What's the problem with electric vehicles

[toffee_pie]

I don’t need to look at that YT clip but it looks to be referring to carbon credits, tax on your wealth - Houses have tax also - they too need to be 'carbon compliant' and this mandate is going back decades so what will happen is many older buildings won’t be compliant and people owning or renting them will be kicked out and the council can just buy them out - in essence the two most expensive things that one owns is at the mercy of net zero -- a house and a car – now that phrase you will own nothing might make more sense.

[Steven Lockey]

14 hours ago, dutchie01 said:

I think that the best solution for long distance cruising through Europa at the moment is old fashioned diesel but certainly not Hydro as there is nowhere to fill it up.

Battery recycling is mandatory by law since 2006 and is also happening with the liion batteries from electric cars but as you say there arent enough old ones yet. Nevertheless car manufacturers are investing heavily in this to be ready. They are trying to control the entire process from raw material mining to battery production to recycling. Securing supply, controling cost, sustainability and reputation as main reasons.

Example is Mercedes investing billions in Indonesia in mining and they have already buit a recyclingplant in Germany. Apart from the manufacturers there is a string of recyclingcompanies already active throughout Europe. The battery is currently the most expensive part of the car so that value secures good business in recyclingactivities

https://group.mercedes-benz.com/company/news/recycling-factory-kuppenheim.html

 

 

 

Yeah I was thinking more planes since the other major factor, the explosiveness of the hydrogen tanks is less important when they
aren't driving round city centres.

[Linas.P]

10 hours ago, First_Lexus said:

Pretty sure he articulates a lot of what has been discussed on this thread already. It does feel as though there is something of a backlash underway…

 

Isn't that exactly the same thing I am moaning about all the time!?

As I said - the only reasonable conclusion about 2030 deadline is that the plan is to take the cars away from masses! Most people won't have freedom of personal transportation... I said that so many times! Only elites will be able to have one, the people who will be able to afford £100k car and charge it at home... all the rest will walk... literally. 

[toffee_pie]

It's like I called out long ago, I mentioned on the Subaru website  about 2 years ago - we were talking about EVs, I remember saying even back then when it was announced that combustion engine cars are banned in 2030 I said it's BS and EVs are all about control. 

How people deal with or accept the lies we are constantly fed by govs and politicians is up to themselves but what is clear is that politicians are never to be trusted. 

[Mr Vlad]

Well this video is a corker. And highlights perfectly what's wrong with electric vehicles. 

 

[toffee_pie]

May as well just close the thread eh - usual 

[ColinBarber]

4 minutes ago, toffee_pie said:

May as well just close the thread eh - usual 

Yes if people can't keep to topic.

[toffee_pie]

42 minutes ago, ColinBarber said:

Yes if people can't keep to topic.

Nothing in my last (deleted) post was off topic,  I covered pretty much everything that's wrong with them in a a nice paragraph but whatever - it's pretty obvious that you cannot say anything without upsetting folks nowadays but hey ho the world we live in. 

[First_Lexus]

Having read this thread with interest, it’s become obvious to me that the ‘problem’ with electric cars is that range available with the current technology means they don’t work for everybody with the current charging network, especially at higher speeds and in Winter with colder temperatures. They are also expensive, and risk disenfranchising those who can’t afford them in future assuming the price doesn’t fall dramatically (which it well might).

I can’t comment on the environmental positives or negatives as I’m no expert. I’ve read pros and cons argued with passion on both sides in terms of ‘whole life’ impact vs air quality and carbon emissions.

Personally I’m a big fan of public transport. The problem is - perhaps - not with electric vehicles as such, but that there are simply too many cars of all types. As I wrote before, the explosion in affordable personal transport is a recent phenomenon over the last 100 years or so. In human history that’s barely a footnote!

I do think cities without traffic and better public transport are nicer, and I do think that’s the future. However, Governments of all parties and in all countries need to make sure they legislate fairly and pragmatically. What works in London or Bristol or Manchester won’t work in rural Cornwall, Wales or the Highlands of Scotland as things stand.

If they don’t bring the people with them with them, they’ll have bigger problems further down the line. Likely not in my lifetime, but still vital that they develop genuine and sustainable long term plans. 

