Linas.P

Colin is knowledgeable man and well respected, but I if he is talking non-sense then it is non-sense! That does not mean I don't agree with him on 100 other topics 🙂

In theory yes - because currently you only share the station with 100 odd people in the entire country. But the main advantage is that filling hydrogen takes ~2 minutes per tank, so single pump has like 30 times the capacity of BEV charging point. Actually, I tried to plot the range of where you can get in HCV today... and you can get to absolutely any part of UK with some range to spare (400+ miles range, meaning you can go 200 miles from the station and back). However, assuming you need to live within 20 miles from hydrogen station to make it viable to own HCV... this means very few people can do it - basically only cities of Aberdeen, London, Sheffield and Swindon are covered... however this already means there are more people with access to Hydrogen fuel (~11 million) then there are people with access of car charging at home (~9.9 million), because obviously unlike with BEV you don't need to charge HCV at home!

This is actually very flawed assumption - look again at the graph I have already copied in this thread. 48% of electricity produced is wasted due to transmission loses and fluctuation in demand e.g. electricity demand suddenly drops at night, but you can't just reduce the output of nuclear reactor, or there is high wind during all the night, but nobody needs the electricity from wind turbine - so this electricity will be wasted. The alternative is to have hydrolysis plant near the station and as soon as there is excessive demand you can start converting water into hydrogen. Not only this saves wasted energy, but as well it produces basically free hydrogen and still allows to have enough capacity for periods of high demand. Not to mention such hydrogen would be easier to store and transport than current solution (used Tesla batteries). Likewise it does not require installing recharging infrastructure in residential buildings. Overall - the energy required to produce hydrogen is similar to that need to charge BEV if we start producing hydrogen on large scale from excess energy we produce. The reason why hydrogen production is so inefficient currently is because we take electricity as end product and use it to make hydrogen after transmission, instead of making in the power plant itself as soon as there is excess. Finally, you repeating same debunked claim - NO majority of car owners CAN'T charge BEVs at home. Your second paragraph just doesn't make sense overall. What is more tiring?.. to drive 600 miles with 3 coffee stops in 8 hours, or to drive same 600 miles with 3 coffee and charge stops in 11 hours? Both would be tiring, but I am sure adding 3 extra hours required to charge car will make last 200 mile stint impossible after 8 hours already on the road.

Again you playing same hypocritical line. I have already answered your question - it is impossible, because there are no hydrogen stations near Leicester. ... and no I am not joking at all... and you know that without Supercharger being at Fort William it would be nearly impossible to visit it with average BEV. Only very few long range BEVs can actually make that journey and comeback to either Glasgow or Inverness. Looking at the map is kind of obvious realistically you need 240 miles of actual range (so ~280 miles claimed) to go from Glasgow and back, otherwise you have to go around via Perth>Aviemore/Inverness where you will still need BEV with 140 miles or more of actual range which most of BEVs can do nowadays: If you say having Supercharger in your destination does not affect your planning, then I just don't believe you. That is the same as it is impossible for me to drive BEV anywhere at all, because I can't charge it at home. Yet I can easily own HCV and go to both Fort William and good 200 miles in any direction from London. Not to mention Hydrogen network is in complete infancy at the moment and playing the same line as you I can say that "in future you can simply fill hydrogen in any petrol station".

They have tiny battery, comparable to that one on ICE vehicle and you know it. HCVs are not better than BEVs, this is silly statement because we know that battery technology is much more mature (in fact if over 100 years old). However, HCVs are de-facto cleaner, whereas BEVs are de-facto faster. But if we making such comparisons then nobody would be surprised if 1.2L Toyota Yaris would be cleaner but slower than Porsche 911. You can't do such trip with HCV car simply because you don't have Hydrogen stations near Leicester, but this is good example of your hypocrisy - you see I don't have way of charging BEV at home either. Now assuming you can refuel hydrogen new Leicester (which you currently can't), then the journey to Fort William would be possible and would take about the same time (via Sheffield and Aberdeen for refuel). On top of that let's be honest here - big part of why you chosen Fort William as your destination is because Tesla Supercharger is there (so it is very convenient), but let's not pretend that you don't have to look at the charging points location before you decide if you could go there. Something one never needs to do in ICE car...

