

Er, how?  By saying that I didn't see any queues?  Would you have been
happier if I had seen a queue?

>>>You cannot be for real.  They are perfectly viable BECAUSE HALF THE PEOPLE 
>>>I
>>>WORK WITH HAVE BEEN DOING SOME OF THEM FOR YEARS ANYWAY.
>>
>> Well that's very nice for you.  But that's rather irrelevant to those
>> people who don't have those options available to them.  Perhaps you
>> should be focusing your finger wagging at those who could take up your
>> suggestions, rather than those who are simply trying to ensure they
>> can continue to earn a living next week.
>
>So you now admit that my suggestions ARE feasible...?

Oh FFS!  No, not for the majority of people they aren't.  Staying in
hotels and expecting that your employer's going to foot the bill just
because you didn't want to "selfishly" fuel up your car.  Jesus
Christ!  If you really think that the majority of employers would put
up with that kind of crap, then you've lead a very sheltered working
life, mate.

>>>No, you live in the inflexible world of the 1970s.
>>
>> Nope.  The real world.  The one where employers usually try to be
>> flexible with employees who find themselves genuinely unable to get
>> into work, but don't have much time for those who made no attempt to
>> make provision for their travel needs for the coming week.
>
>This makes no sense.  If there is not enough fuel to go around, how can they 
>make provisions to get to work without making use of the alternatives that I 
>suggested...? 

If there isn't enough fuel to go around, then someone's going to draw
the short straw and not be able to fuel up their car.  IME, the most
likely outcome is that their employer will allow them to take a day's
unscheduled holiday.  Now, if you want to be that person then that's
fine by me.  You sit at home with inadequate fuel in your car and wait
for the pumps to empty.  I'll do what I can to make sure that I suffer
minimum inconvenience as a result of any shortages which may occur.
It's dog eat cat in this world, pal, and you won't find me in a tin of
Pedigree Chum.

wrote in message 
news:ccuf549srfm2hlme1a2ujjqlgt6vbmmv65@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:39:45 +0100, "Michael C" 
> wrote:
>>
>>So there are, in fact, no great inconveniences then?
>
> Depends on your definition of a great inconvenience.  I'd class giving
> up my free time as more than a minor one.  YMMV.

Yeah, but then again I would just catch the bus/train or work from home 
instead.  It was ONE option out of many.

>>Here you go again, thinking that you are the only person who exists in the
>>world.
>
> Er, how?  By saying that I didn't see any queues?  Would you have been
> happier if I had seen a queue?

You also mentioned the strike in 2000 where there WERE queues all over the 
country.

>>So you now admit that my suggestions ARE feasible...?
>
> Oh FFS!  No, not for the majority of people they aren't.  Staying in
> hotels and expecting that your employer's going to foot the bill just
> because you didn't want to "selfishly" fuel up your car.  Jesus
> Christ!  If you really think that the majority of employers would put
> up with that kind of crap, then you've lead a very sheltered working
> life, mate.

You utter retard.  Where on earth have I even said the word "majority"?  Why 
do you keep taking each alternative in isolation and act as if no other 
choice exists?

>>This makes no sense.  If there is not enough fuel to go around, how can 
>>they
>>make provisions to get to work without making use of the alternatives that 
>>I
>>suggested...?
>
> If there isn't enough fuel to go around, then someone's going to draw
> the short straw and not be able to fuel up their car.  IME, the most
> likely outcome is that their employer will allow them to take a day's
> unscheduled holiday.  Now, if you want to be that person then that's
> fine by me.  You sit at home with inadequate fuel in your car and wait
> for the pumps to empty.  I'll do what I can to make sure that I suffer
> minimum inconvenience as a result of any shortages which may occur.
> It's dog eat cat in this world, pal, and you won't find me in a tin of
> Pedigree Chum.

Stuff going to all those lengths just to make sure I have some petrol.  I 
will just catch the bus or train.

Dog eat dog world for petrol for your car?  How pathetic.

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:12:17 +0100, "Michael C" 
wrote:

> wrote in message 
>news:ccuf549srfm2hlme1a2ujjqlgt6vbmmv65@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:39:45 +0100, "Michael C" 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>So there are, in fact, no great inconveniences then?
>>
>> Depends on your definition of a great inconvenience.  I'd class giving
>> up my free time as more than a minor one.  YMMV.
>
>Yeah, but then again I would just catch the bus/train or work from home 
>instead.  It was ONE option out of many.

Options that might work for some, and not for others.  And yet you
seem ready to brand anyone filling up their car as selfish, despite
the fact that you have no way of knowing whether they could make use
of any of your "options".

>>>Here you go again, thinking that you are the only person who exists in the
>>>world.
>>
>> Er, how?  By saying that I didn't see any queues?  Would you have been
>> happier if I had seen a queue?
>
>You also mentioned the strike in 2000 where there WERE queues all over the 
>country.

Because there was a fuel shortage.  That's what happens when there's a
shortage of something.  Queues.

>>>So you now admit that my suggestions ARE feasible...?
>>
>> Oh FFS!  No, not for the majority of people they aren't.  Staying in
>> hotels and expecting that your employer's going to foot the bill just
>> because you didn't want to "selfishly" fuel up your car.  Jesus
>> Christ!  If you really think that the majority of employers would put
>> up with that kind of crap, then you've lead a very sheltered working
>> life, mate.
>
>You utter retard.  Where on earth have I even said the word "majority"?

So it's a minority then?  So how does your advice help most people?
None of your advice was suitable for me, and yet you've been quite
happy to suggest that simply filling up my car was a selfish act.

>Why do you keep taking each alternative in isolation and act as if no other 
>choice exists?

I don't.  I believe I've addressed all your choices, and their
shortcomings.

>>>This makes no sense.  If there is not enough fuel to go around, how can 
>>>they
>>>make provisions to get to work without making use of the alternatives that 
>>>I
>>>suggested...?
>>
>> If there isn't enough fuel to go around, then someone's going to draw
>> the short straw and not be able to fuel up their car.  IME, the most
>> likely outcome is that their employer will allow them to take a day's
>> unscheduled holiday.  Now, if you want to be that person then that's
>> fine by me.  You sit at home with inadequate fuel in your car and wait
>> for the pumps to empty.  I'll do what I can to make sure that I suffer
>> minimum inconvenience as a result of any shortages which may occur.
>> It's dog eat cat in this world, pal, and you won't find me in a tin of
>> Pedigree Chum.
>
>Stuff going to all those lengths just to make sure I have some petrol.  I 
>will just catch the bus or train.

Good for you.  And for those who don't have that option?  You witter
on about me thinking I'm the only person in the world, and yet you
seem happy to assume that *your* choices are applicable to other
people.

>Dog eat dog world for petrol for your car?  How pathetic. 

Well it was a little tongue in cheek, but yes - like any other item
you wish to acquire, if you need it badly enough you'll take steps to
get it before it runs out.