[Mr Vlad]

Eloquently put Ed. You're dead right about the amount of cars on the roads. Blimey in the 70's I could ride my bicycle as fast as I could and go round corners like a racer without fear of a car coming down the road I was turning into. Two years ago I thought I'd start using my bike to go to work 1.2 miles away. Sheesh I gave up on day 3 because the motorists didn't give a ratsass about me and I felt threatened. 

 

[toffee_pie]

Mention the environment and you are a conspiracy nut - even if you are an engineer like myself with extensive industrial experience working on lithium batteries.  
It’s a bit wacky but it seems like the world is turned into Dr Who Bots that the (ex) Taycan owner on YT mentioned - say anything that upsets them and they go all tin foil and conspiracy mode.

Plenty of people all over the interweb are discussing how bad EVs are so it looks like the wheels might be falling off the bandwagon - I have said more than once that I don’t have a particular issue with them - it’s just how they are mandated and particularly linked to ULEZ. coupled with all these stupid controlling schemes we are seeing pop up all over the country.

If Govs and councils said crack on with your 4 and 5 liter petrol V8s, after all the emissions from combustion cars in the UK is negligible when you look at the global footprint -but please consider getting a EV if you live in the city because that’s the only environment they really work in – unless you want to be forever getting from A to B on long runs.

If they said that it would at least make some sense but no they went full on net zero you have to get an Electric Car or the world is doomed mode, if you live half a mile inside a ULEZ boundary tough titty, you need an EV to commute, £500 a month please.

Delve into the minutes of the meetings in Davos and other cities where the G20 heads of state bods converge and all of this will make much more sense.

The world's biggest carmaker believes it will be difficult to achieve a planned ban on the sales of new, non-hybrid petrol and diesel cars in California by 2035 – and has renewed its calls for consumers to be offered a range of efficient vehicle types, not just electric cars.

Toyota has acknowledged the need to move to a carbon-neutral future but believes the California ban – which is now reported to be copied in New York state – is not workable with current technology and for many consumers.

“Realistically speaking, it seems rather difficult to really achieve that,” the president of the Toyota Motor Corporation, Akio Toyoda, told a briefing for reporters in Las Vegas, reported by Automotive News. 

“Everything is going to be up to the customers to decide.”
 

[Mr Vlad]

Well said Eric and a video from the old mechanic Scotty Kilmers latest he states that Britain is to blame for getting everyone into EV'S but the thing is sales of petrol/diesel cars has gone up.

Something else I saw. A tesla model 3 owner accidentally drove his car to zero % Battery. Now I thought that was  ot possible. But his cars 12v Battery died because it wasn't getting charged by the BIG Battery and that a heater pump that heats the car failed therefore with it being in the circuit between the drive Battery and the 12v Battery that's why the 12v died but how the hell did the drive Battery go flat?

Oh that Porsche Taycan EV bloke I'm no longer sure about. A year ago he was getting rid for a petrol Cayman yet recent videos he's in the Taycan. Shomfing not right there.

[Las Palmas]

This is the last time I will inform about latest progress in hydrogen in this forum. So many big companies are now realising that there is no other product available today that can store power till it is needed. The fools, morons or idiots that believe it is OK to destroy the planet in order to dig out the materials that sooner or later no longer are available in order to make batteries where electricity can be stored a very limited time, will come with explanations of various intelligence why they are right. That the batteries do not last long is not what I mention here, no matter how true that also is no matter how many more cells are put into a Battery in order to fool people buying them that the batteries last longer when they are computer controlled.

Hydrogen as power source can be stored as long as needed or wanted in containers, ready to be used when needed.

No matter where electricity come from or how it is made: it needs to be stored in order to be used when needed.

I have before informed that hydrogen is a source that is not destroyed when used like oil or gasoline is. It is made from water and after having been made to hydrogen and used in combustion engines or to make electricity for fuel cells it returns to water ready to be used again.

 

 

New hydrogen production makes H2 by copying plants

 

BRET WILLIAMS                     https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/author/bret-2-2-2/

A University-of-Michigan-team has looked to nature for a green way to split water molecules.

 

As hydrogen production becomes an increasingly important foundation in the effort to transition to zero carbon emission economies, a team from the University of Michigan has looked to plants to provide a way to make H2 cleanly and efficiently.