Yes but that is because you represent minority who have ability to own EV and charge it at home. Just to be clear I am not completely against EVs and I see benefits of owning one is city, however where we need to agree is that this is not solution for majority of population. It just isn't... I personally seriously considered BMW i8, that is not BEV, but the battery only range on it was enough for me to get to work in central London, meaning I rarely have to refuel it and I woudl benefit saving £12.5 a day on congestion charge. So I made a lot of enquiries about installing the charging point. Building management company was actually supportive, but freeholder refused to grant permission. As far as I know they have to do risk assessment for entire building again, because car charging was not in original plan and I was told that is very expensive (in a millions?). So I just could not have it... end of story... what is the point of having PHEV or even worse BEV if you can charge it. This is reality for most of people in the cities and because majority live in the cities, that means for majority in the country... period. You can keep ignoring this fact, but that doesn't change it. Another statistic which support above is the fact that majority of BEV buyers are no the people who upgrade their existing BEV, to new one... why do you think it is that? Because people who can have BEVs mostly already have them, the rest of the country either can't afford them or can't own them because of practical issues like parking/charging. That is the present. You could argue that in future things will change and they may change, but then don't say it is past, or that it is present. It may be past for you, but for most of the country it is future. So just admit you do not represent average brit, certainly not majority and that you are in the minority. That is just a fact.

All those surveys conducted by professionals... sadly you have not linked any here. I admit that my figures are "educated guesses" at best, at least I have looked-up some actual statistics and explained how I came to estimates/ conclusion. As I said before the mere fact that one estimate is 50% and another is 75% already shows that both estimates are incorrect. We not talking about accidental chance of getting hit by lightning here, we are talking about quantifiable thing - parking space. So there should be no significant disparity... If you look at any estimates provided by goverment, they are always estimating that: energy consumption will continue to fall and even that fall will accelerate... which is massive assumption is that number of cars overall going to be much lower in future... again I am not convinced they are only estimating that ~10-25% of cars will be EVs (by 2030)... which begs a question, what will be remaining 75-90% if they planning to ban ICE sales the same year!? In short I agree with you - it is far easier said than done and this "lamp-post" charging sounds to me like typical politician lie when they are confronted with the facts of suitable parking and charging points... "no worries - in future somehow we will have charging point on every lamp post, so you don't need to worry about charging at home"... BS!

your conclusions are no less deluded and could easily be debunked... If research would be at all accurate, then it would say how many homes exactly have parking, especially off-street. Saying that is something between 50-75% just shows that the research is pile of 💩. Not only that, but if you have ever spent time look at homes to buy or rent (sadly I have recently spent weeks doing it), what you will find is that off-street parking is especially rare. The councils said they will provide lamp-post charging - that is true. But please enlighten me how many of those have actually been installed so far? I think you will have to agree whatever was done so far is negligible amount... what they have promised to do in the future that is another questions, but we talking here about the present. You are saying urban areas are "not-valid" representation of country as a whole? I would argue that considering 82% of people live in urban areas and BEV are most beneficial especially in urban areas, this makes your statement which invalid itself. Again what number of people will own cars in future is just speculation, so there is no point discussing it... but I agree that rates of car ownership in the urban areas are lower... perhaps because people can't find where to park them, never mind to charge them.

