Linas.P

Not often - always! That is why I said on many BEV discussion that it is extremely hard to find unbiased and reliable source. I would almost say - don't listen to what they say, loot at what they do! I doubt Toyota would have invested as much in Hydrogen if it would be wrong solution, or BMW would have agreed to make Zupra just to peek at the technology. My guess as to why both now announcing more BEVs is that they cashing in on the hype, but I still believe long term they are planning to offer Hydrogen vehicle. I personally think that key issue with Hydrogen at the moment is that it is unsustainable, kind of defeats whole purpose of replacing ICEV... but the same can be said about BEV... so what! Just as reminder - hydrogen is only made in two ways 1. gas reforming during oil extraction 2. is electrolysis. It is clear why 1 not great - to get hydrogen we need to extract oil, and the whole point of transition is to stop it, so that makes no sense. The option 2 really depends on where our electricity is coming from, I think what we can all agree on is that it takes more energy to produce 1kg of H2 than can be made by using it and that is why it is simply better to charge the BEV directly with electricity, than use it to make H2... that is obviously assuming you have where to charge BEV and have time to wait. So it is kind of obvious that future for Hydrogen is electrolysis, but for that to happen we need to find the way to produce a lot of clean electricity. My solution for now would be nuclear (forget renewables - they all suck!), but really fusion should be our goal and then suddenly it no longer matter whenever it is 1.5KWh or 50KWh is required. Again just as reminder - single fusion reactor can make nearly limitless amount of energy, the only thing that matters is distribution, so assumption is that most countries will want to have at least one of them, but apart of that even single reactor can power the world. For now let's not forget that we waste 40% of ALL nuclear electricity produced and I think we can put it to better use. Why it isn't done? Because electricity from NPP is extremely cheap ~ 1.5p KWh, so NPP operators just doesn't care if it goes to waste (it is less than ~£7200 per day). As you can imagine it would take very long time (or more specifically 76 years) to pay back say £200m experimental hydrogen generation/hydrogen turbine reactor to save £7200 per day. So from our perspective it seems that even at absurd 50KWh/Kg consumption each reactor could produce 10 tons of H2 each night... it seems like at current cost of £12/kg this should be profitable enough for somebody to try, but it seems big business consider it too risk to put much effort into it... as realistically there is no demand (at least for automotive use) and as always we are in chicken and egg situation. Better solution would be to have separate hydrogen burning reactor to produce electricity from hydrogen during the day, but as always it is more complicated even than that. In short - just wasted electricity for nuclear can produce 60 million tons of H2 a year, but nobody cares, because there is no demand for 60 million tons of H2 a year, yet it would require a lot of investment. For that reason I have always said - long term infrastructure project should be long term government policy, business will never stick their money and risk it. The problem is that out government as always are barely capable of scratching their balls and v*s, energy strategy is way above their head ( I am kind of making the picture of monkey in the zoo in my head when thinking about intelligence of our government in this particular subject)🙈🙉.

Seems like RC-F seas, personally not a fan of combination between red and black, but other issue is as well that rear seats do not fold. Obviously, otherwise it can be considered an upgrade I guess.

Yes... sorry the size I mentioned is for IS250, diesel has bigger battery... the Bosch size for IS220d - S4029, I believe the universal code for size is Type 250. Makes no difference how the batteries are branded, Yuasa is just not great brand and is known to fail... I would not recommend it. Bosch and Vatra are same batteries so one can pick either or, Exide are alright, but usually they are priced higher.

As long as they are not ripped I am sure they could be cleaned... although I would not pay much for the seats so neglected and dirty £100 each would be my best offer!