H2 is expected to play a role in decarbonizing industry, transportation, and entire economies.

As much as it has promise in reducing or eliminating carbon emissions from many of the most polluting sectors of the world, it will only prove sustainably successful if there are methods of green hydrogen production that can keep up with demand. There are already many ways to produce the fuel, but most are not nearly as clean as they need to be in order to achieve the decarbonization required to meet climate targets.

Researchers from the University of Michigan say that they have found a cheaper and cleaner way of producing H2 by replicating the methods used by plants. Making H2 not only cleanly but also affordably is among the primary challenges in the way of the mass rollout of the fuel as a form of clean energy. This new study aims to provide a solution that will overcome those challenges and make H2 a practical and green energy source.

The researchers are developing artificial photosynthesis as a clean method of hydrogen production.

Artificial photosynthesis is not a new concept. However, the experiment conducted by this research team has provided a considerable improvement to the efficiency of the process. In fact, the efficiency level of the experiment showed greater efficiency than natural photosynthesis used by plants in nature.

The process has to do with the use of semiconductor catalysts. It requires heat to speed up the process and to prevent the oxygen and hydrogen from bonding once again after they have been split apart from a water molecule. However, the necessary heat had proven too great for current semiconductors to be able to handle. As a result, the team came up with a new solution by shrinking the semiconductor.

“We reduced the size of the semiconductor by more than 100 times compared to some semiconductors only working at low light intensity,” explained University of Michigan computer and electrical engineering research fellow, Peng Zhou, lead author of the study. Additionally, this method of hydrogen production uses “self-healing” semiconductor tech.

It was tested using a light source with an intensity 160 times greater than the sun as experienced from Earth. The light was used to heat the water and split the molecules, resulting in substantial improvements to hydrogen production efficiency.

[Mr Vlad]

Eh up John. Excellent article. Those folk at Michigan have come across a fantastic system to produce hydrogen. Just goes to show how technology is coming on in leaps and bounds on hydrogen production. I'm all for that. Yes Battery technology is improving but there's gonna be a limit.

John. Your research into hydrogen in general I personally appreciate and I'm sure lots of others do to. This thread I started isn't the best to carry on hydrogen stuff. Roy of the Rovers John started a thread This Blew My Mind. That is a great thread to chat about hydrogen stuff. I ask that you continue there.

Other sources for producing electricity are coming on too. Wind turbines seem good according to Guy Martins TV programme. But drawbacks are a plenty. Where to store excess produced electricity? Is one.

[Mr Vlad]

Something most interesting and not known by me was something in a video by JayEmm on cars. He's been slated by EVangelists for his views on EV'S. One thing he did rebuff them on was the night time cheap rate electricity. Now he's on octopus energy and on the cheap night time tariff But what really peed him off was that the cheap rate is Only between midnight and 4am. FOUR HOURS. Now to me that's taking the biscuit beyond belief. I was on a cheap rate night time tariff 20 years ago as the house I bought had storage heaters and cheap rate was minimum Seven hours.

Anyway JayEmm got really peed off because yes he's on cheap night time rate But his day time rate went UP by about 25%. Now that really is the energy suppliers taking the wee wee. 

So there's another thing with what's wrong with EV'S. It looks like their owners are being taken for a ride.

[toffee_pie]

Don't expect help from the gov, they tell you work longer hours, couldn't make this nonsense up could you.

If you can't afford food, work harder': Environment Secretary Therese Coffey sparks backlash by saying anyone who is struggling with cost-of-living crisis should take on longer hours

 

[Linas.P]

On 2/22/2023 at 11:03 AM, First_Lexus said:

Having read this thread with interest, it’s become obvious to me that the ‘problem’ with electric cars is that range available with the current technology means they don’t work for everybody with the current charging network, especially at higher speeds and in Winter with colder temperatures. They are also expensive, and risk disenfranchising those who can’t afford them in future assuming the price doesn’t fall dramatically (which it well might).

I can’t comment on the environmental positives or negatives as I’m no expert. I’ve read pros and cons argued with passion on both sides in terms of ‘whole life’ impact vs air quality and carbon emissions.