Read my post first... I said detached homes will always have off-street parking, this isn't strictly true, but there will be very few exceptions. However, I have tried to estimate how many terraced, semi-detached and flats could have parking as well. If you just bother to read then you would know. Secondly, having off-street parking does not mean you could charge your car there. Finally, the reality with flats is that not only you may not have charging, you may not have parking space at all! Not sure in what sort of flats you have lived, but in all flats I have ever lived in London parking space number was never higher than 50 spaces per 100 flats, in my current apartment it is 30 per 100 and despite it being technically "off-street" and despite me having my own dedicated parking space I can't charge my car there as freeholder won't give permission for it. Unless you have some data to prove otherwise... I stick with my conclusion that vast majority of people can't charge EVs at home.

I doubt they would simply sell you FL upgrades. Same thing as you can't buy FL lights, bumpers etc, or F-Sport bumpers for non-f-sport car. @Winghui Pang Your best bet is to get your callipers refurbished and painted in any colour you like... in the end of the day it is mostly only the paint which is difference between Orange Pack and normal callipers.

No you can't!.. you just assuming everyone have of street parking with electrical installation capable of charging EV. This is very ignorant considering that majority of the people in UK don't have this. So for example for me it would be easier to fuel hydrogen car than BEV, because I have hydrogen station 5 miles from where I live. I mean sure 13 stations in UK is far cry from the density in say Germany, or something we could consider sufficient, but don't forget you only need to refuel hydrogen car once in 1000 miles or so. I would be ignorant to say "maybe you are living on different planet" when myself I live 5 miles from hydrogen station, but that is exactly what you do with your "you can charge it at home statement"! The dwelling type statistics in UK is as follows: Terraced 27.4%, Semi-detached 25.0%, Detached 17.9%, Bungalow 8.8% and Flats 20.9% I don't have exact stats for off-street parking, but with 82% of population being urban it not going to be great. The only dwelling type which is likely always have off-street parking is Detached, so only 17.9%. This does not mean they have right electrical installation - so maybe only half of detached houses can charge BEV at home. And I will make same assumption for the rest of dwelling types (only half of those who have offstreet parking can charge at home). Following on - almost all terraced houses won't have off-street, so say only 10% can, maybe 25% of semi-detached and bungalows and finally none of the flats... again maybe 10%. If my math and assumption are correct this leaves only 15.6% of household who may be able to charge their cars at home and 84.4% who can't. I would not call it "you can simply charge it at home"...

Yes... but what worries/annoys me the most... that we now know it is the case, this is not secret! Yet government and councils continues to add new traffic calming features every day. In short making mistakes is "fine", but not learning from them is the main issue. Now I say "fine", because I believe for the goverment it isn't actually "fine", I consider that they should always do more due diligence, but I accept some mistakes will be made - they are just people after all. This reminds me the "diesel gate" - it as known for quite some time diesel cars are much dirtier than CO2 figures suggests, yet goverment continued to push (incentivise via tax) diesels all the way to ~2016 and only really started penalising them recently... ~2018 maybe... yet still to this day you can get new diesel and actually take advantage of lower tax in some case. Again - obvious issue for everyone, diesel gate actually started in US in 2008, clear conclusions were made in 2012 and WV was already penalised in court in 2015... why did it take UK so long to do anything about it? To be fair it doesn't seems like even today they have done enough... So it is this failure to recognise and correct past issues which is most annoying. But obviously it being goverment I would expect better decisions from them overall. More facts based and less political (I know this is not realistic with the bunch we have...)