Power stations do not blow ppm into your face (besides they should have filters as well, whenever they have is another matter), the diesel cars without DPF on the road does! So there is difference here. Carbon dioxide is not toxic, it may be cause for climate change, but it is not cancerogenic in itself - soot and ppm are cancerogenic by themselves. So it is you who trolling here! You never said it is morally bad - and that is the same as saying it is good, there is nothing in your comment to suggest you are against it, so therefore you are in support of it. Gutted DPF/EGR is MOT fail - £1000-2500 fine as well as per Road vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 2000 61A.3.1. So I suggest you get into grips of reality before posting shaite yourself! https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/diesel-particulate-filters-guidance-note/diesel-particulate-filters

Oh... so dumping cancer causing pollution into the air and causing cancer is NOT equivalent to dumping oil into the river? If you not arguing with the mortality then what are you arguing about? By the tone of your comment it sounds like "it is okey to kill other people around you" just because you can't be bothered to maintain your car. Having no DPF is literally worse than dumping tyres, or oil to the river.... because that mostly stay in the river, it may hurt wildlife, but it does not hurt other people unless they happen to use water from that river - soot and particulate matter literally poisons everyone around you! It is you who is moronic and single minded if you don't get basic things like this. Law is not personal view mate... that is before we even consider morality of it. You have a little bit less gutless car at the cost of what exactly? killing people around you? What do you think it is some sort of joke? Sure NOx isn't confirmed to be the cause of health issues it is just "suspected", same for CO2 - it is not directly causing any harm (inert gas otherwise). But soot and ppm below 2.5nm is 100% cancerogenic - when you breath it in it is small enough to dissolve in the blood and cause cancer. As well it never leaves our bodies, so if you ever breath it in, it stay in your body until death, there is no way to remove it. DPF is specifically fitted to diesel cars to filter it out and burn it out to less harmful CO2. So no - it is not personal opinion - people who do it should be brought in front of their families and shot in the face... maybe that will teach them the lesson!

Not necessarily, SEL came with Xenon - the way to tell is whenever car has headlight washers or not. Xenon has them, halogen does not.

Not sure I would go with Yuasa (I actually own IS250 fitted with one at the moment and it is not exceptional), that is the cheapest brand available at Halfrauds just slightly better than Halfrauds own batteries. I would recommend Bosch/Vatra or Exide. The battery size is 068, for Bosch is it S4026. The rest of advise is correct - just get highest CCA and capacity possible for the size of the battery.

your point being?

As I have said, I am neither pro, nor anti-BEV... but where I see ******* I say it is ******* and when somebody points out that "statisticalllyy BEVs being less likely to set themselves on fire" I just point out that it doesn't add-up. They have pros and they have cons, being easy to put out when they go bust isn't one of the pros for sure. As well I would like to point out that it is "mostly" Teslas that burn, but maybe that is as well flawed statistics because Teslas are the most common type of long range BEVs and they as well most likely to be sensationalised. But to say they are safer than ICE is just not true either. Risks exist everywhere, but to bur alive in your BEV is probably out there with shark attacks... just not the thing that happens often enough to justify a fear. That said I definitely would not want to be firefighter trying to put one out!

Having 60 litters of highly combustible petrol under my arse does not make me feel any safer... well - truth to be told I trust engineers with engineering and statistically speaking dying in the burning car is very unlikely outcome... so I am not afraid to be in either. The accident required to set the car on fire most likely going to kill any squishy meat thing inside before the car even starts burning... so really BEV battery fires are not in the list of things keeping me awake at night. My concern is purely principal, like it is in this case - misuse and manipulation of statistics, which aims to confuse people. They are taking 270 million ICE car in US with (~30 million of which are hybrids) with average age of 17 years and compares the numbers of fires with ~30million BEV with average age of 4.5 years and concludes that 4 times newer BEVs are less likely to spontaneously combust... shocker who would have known?! That is before we even consider simple thing like people do like to "wrench" on their old cars, but BEV maintenance is strictly regulate and very few people work on them themselves... So what they are saying there are more fires in the 270 million group where any hill billy can do whatever than in the group of 20 million new, expensive, highly complex cars where people are not allowed to work on them... and there are less fires in that later group... Yeah sure - I don't need statistics to know that much!