Personally I’m a big fan of public transport. The problem is - perhaps - not with electric vehicles as such, but that there are simply too many cars of all types. As I wrote before, the explosion in affordable personal transport is a recent phenomenon over the last 100 years or so. In human history that’s barely a footnote!

I do think cities without traffic and better public transport are nicer, and I do think that’s the future. However, Governments of all parties and in all countries need to make sure they legislate fairly and pragmatically. What works in London or Bristol or Manchester won’t work in rural Cornwall, Wales or the Highlands of Scotland as things stand.

If they don’t bring the people with them with them, they’ll have bigger problems further down the line. Likely not in my lifetime, but still vital that they develop genuine and sustainable long term plans. 

I guess just good illustration on how different people have different needs and perspectives.

For me public transport is most horrible thing ever... I often say I am allergic to it, but I can't think of more horrible way of travelling, standing next to other people, smelling their armpits and whatever junk food they took on board, or scrubbing your suit against the guy going to construction side all painted over and covered in dust. Perhaps as well depends on introverts vs extroverts... so no - in my opinion public transport is never a good solution. Sure I sometimes don't mind flying or Eurostar business class, unless somebody bring damn kids onboard... anyhow, I just can't see how to make public transport acceptable in huge city with 100s of different cultures, all ages from 1 to 100, all sorts of jobs, social classes etc... and make it as such that everyone enjoys it. Just not possible. Public transport is as well just phenomenon of last 100 years... at least personal transportation gives freedom and is positive phenomenon in my opinion public transport instead is dehumanising punishment.

Second point - why are there so many cars on road? Maybe because our road network was designed for 1900 when population was 30 million and build in 1960 for population of 48 millions... and by the way in 60s they designed the roads for future, but as you may know they never built them. Stupid protests took place, roads got cancelled ... and sure "homes over the roads" except we are now prisoners in our own cities because we can't damn drive around without roads... all great if you want to be stuck in tower block for the rest of your life, but for city planning it is horrible. So yes - there are 2 times as many people than the infrastructure is built to handle and 4 times as many cars as the roads can carry... and by the way in last 10-20 years government made roads literally worse, in a lot of places capacity was cut, not improved. So again I just disagree here - if we spend half of the £40bn collected from the roads each year for building new roads and widening them, then there would be "enough road for all the cars". Almost always this is countered with "yeah but there is no space"... I am sure there is enough space - build it vertically if it can't be built horizontally, built 2, 3, 4 layers of the roads... everything is possible if only we wanted to make it work. When they build trainline, they don't say there isn't enough space for railway in the city - they just build the tunnel under the city. I think there was study saying that there is limit of lanes after which it no longer makes sense - I believe that limit was 5 lanes, 3 were restrictive, 4 were optimal and there was no perceived benefit after 5, in which case we just need more roads, even if we can't widen them. Take M25 for example... it is only so busy because it should have been 3rd ring road from 4 planned... what it is instead is often 2nd from only 2.5 built. If we could build more ring roads the load will even out.

So in summary - there isn't too many cars, there are simply more people then there were before and they need infrastructure to travel. Public transport is needed, but it is not solution for everyone or everything... certainly not silver bullet to solve all future problems. 

Now where I do agree with you - it seems that BEVs are simply not solution for everyone, why will depend from person to person, but it is clear that as they are today they just can't work for majority and they need to fundamentally change to work for all the needs. 

 

[toffee_pie]

Yesterday I was driving across the country, around 4 hour return trip. I used  just over a quarter tank of fuel according to the fuel gauge - 65L total. I was driving as I usually do so to the speed limit - I noticed all the cars going that fast were mostly older models - the green number plates were seemingly stuck in the 1980s time warp travelling at 40mph.

If I had an EV travelling at that speed that trip would take hours more - over double easily

it would be a ballache - forever looking at the range, available charge points - will they work, will they fast charge, will the wife spontaneously combust.