It was a study done by emergency services where they calculated how many people dies on average per minute of delay, then they calculated how much ambulances and other emergency services are delayed, to come-up with conclusion that more people dies from traffic calming features that are saved by reduction in speed. I would agree it is theoretical increase, but likewise traffic calming features are justified by theoretical decrease - so I think it is just fair comparison. In nutshell - traffic calming features actually does not work as a way to reduce deaths. I will try to find the article. LTNs are not traffic "calming" feature, they are literally blocking off the road in the middle and making 2 dead ends from both sides for access only. What I consider traffic calming feature are speed humps, narrow gates and chicanes... roundabouts depending on how obstructive they are could as well be considered as such. Regarding "reductio ad absurdum" - not sure what is your point... I think we all agree that it is both true and absurd at the same time. Like - let's make all knives dull and we won't have accidental cuts... yes except then we will lose utility of having a knife! Edit: 1. Apparently The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has estimated that Pollution caused by speed calming measures kills additional 25,000 people a year. I would take this with a grain of salt (maybe quite a lot salt actually)... because it means 1/6th of all deaths are caused indirectly only by traffic calming features (ridiculous). 2. More realistic estimate comes from London Ambulance Service - they claim that more than 500 deaths from cardiac arrest a year could be caused by traffic calming features delay in London alone. Extrapolated for UK that would be ~3000 deaths. If we take road deaths number in UK last year ~1700, this makes my statement correct - traffic calming features causes more deaths by causing delay to emergency services... actually quite significantly more than they could ever save! Because assumption is that traffic calming features reduce some of deaths, but if LAS estimate is correct then they cause almost twice the total number! Add fee deaths from what NICE estimates and they look even less appealing!

I am sure PHEV would not be as "tax beneficial" as BEV, but the point is that at least I could get it. I simply can't get Lexus hybrids because they were like 141g/km or something along those lines. On to of that BEV tax saving is irrelevant for me, because I literally don't have where to charge it as most of people in London. So all good and dandy that it would be £108/Month cheaper, but it would be at the same time useless.

looking ...and driving. Perhaps not so much difference between ES300h and IS300h, but IS350 is in another league from ES350.

As well it is proven that combined delay of speedbump (and other traffic "calming" features) kills more people that they could ever save. Yet every time I drive I see more and more of them being fitted on main roads! Sure in parking lot or small access roads they make sense, but not on major streets! You providing several good examples of hypocrisy and madness in this country. For example I literally stopped using one hair salon after being their client for over 12 years... because it used to be 2 hours free parking no return, then it turned into 30 minutes no return, then £2/h for max 1h no-return and you could only pay by phone app which never works! After 6 years of 30 minutes free parking it caught me out once and I had to pay £60 for damn council fraud and since then I won't return there. This is example of how it affect local business, but how many business I simple ignored and never even considered, just because I can't park where they are? And this premise that you can reach anywhere on foot, cycle or public transport is just ridiculous. Sure if everything exists 500 years from my home, why not! But even if it is 5 miles I will certainly drive there. 5 miles in a car is what? 8-10 minutes? and I get out of if clean, dry and not sweating my shirt off. In public transport it will be 5minutes walk to the station, 10 minutes wait time if you lucky, 10 minutes journey if you don't need to change and then another 10 minutes walking... add return journey and suddenly it takes 2 hours to do something that could have been done in 25 minutes in your own car! Not to mention utility of the car to haul your luggage and I won't need to scrub chewing gum off my trousers and go through deep cleaning and chemical decontamination process when I am back! For those cycling enthusiast I would like to see how they are doing your weekly groceries shopping on the bicycle, or they are cramming themselves with 8 bags of food into stinky bus? No sure not... they get into their sneaky car, do shopping and they forget about that journey as soon as they turn on PC and get onto forum and to bark at car owners 😄

I think if you boil it down to one sentence, then it is exactly that... and I agree it is bloody obvious. It is almost opposite to what I said in my previous post - if pedestrians don't jump on roads then it will inevitably lead to less injuries. "safe roads" proponents seems to have exactly opposite idea - "if there are no cars on the roads, then there will be no injuries..." equally true, but then I would like them to explain me what utility does the road have in this case and why they are expecting drivers to continue to contribute £38bn into the budget every year if they literally can't drive?! By the way - nice summary for anyone who don't want to waste time on reading the article.