This has been raised and busted many times. The fire benefit is false statistics, or at very least misleading and disingenuous. I think when few of new Teslas caught fire there was massive PR campaign to make sure everyone knew that they are "safe"... except it is not at all the case or at very least the statistics doesn't show anything like that. The issue is - the risk of any faults including the ones resulting in fire increases exponentially with the vehicle age and mileage. Meaning that brand new car is very unlikely to catch-fire, but one with 200k miles, several botched repairs and 20 years old is quite likely to catch fire. Those are ICE and hybrid cars which goes in flames... The BEVs that goes in flames are anomaly, because most of them are new cars with low miles. Even considering horrible statistics of new Ferraris and Lamborghinis going-up in flames, the risk of less than 5 years old ICE or hybrid catching fire is near 0. Yet there are loads of new BEVs burning, often because of accident, but sometimes just by themselves. On the other hand most of ICE fires are either exotics, or classics, or some absolute junk boxes rigged together with tape and zip ties. This statistic is misleading in several dimensions - it ignores the fact that age, mileage and mechanical condition is key factor in fire risk (not fuel type), secondly it ignores the fact that 95% of the cars on the road are ICE or hybrids and only 5% are BEV. Instead it misleadingly quotes "per 100,000 sold", but sales figures have no relevance when it comes to existing carpark... so obviously there will be more accidents in the group of 95%+ of the cars. Simply said it is false that BEV are less likely to catch fire. That does not mean that every BEV is just a fire hazard on the road, but they are more likely to catch-fire compared to other brand new cars and they do they as well very difficult to put out.

Thanks for clearing that-up!

Honestly it is brained numbing... and after a while it just doesn't register... Yes it is horrible, but then some vegetable comes here and says "that is the best we got, still (somehow) better than what we drive today. After all our health in the west so sensitive and weak that we have to clean-up the air"... Nobody considers how this process makes it literal hell on earth in places where all the raw materials are being mined. That is the reason why I generally agree with Eric - it doesn't look like this is about pollution or environment. For me it seems like a plan to control people, remove freedoms... and I think it is all linked to post-modernist neo-liberalist ideology Now to be very clear - neo-liberalist they are NOT liberals... they are rebadged communists. Communist tried and failed and in the west they are considered bad guys... sadly nobody equites them to nazis (which is what they are equivalent to), but if one calls themselves communist there clearly isn't many people interested in that ideology. Instead they call themselves "liberals" now, but unlike classical liberals they are not about freedoms, certainly not individual freedoms, they are about group identity, which is absolutely communist idea! And then they play good groups bad groups - women good, men bad, cyclist good, motorists bad, public transport users good, people who wants individual freedoms bad, vegans good, meat eaters bad. Now one thing for sure - communists were always against personal property and car ownership is like a big no no, likewise rebranded neo-liberals always were thinking how to eradicate cars, because personal freedom is BAD... and now they found the way... "we going say that cars is the reason for environmental issue, we going to force people to replace them with extremely compromised cars which will be basically useless apart of using them instead of bicycle locally, and we force everyone into public transport, because everything public was always the wet dream of communists". This is not coincidence and this is consistent to their ideology. One thing I wanted to add - I have no issue that some people have such ideology, that is not a problem. What is a problem is that they misleading everyone and hiding what they are really seeking. If somebody comes up and says - I am communist, far left and I want to ban personal property and make everything into community (public) property. Fine - that is what they want, if they get democratic majority... well sad, but fair. What I am not ok with is that they coming-up sand saying - I am a liberal, I am centre, I want to protect the planet and I want to help humanity... by doing everything that the other guy suggested just without admitting that it has nothing to do with planet, I just hate people having nicer things like me and I rather see them stuck in the same train like me breathing the same farts, because I can't accept that somebody else can dare to drive when I am busy smelling armpits here. By the way it is not a dig at anyone here - that is how I see many supposedly liberal "environmentalist" acting in our governments and all sort of environment groups. They pretend to be liberal, but they are really far-left rebranded commies. Sometimes they called neo-liberals, but that is misleading, the sometimes mislabel as libertarians... again there is nothing even remotely liberal (and they definitely do not seek autonomy or political freedom, they are quite happy with authoritarian methods and dictatorship) , they are far-left socialists or what we used to know as communist. Just look at what they doing - lockdowns, blanket banning cars, censorship, compelled speech etc. These are authoritarian methods... not liberal.