[toffee_pie]

37 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

there isn't too many cars

Thats rubbish, the western world is way too populated - including too many cars - all these climate related events are ultimately giving power to councils and govs to get people off the road - pretty much every medium to large sized city in England is chock a block with traffic most days of the week at peak hours, towns also - especially in the South

[Linas.P]

16 minutes ago, toffee_pie said:

Yesterday I was driving across the country, around 4 hour return trip. I used  just over a quarter tank of fuel according to the fuel gauge - 65L total. I was driving as I usually do so to the speed limit - I noticed all the cars going that fast were mostly older models - the green number plates were seemingly stuck in the 1980s time warp travelling at 40mph.

If I had an EV travelling at that speed that trip would take hours more - over double easily

it would be a ballache - forever looking at the range, available charge points - will they work, will they fast charge, will the wife spontaneously combust.

And then think ... public transport. Yeah sure... the price would be astronomical, you would have to do 10 changes and I doubt you would get there same day... and Imagine if you have luggage with you what the choir that would be!

And as for them driving at 40MPH... 100%... anything above 50MPH is killing range... nowadays only Trucks and Teslas are in the first lane! What annoys me is that Trucks now mainly moved over into second lane, because they keep having to overtake Teslas! So that is "progress" for you!

[toffee_pie]

38 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

And then think ... public transport. Yeah sure... the price would be astronomical, you would have to do 10 changes and I doubt you would get there same day... and Imagine if you have luggage with you what the choir that would be!

And as for them driving at 40MPH... 100%... anything above 50MPH is killing range... nowadays only Trucks and Teslas are in the first lane! What annoys me is that Trucks now mainly moved over into second lane, because they keep having to overtake Teslas! So that is "progress" for you!

You need to look into this further, all this stuff stopped been a conspiracy around the time Bojo was caught with his pants down having parties every other weekend during lockdown. 

What's called out here in the link below is what we are seeing happening in the western world now, this has been in the planning for a long time. The Rio summit was in the early 90s.

If you only ever listen to what is told you won't know of anything else.

Now people are struggling to get food, when we were told to get EVs a few years ago there was none of this - there wasn't a war, economic crisis, food shortage, climate controlling measures taking shape in councils and we were told EVs were cheap as chips to run and the way forward. 

Think about it for a moment.

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/world-mourns-one-its-greats-maurice-strong-dies-his-legacy-lives

 

[First_Lexus]

3 hours ago, Linas.P said:

For me public transport is most horrible thing ever... I often say I am allergic to it, but I can't think of more horrible way of travelling, standing next to other people, smelling their armpits and whatever junk food they took on board, or scrubbing your suit against the guy going to construction side all painted over and covered in dust. Perhaps as well depends on introverts vs extroverts... so no - in my opinion public transport is never a good solution

You’ve either had some very bad personal experiences with public transport, or fear the unknown and have built up this terrible picture in your mind based on who knows what!

Introvert vs extrovert could well be an explanation. Having commuted in and out of London for many years into three of the major railway terminals, used the Underground extensively and also having driven in and out, I could count my number of bad public transport experiences in single figures. Getting stuck in traffic on the other hand happened all the time. I simply prefer the convenience and speed of public transport, but fully understand others have a different perspective based on their own experiences and values.

I know I’m going to sound like an ageing hippy, but as I’ve grown older my values have evolved. I like to see my self as part of a community, and travelling with others makes me feel part of something. Different languages, dress, opinions - I find it enriches my life experience. That’s a personal thing. I do know people who hate meeting new people. I love it.

By coincidence I was travelling with a colleague yesterday and today into and back out of central London. She also hates public transport, and so we drove. It took us two hours to travel thirteen miles in London. I say again - there are simply too many cars. Making the city more ‘car friendly’ is the wrong answer as far as I’m concerned, and I think public opinions - especially among people who actually live in cities - are shifting in that direction too.

Road infrastructure in London couldn’t really be expanded without widespread cultural vandalism and Paris, Rome etc. are in the same position. I consider people who drive a personal car into a big city where decent public transport exists - and it certainly does in London - adding to dirty, smelly pollution and congestion are selfish (and I know I’ve just done exactly that but lost the argument! Leaving the car with only one occupant would have been worse…).

Not a popular opinion on a motoring forum I guess, but I’d ban all cars (exemptions for the disabled and key workers) from city centres. In my opinion that would make the quality of life far better. Buses would move more quickly for one thing!