Guardian has always been a bot of hippy of the magazines, cyclist paradise and motorist nightmare. Probably one of the reason I stopped reading it, among other reason like increasingly poor journalism. The data they have quoted is really interesting in a sense that it is so fundamentally flawed. And as expected they do not provide any journalism qualities as they simply take the statements from biased and interested groups and state them as a fact in article, without analysing, challenging or providing alternative perspective. As I said previous, motorist opinion does not matter! Especially, for news papers like guardian. The key issue I can see is that they conflate 20MPH limit, to LTNs (access only streets) and on top of that they doing research during covid time which is unprecedented in terms of reduction in travel and traffic as a whole. Why this makes no sense? That is because imposing 20MPH limit on main street is NOT the same as imposing this limit in cul-de-sac/access only street which is dead end. Other significant term we should take a look at is "discouraging driving" - NO 💩! So basically you want my money for driving, but you don't want me to actually drive... that sounds like usually raw deal motorists are getting. And I kind of appreciate the concept on LTN where the traffic is only local and that promotes walking/cycling locally, but it completely doesn't make sense on major road which is used by many people who are not local at all and who are not travelling locally. The only issue I see with LTNs themselves is that the being offered as solution without looking into causes. The reason why people choose to "rat-run" on local streets instead of using main road is usually because the main road is simply not capable of providing sufficient capacity. In short - if they focus on making main roads viable and providing sufficient capacity there, then drivers would naturally decide to stick to main roads and LTNs would not be even needed. So as usual they are addressing symptoms and not the issue in itself. Will the Beast Norman, the walking and cycling commissioner for London, said: Surely, one obvious disadvantage he forgets to mention - increased congestion, traffic, noise and travel times on main roads. Just a "tiny" detail...

As for the looks I agree, the "current" mk3 facelift ("mk3.5-ish") IS is the best look IS in my opinion. But what makes you think there will be "next gen IS"? I mean I agree there will be "next gen something", but if I would make a bet, I would say it will be ES. I have a feeling that IS "mk3.5" will be the last IS. What makes me think that way ... IS was a FR configuration car using almost dedicated platform, the key in it getting discontinued is that Toyota discontinued Toyota N platform. So realistically new IS won't be a built on TNGA-K, because it is FF platform and it certainly won't be built on TNGA-L platform to keep it FR, because that is platform on which LS and LC are built, and it is technically more "luxurious" platform (if that could be said) than TNGA-K on which is the model above in the range (ES) is made. In short - I just could not see Lexus making FF IS on TNGA-K, nor I can see Lexus making FR IS on TNGA-L. It seems that globally ES replaced both GS and IS, and it makes most sense to simply work with that platform. TNGA-K has been designed to support FF hybrids and PHEVs and if they going to make full EV then they will use e-TNGA. There is "medium sedan" rumoured to be on e-TNGA, but "medium" in this sense I believe would be again ES and not IS.

It seems that we agree on more things that we disagree, so that is good to see. TLDR means - too long; didn't read. If we go to beginning of argument, then you said: vs. As you can see your argument has shifted from the initial statement. And now I agree with you, by itself it is not effective - that is what I have argued. As supporting evidence it could be very very effective, depending of what is captured and what other evidence exists. So I agree with with your last statement now. As well it is important to define what "effective" means - in my mind effective is like "80/20 rule" - meaning that it is effective in majority of the cases. From stats you kindly provided it seems that effectiveness of dashcam footage are from as low as ~1%... and as high as ~48%... so let's say on average 25% across the board and ineffective in 75% of cases. In my mind that is not effective at all. Comparing that with what I consider actually "effective"... as defence it is like 80-90%+ effective, because if you were innocent in almost all cases you will be able to prove it using dashcam. That is effective and that is why I recommend fitting it. We as well agree that date, time and location from dashcam isn't reliable evidence. And that is partially why dashcam footage on it's own isn't very reliable or strong. We agree that video could be effectively used to scare and threaten the suspects into admission. However, I personally find such admission itself questionable, immoral and not much different from criminal behaviour in itself. Frankly, I don't see the difference of old police methods of smashing people in pulp to gain admission by physical violence and the modern method psychological terror or using video to force the admission. I just don't support that and I do not care if the suspect is actually guilty, especially when it comes to driving offences, many of which are rather arbitrary. You can call me idealist, but my opinion is that there are only two possibilities - either police have 100% clear evidence and can prove guild without admission, or they don't have evidence and they can't. Having 20% of evidence and then forcing admission before it reaches the court is just not practice I support. In the end I think we clearly have difference between practice and theory. In theory, based on existing law and standard dashcam footage would rarely help in prosecution, simply because almost any suspect could argue they were not the driver at the time and the time in video is not correct. However, in practice there may be high number of suspects simply being scared by police and admitting it anyway, so real persecution rate (or "benefit") is higher than it should be. Now, sadly, in my experience on both occasions I got into situations where suspects had titanium-balls and were completely unaffected by watching the footage, it certainly didn't result in the admitting and settling out of the court and ultimately both cases were lost in the court. Basically showing that if suspect stick to their story and pleads not guilty, there is high chance court won't convict them in absence of any other strong evidence. So in my experience dashcam footage resulted in 0% win rate and maybe that is why I am more pessimistic about it's effectiveness. Finally, one important note to make - evidence collected by police is always far more important than evidence collected by public. In both of my cases police refused to attend the incident and in both cases that was what ultimately failed the prosecution. If police would have merely attended and recorded incident themselves, that most likely would have been enough for successful prosecution. That is why I am rather spiteful when it comes to police.