I don't think urban environment is an issue. I been born and grow-up in the city, but there was never an assault on the cars there, because people are proud to be driving and don't see it as an issue at all. Public transport by the way is better as well, just a cultural thing, but if some 12 years old sits down with pack of chip and puts their dirty shoes on the seat in front, then in no time they are literally slapped over the head and kicked out. Drivers of say buses would not allow dirty people to get inside and it is much more acceptable overall. So it has nothing to do with city itself, it is more to do with priorities, seeing driving as undesirable, deliberately ruining the roads to deprive drivers of the routes and make it undrivable etc. etc. When I was growing-up it was popular to get into the cars, like we would organise 6-cars between the friends and we would go to meet-up in the middle of the city and park in front of what would be equivalent to St. Pauls Cathedral... it would be kind of social place where friends gather. There was free parking (although good luck finding the spot, so we often double parked in front of friends cars) and it would take like 20 minutes to drive like 25-30km from the outer districts into the literally middle of the centre of the city. Using public transport was unthinkable... that is for pensioner and school kids... no adult would use. Sometimes in extreme case where your car is in the workshop and there is nobody to give you a lift maybe... but honestly that maybe happened to me once. And by the way as I already said - yes when it comes to London, that is what I would definitely do... I would get out of it, but that is simply not an option. Do you think 10 million people just loves living in this hole? NO... this is simple where jobs are, where education is, where infrastructure is and it is not like everyone can pack-up and go and live in countryside. When I retire (which is not soon) I will definitely leave, but again it is not really my problem, nor it is problem that I live in the city - it is a problem with infrastructure, not enough roads, not wide enough roads, not enough parking and general hostility against cars. Well I did say that if I move the job again, then I definitely going to look for full-time remote job, because even 2-day a week going into London on hybrid schedule is way too disgusting for me to swallow.

Depends on what trim level you have... Red seats means he has F-Sport, so he will have cooled heated seats. If you have F-sport or Premier, then it should be the same. By the way they are dark rose in RC, which is one of my favourite colours and from selling my RC I know it is quite sought after. So not necessary a bad thing. The only thing which might be slight worry - they changed from semi-aniline leather to nuluxe (basically a fake leather vinyl) in Facelift, but I don't believe that impacted F-Sport trim... Anyhow - if you have heated, cooled seats with memory - the Facelift F-Sport should be direct fit.

First of all they shouldn't be driving and there is nothing to be proud of... it is like saying there are people fly tipping, throwing tyres into bushes and pouring used oil into the rivers. There are penalties for this sort of thing, sadly not harsh enough and not enforced enough. And thanks to "10s of 1000s" doing it we may end-up all losing rights to drive the cars altogether... still feel proud of it? As for car without DPF being scrap... is not as ludicrous as it sounds... if you get your DPF stolen from IS220d, the insurance will 100% write it off... and even if you insist on keeping it most likely the car is not going to be economical repair. It is approximately £1000 for OE part (used original £500, even aftermarket ones are like £300-400), add fitting to that, add fixing EGR to what it suppose to be and we arrive to the price of £1500... which is more or less what IS220d is worth. So it is uneconomical repair and would be scrapped by anyone with any standards... for example no used car dealer would touch it, because it would be illegal to sell (not road worthy car). Basically, if any car dealer would buy it by mistake and realise that is the case they would list it as "spares and repair" for £500, because it just can't be sold as road legal car. Now sure in reality there are all kinds of dodgy dealers, but they all have a risk ending-up like a well know Dudley guy... and that is £10,000 fine and suspended jail time for fraud. Not exactly the risk I would take to flip £1500 worth of car for £100 profit.

I didn't say there is something "particularly" rigid about standard RC... what I said is that Lexus claim that RC is more rigid than LF-A... and LF-A at it's time was very rigid car (the whole switch between aluminium and CF happened specifically to increase rigidity whilst keeping eight manageable). What makes RC rigid? mainly the central section from IS-C, because RC was made to be convertible i.e. it would remain completely fine even if roof is cut-off. Not sure - what you trying to say... yes there is clearly a brace behind the seats? That was kind of obvious from the pictures before. As I said my speculation is that track testing suggested increasing rigidity in some areas go give improved handling on the track, but at the same time I don't think they structurally necessary.