EVs wouldn’t solve anything. It’s the sheer number of vehicles that I consider to be the problem and I’m afraid I’m unconvinced by your contrary opinion. It is though just my opinion based on my values and beliefs.

None of that changes the fact that cars are absolutely needed in more rural settings, but in a big city? I see little justification to be honest regardless of how passionately it’s argued.

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, First_Lexus said:

You’ve either had some very bad personal experiences with public transport, or fear the unknown and have built up this terrible picture in your mind based on who knows what!

Introvert vs extrovert could well be an explanation. Having commuted in and out of London for many years into three of the major railway terminals, used the Underground extensively and also having driven in and out, I could count my number of bad public transport experiences in single figures. Getting stuck in traffic on the other hand happened all the time. I simply prefer the convenience and speed of public transport, but fully understand others have a different perspective based on their own experiences and values.

I know I’m going to sound like an ageing hippy, but as I’ve grown older my values have evolved. I like to see my self as part of a community, and travelling with others makes me feel part of something. Different languages, dress, opinions - I find it enriches my life experience. That’s a personal thing. I do know people who hate meeting new people. I love it.

By coincidence I was travelling with a colleague yesterday and today into and back out of central London. She also hates public transport, and so we drove. It took us two hours to travel thirteen miles in London. I say again - there are simply too many cars. Making the city more ‘car friendly’ is the wrong answer as far as I’m concerned, and I think opinions is shifting in that direction too.

Road infrastructure in London couldn’t really be expanded without widespread cultural vandalism and Paris, Rome etc. are in the same position. I consider people who drive a personal car into a big city where decent public transport exists - and it certainly does in London - adding to dirty, smelly pollution and congestion are selfish (and I know I’ve just done exactly that but lost the argument! Leaving the car with only one occupant would have been worse…).

Not a popular opinion on a motoring forum I guess, but I’d ban all cars (exemptions for the disabled and key workers) from city centres. In my opinion that would make the quality of life far better. Buses would move more quickly for one thing!

EVs wouldn’t solve anything. It’s the sheer number of vehicles that I consider to be the problem and I’m afraid I’m unconvinced by your contrary opinion. It is though just my opinion based on my values and beliefs.

Nome of that changes the fact that cars are absolutely needed in more rural settings, but in a big city? I see little justification to be honest regardless of how passionately it’s argued.

Clearly we have some fundamentally different values and perspectives. I would almost say that it seems you had very bad experience driving and that perhaps that impact your view on driving?! I am sure 2 hours to travel 13 miles isn't exactly good experience, been there and done that... but it shouldn't be that way! The question is why it takes so long, what can be done about it etc... Why there isn't expressway into and out of the city where you can do 90MPH all the way to Houses of Parliament? It is not like we don't know how to build the roads and tunnels...

I guess public transport in UK as a whole is one never ending bad experience... I give you that - other countries do have better public transport, but "just slightly"... I still want to vomit just thinking about using it... and this is not parabolic statement, I really really hate public transport (and anything public in the name to be fair) to the point where I am concerned about my own mental health considering the horrible things I would do to avoid using it. The perspective what is "decent public transport" will warry a lot... London definitely does not have anything even close to "decent" public transport. I think one of the only few times I was on truly public and truly decent transport was the bullet trains in China... where for $36 (price cap) you can get business class seat (like a cubicle) from Shanghai to Beijing, food included and only takes 4h and the scenery is amazing. But let's just face it - for city commuting it will never happen and it isn't even practical... and I am not saying China is good country, I am just saying I have enjoyed that single journey. Eurostar often comes quite close, I usually like flying long haul, but how many people would call £800 Emirates flight "a public transport", from my perspective it is "public" because I don't own the plane vs. private jet which is then "private". That said - I am yet to see urban public transport where I would say "ohh yes I would use that voluntarily". Talking about London specifically, the new Elizabeth line is probably as close to acceptable as it will ever get, it would be borderline acceptable if - people would be forced to wear clean clothes there, would be banned from bringing the food onboard, put their feet on the seats and if it would only allow as many people as could be seated into the train... not realistic, but the trains themselves and the time they take to travel to central London are acceptable.