Just one thing to consider - in UK we waste like 48% of electricity we produce. The below chart is for all energy, but from memory for electric is slightly lower than total. This happens because we always have to have some spare capacity, otherwise we will have black-outs, but we can't increase/reduce production fast enough to make sure we produce just enough energy e.g. that is absolutely impossible with solar/wind energy, it is difficult and unpractical to do on hydro power, it is not possible on nuclear, so realistically only fossil fuel stations could be regulated. Now... indeed hydrogen production is not very green, because it electrolysis uses loads of electricity, but if we would use this spare capacity to produce hydrogen, then we can pretty much tap into free energy which would be otherwise wasted. If we can use this wasted energy to produce hydrogen, then not only the electricity will become cheaper, but hydrogen is as well easier and cheaper to store and transport than electricity in batteries of hydro-accumulative plants (basically they pump the water upstream during times of low demand and release it to generate energy during times of high demand). In summary - we can make hydrogen quite clean and it is relatively easy to store, transport and refuel.

I would not be fancy BEV IS either... I am simply not believer in BEV technology and practicality overall e.g. I don't see a way how everyone, myself included, could have sufficient charging capacity etc. What I think would be interesting is properly fast plug-in hybrid IS... somewhere along the lines of BMW 330e (5.5-6.5, 0-60) but ideally with little bit longer battery range 30-40 miles maybe (BMW has certified 21-22Miles if I am not mistaken) and it would be perfect if hybrid drive would be based on V6 rather than L4. That would take all the advantages of low tax, would be eligible as company car (under 75g Co2) and free access to congestion charge areas, but would have no BEV disadvantages like being stuck in charging station for hours, planning the route around existing charging network and it could be charged reasonably well from 220V socket, which is far easier than finding 2-5kV+ in most places. That is obviously just what I would like to see, not what will happen. My prediction of what will happen is that Lexus is rumoured to release either BEV or PHEV (or both) saloon almost certainly based on TNGA-K (basically or exactly Lexus ES)... so basically that overly bloaty ugly looking amurican car. If it is going to be PHEV then it will be transversally mounted trashy 4-Pot engine driving front wheels (FF arrangement) and Electric motors driving real wheels making it fake AWD, similar arrangement as NX300h AWD or Volvo S90 T8. Lexus calls this technology DIRECT4 and I am fairly positive their "test mule" is Lexus ES. So the future of executive saloons in Lexus does not sound great at all, it won't be IS, it will most likely going to be AWD PHEV ES and/or RWD? BEV ES. As well, because Lexus/Toyota are behind in BEV tech, I would suspect specifications will be somewhere around the level of 2nd gen Tesla (basically early days of Model-S), so expect range of around 150-200 miles, but acceleration could be decent 5s. That is unless Toyota strikes deal with Samsung or something like that for solid state batteries and literally jumps over the decade of battery development... in that case it is anyone's guess what stats will be. Finally on hydrogen... I am actually surprised that Toyota keeps releasing unsuccessful Mirai models which clearly doesn't generate much interest except of complete nerds. But they don't try to use Lexus brand as a vehicle for Hydrogen marketing. For example Hydrogen would be ideal for "luxury barge" like LS... sure finding refuelling station is a bit difficult, but that is a problem for chauffeur to figure out and then you get 1000 miles range! No fuel stops for days and performance isn't really that important in limousine. So for me it just doesn't make sense that they have wasted TNGA-L for Mirai, but have not thought of having hydrogen version of Lexus LS (which is built on the same platform)?! Remember GS450h - that was first luxury hybrid car, sure it looked weird at the time, but it inevitably shaped Lexus brand and entire industry for last 2 decades. At the time it made sense to put expensive hybrid technology into luxury car where margins are higher. It seems same could be done with hydrogen technology. Surely it is easier to market £100k hydrogen LS, than £100k Toyota!