Isn't this basically the same things as "15 minute neighbourhoods" just probably marketed slightly more nicely? I guess Spanish weather makes everything look better?! To be fair it isn't much of the riddle mate... it is quite clear that I would absolutely hate the idea, so this is more like a bait and less like a riddle... because the last thing I want after using stinky public transport is to get into public super superblock, where I have to walk around and see all the stinky people I hate 😄 You see - I will take a day out alone in my car anytime over socialising with my neighbours... so I can't even begin to comprehend why???

I am glad you said that and I agree... I guess this is sort of "glass half-empty or half-full" question... So from my perspective - if it is ever smelly and horrid, then it is always bad... the argument could be made "but what about the days/hours when it is nice"... and my answer to this "it doesn't matter, because I can't control it and I don't know when it happens", so I inevitably have to travel in stinky over crowded train, because I have no agency in what happens. If your car stinks you can clean it and make it nice, you are in control of how nice your car is, how hot or cold it is and you not even dependent on the schedule. And it is not like you going to come to your car one day and find that dog shat in it and homeless person is sleeping inside in his own vomit So even if say Elizabeth line is quite nice now, and if you travel off-peak it is really hard to fault, I still consider it bad regardless, because there is nothing in my power that I can do to travel in comfort next morning. And I guess we can say - yes, but if you avoid 8-10AM and 4-6PM then it is probably "decent"... maybe, but that doesn't help the slightest, because 8-10AM and 4-6PM is exactly the times when I need to use it, same as everybody else... so that it is nice at 9PM or 11AM really is no consolation to anyone. Or for example... I have flight tomorrow departing 7:20AM... trains simply don't run at such time that I could get into airport by 5:30AM... and even if they would, the last thing I want to do is to carry luggage to and from station 4AM in the morning in the rain and using broken foot path. So it is inevitable to have private car even if I live in London. And then if I have to have a car anyway, then why wouldn't I use it every time. I already have to pay for the roads upfront, for insurance upfront, car maintenance (at least with Lexus) is mostly the same regardless if you do 4k a year or 12k a year. So then my only expense is realistically fuel vs. public transport fare... which is very high in London and it turns out that often it is literally cheaper to drive. When I used to work in Canary Wharf my train journey would have been £11/day and would take 1h10min each way and my fuel would cost me £2 and it would take 25-40 min to drive. If I had to pay for parking it was usually £8, but 4 days out of 5 would would not pay. And then what happens - the more you drive, the less per mile it costs to keep the car...

Absolutely, exactly the same here! I almost happy that we can disagree on it... because otherwise we would never be able to consider how our own world view is uniquely different from others. This is why I almost always very critical of blanket rules, really does not matter what it is - speed limit, BEV mandate, promoting public transport, discouraging driving etc. The fact is - every person is different and trying to put everyone in the same box always going to hurt somebody. But hey - no matter how much I love cars and like driving them... I never say let's ban public transport, or let's fine drivers who do not speed, or let's ban BEVs, or ban cyclists... yet from my perspective I often have to defend what I consider to be valuable and good for me. I kind of find it strange that it seems my world views are the ones that are most often challenged. And by the way I am not in some fringe minorities in any of the areas I find under attack, often it is either majority or sizeable minority, but regardless of that it seems I always happen to take sides which requires defending, I sometimes trying to understand why is that? I guess it has something to do with me being introvert (that is like 42% of society), conservative liberal (which kind of sounds oxymoron, but it isn't... the people who calls themselves "liberal" nowadays are most often care post-modernist liberals, not classical liberals, who by their comparison are now almost conservatives - that is clearly rare nowadays). I guess it explains why anything "public" is automatically bad for me, because "public" everything is socialist idea, liberals are more about individuality, personal freedom and less about community and group identity. I guess that to be honest explains quite a lot of why I don't like what I don't like.