I kind of already pre-emptively said that I disagree with the notion that "Road infrastructure in London couldn’t really be expanded"... ohh yes it could! We can build eight 15 miles long 4 lane tunnels from from M25 all the way into central London, with 4 underground ring roads to connect them all and 10 x100,000 parking lots without altering anything about the city above. It is just matters of priority... I completely understand why this isn't a priority, but to saying "it cannot be done" is wrong. And again I think what is "widespread cultural vandalism" is a matter of perspective, some people see the roads as ugly, I don't if anything Japanese multi-level road network (say hanshin expressway) is almost an art form. And besides what is more important the city or the people living in it? I would argue that city should be function over form, it does not mean it has to be ugly, but primarily it must be functional. And besides - if I can't drive 100 metres from something, park my personal car there and go an see it... it may not exit at all... I do not care... (and this is hyperbolic statement by the way... I am fine walking maybe a mile). But no matter what it is, no matter who asked me to go there - if I can't drive there and then walk relatively short distance to it I am not coming as long as we talking about my free time and me doing it voluntarily. So on one hand - I don't believe we need to demolish St. Paul's Cathedral to make way for the roads... but at the same time if that would be the only way... I would choose roads over some useless Cathedral (just don't take it too seriously... this is hypothetical).

And if you ban all cars in the city, then why make anyone except? If public transport is such a "perfect option", then aren't you contradicting yourself by saying that "key workers and disabled" would be except? If everyone better-off in public transport, then surely "key workers" and disabled people would be better of using it as well? And if they are not better-off using it, then perhaps nobody are?! Seems a bit arbitrary to me to say that there are certain people who should be allowed to drive but not all...

I think it all goes back to introvert vs. extrovert thing for me - the older I get the more I hate people and interactions... the last thing I want is to be "closer to the community", and I don't mean just usual smelling somebodies chicken wings or arm-pits in packed train... I mean literally buying a house on the cliff of the mountain if I could and living at least 50 miles away from the closest neighbour would be sort of thing I would do. For me viruses, germs, wild animals and all the people are amazing creatures... as long as they are on the other side of the window. 

P.S. - I honestly love this discussion and the fact we can have it and stay civilised. So this is not attack on anyone, just interesting how different are the people and opinions!

[DavidCM]

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/workers-are-dying-in-the-ev-industrys-tainted-city

Read this to see how clean EVs are.

[First_Lexus]

22 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I honestly love this discussion and the fact we can have it and stay civilised. So this is not attack on anyone, just interesting how different are the people and opinions!

Completely agree. It’s the differences of opinion and the debate that are interesting here. Fascinating actually.

23 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I guess public transport in UK as a whole is one never ending bad experience...

^^ Totally disagree. I think it’s actually (generally speaking) a great experience. Modern trains (mostly) few delays, far better capacity than there used to be (at least in the South-East). The difference between now and when I started using it in the 1980s is vast.

My opinion remains that Public Transport in London is very good - as a very frequent user of it for many (many) years. The Underground especially is brilliant - efficient but not sterile, and full of history. It’s a very British system, a bit unconventional and quirky, and all the better for it! 

28 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

We can build eight 15 miles long 4 lane tunnels from from M25 all the way into central London, with 4 underground ring roads to connect them all and 10 x100,000 parking lots without altering anything about the city above

Possible but risky. Even the proposed tunnels for the HS2 terminal are causing lots of anxiety. But yes, possible if not hugely practical.

 

29 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

disabled people would be better of using it as well? And if they are not better-off using it, then perhaps nobody are?! Seems a bit arbitrary to me to say that there are certain people who should be allowed to drive but not all...

I am disabled and don’t really know where to start with that statement. I guess if you are lucky enough to be fully fit then you won’t understand. I won’t be able to walk at all over the next decade or so and there are many worse off than me. Even the best public solutions can’t cater for those who are in that situation. It can work for some, but there needs to be an option. If public transport ran 24/7 then key workers wouldn’t need to be exempt that’s partly true, but if you need a Doctor fast then he or she will need a car in some situations. There are always exceptions to every rule.

To one of your other points - yes, it’s values and beliefs (and priorities) that drive (no pun intended!) such divergent views. That’s what makes life interesting as if we all thought the same that would be deathly dull. You just better hope I never get into power…😆