Going back to the topic of speed limits, the main issue I have with following them is lack of transparency. I consider that there should be public record of every decision related to speed limits e.g. "as result of x number of accidents caused by Y decision was made to introduce temporary speed limit of 50MPH for 3 years". And it should not be FOIA request to get it, it should literally be in public domain. Understanding the limit, would be first step in appreciating it and appreciating would lead into compliance. I simply can't follow arbitrary limit which I can't appreciate and based on road conditions I can see it is safe to drive faster. That said limits on motorway would clearly cease existing because justification in there would be "this is temporary limit introduced in 1960s which we simply forgotten to remove". Could there be 70MPH limits on motorway - yes absolutely, but they have to be individually justified and temporary. Apart of these temporary limitations all the roads should allow the maximum speed based on the road itself i.e. urban roads 30, A-Roads 60, motorways unlimited. The other big part - limits should not be used to raise revenue (how often we see perfectly straight roads which goes to 50, then back to 60 or 70 for no apparent reason, except of camera at the start of it), nor they should be used to mask the roads which are substandard. Goverment raises plenty of money from motorists to make every single road in country perfect, so speed limit reduction could not be justified by road getting simply worn out and unsafe. Finally, public and drivers education, we need to filter poor drivers out of the population so that everyone can be safer and drive faster, likewise public should know the dangers of the road and don't be babies - take care of them selves instead of relying on drivers always driving at totally retarded speed and always being prepared to stop on the dime when some idiot jumps into the road.

It is kind of sad, because both IS300h and GS300h have been discontinued, but if you looking after used car then I guess it is only better. I don't like NX just because I basically don't like any SUVs, not sure of the reason why you didn't like it, but maybe it is why as well? From driving perspective I found ES300h same as any other Lexus 300h and I could not even complain much about it being FWD, because realistically 300h is just powerful enough to really take advantage of RWD. Still both GS/IS would be more more "dynamic" when driving and would have better balance. IS is smaller car, more sporty, GS is bigger car and more luxurious, but in my opinion both are better built - more "Lexus like".

That is obvious 💩 - new rules clearly states that car will fail MOT if any of emission control systems are removed, regardless if it passes the emissions test or not. So it is removal of DPF and EGR itself that are illegal already. Secondly, what you saying could not be further from a "fact" and I am sure you have no evidence to prove, so basically you are just troll talking 💩. When it comes to moral side of thing - knowingly polluting the air and blowing your 💩 into other people is clearly immoral, even if you can purchase MOT certificate from equally 💩 garage. Finally, passing MOT does not mean your car is road worthy, it literally says that on your MOT certificate. And not having DPF/EGR automatically makes your car not road worthy and thus illegal to drive. So stop spreading lies.