Nicely looking car... Just wanted to pick-up on 0W20... it is permitted for use with 4GR-FSE, however usually only in extreme cold climates. Netherlands isn't really that - Lexus usually uses it in North of Canada or North of Norway. Now 0 part of it is great - that means you get better flow right from the start and it should minimise engine wear when engine is cold... but 20 part is not great... basically your oil would become too thin if you drive car for extended period (say on motorway) and these engines are known to burn some oil already (because of modern low friction rings), so having 0w20 is not ideal. If you want direct upgrade from normal 5w30, then I suggest going to 0w40.

It is hard to say... maybe the nuts and bits were removed, or maybe in the factory they just scratched the protective surface only in that area (like wrench slipped etc) and that is why only those parts corroded. Other possibility - somebody used strong chemicals to detail engine bay and either didn't rinsed them properly (some degreasers are strongly caustic or acidic), or simply stripped the surface from oils/wax which is usually there... and that means only those parts have rusted. I would say - rust convert them and spray them with paint, bolts can be ordered new if that really bother you and you want to make it perfect.

Likewise... I totally disagree with your total disagreement! But what exactly we disagreeing about? This is clearly subjective... And by the way you talking with me as if I haven't spent 16 years living in London... I know how underground is... It stinks from a far... it is horrible... it should be considered "an unusual and cruel punishment". If I committed murder and if they would ask me whenever I would rather take death penalty or be forced to use London underground for the rest of my life twice a day everyday... I would take death penalty... and by the way busses are even worse! The point is - what looks totally acceptable for you is totally unacceptable for me and vice versa... I don't think it is possible to agree on this and this is why public transport is fundamentally impossible to make it work. At any given time 30-80% of the people will actively hate it, because it is just not possible to build the system which caters to everyone's requirements, needs, values, perspectives etc. That is why public is always a synonym for trash, because it has to be sufficiently broad and flexible enough to allow majority of people to use it, but as we know what does everything never does anything well. ohhh HS2 is shaiteshow, full of corruption and inefficiencies, crying babies, pink hair Karens, rainbow flags and vegetables etc. Why do you think Chinese rail works? That is because if one stood in it's way they would be shot to the face... Am I saying that is solution - NO! But when we have national project and every vegetable with rainbow flag can stop it then let's not act surprised when it isn't exactly successful. In the time we managed to build 300 miles of HS2, Chinese build the length of all UK railways combined. Look at what happened with London Ring Road project in 60s and 70s... some vegetables took to the streets because it would have divided their "community"... now we all, and them are suffering every day because of that... and that is why your journey takes 2 hours instead of 25 minutes. I guess what I am trying to say here - if we ever embark on major national infrastructure project it has to run efficiently! Corruption is wide topic as well, but maybe for another time! Point - let's not use worst run project in a modern history as baseline for how the project are run. The public transport can be either good or bad, if it is good, then it is good for everyone and it should cater for disabled and work 24/7 etc. etc. and that is key issue with anything public. I think the statement that somebody with disability or in need of medical attention has arbitrary right above all to use private vehicles simply shows that they are MORE CONVINIENT... which then begs the question - who has a right to decide who can and who can't have convenience... and why somebody being able-bodied should be arbitrarily inconvenienced and use stinky public transport? That is why I believe you contradicting yourself here, and it kind of shows how subjective it is as well... because if we say that public transport can hypothetically be made "decent" to use, then why exclude anyone... clearly your opinion is that it is not decent enough for "key worker", not decent enough for disabled, why do you think it is decent enough for me. And whose definition of "decent" are we using? Should I be forced to accept your definition of decent? It seems that you think it is already "decent" as it is? Well... I disagree... and then who has a right to subject me to physical and psychological suffering, just so that somebody on the bus could get where they going sooner? Now let's compare that to my alternative - we build the roads for all, there is PLENTY of money (we barely use 10% raised from the roads on the roads), as I said it is always possible to build the roads as long as we want to do it. And then everyone can choose - those who want to drive drives, those prefer sniffing what other commuters had for dinner last night can use public transport and by the way it seems that for people commuting the public transport is already decent as it is (you are not the only one surprised when I tell how horrible is public transport in London)... and commuters even have more space, because now people like me won't be on the train killing them with judgmental look every day... everyone happy?

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!