Live blog: Wiggo gets a bell (no, not the ding-dong kind) from snooker ace ‘Aussie’ Ronnie O’Sullivan, Carbon fibre disc rotors, anyone?, Ouchee – grazed arse cheek for Giro (ex) leader Roglic + more

Mungecrundle wrote:

My bicycle tyres also wear out, possibly at a faster rate than car tyres and they are far less likely to be recycled from the household waste stream. My 3 bicycles use lubricants created from petrochemicals, took energy and materials to make and deliver to me when new. The extra calories I burn to power them have an environmental cost. I use one for commuting when I could actually walk. I also do a number of unnecessary leisure miles each year. I think it is a disingenuous argument to criticise electric vehicles on account of having a lower environmental impact rather than none at all. Cars are here to stay. The model of ownership might change in the coming years, maybe driverless technologies will mean more car sharing schemes but my guess is that for the foreseable future, private cars will be the norm with an increasing number of people opting for electric models when they replace those vehicles. Those trend lines are only going one way.

All true, but the energy input into cycling is tiny compared to that of any car, electric or internal combustion.  We have a climate crisis and we need radical change now, not marginal changes in twenty years.

There is nothing that compares to the benefits of a significant switch from driving to cycling, not just in CO2, but in local pollution, obesity, health, danger, congestion.  Estimates of the cost benefit ratio vary from between 20:1 to 80:1.  A road scheme is considered good value if it makes 1.5:1, and HS2 has no economic case at all, but we're throwing £56bn at it.

It is literally incredible in the face of the evidence that we aren't investing massively in cycling, and beyond belief that the msm will not report the benefits of a switch to cycling, practically the same as the science-free climate change deniers.

Mungecrundle wrote:

My bicycle tyres also wear out, possibly at a faster rate than car tyres and they are far less likely to be recycled from the household waste stream. My 3 bicycles use lubricants created from petrochemicals, took energy and materials to make and deliver to me when new.

Weigh 4 car tyres against 2 bicycle tyres. Same amount of materials? No. Bear in mind that when a bicycle tyre is 'worn out' it is just a few mm of tread that has been lost.

Mungecrundle wrote:

The extra calories I burn to power them have an environmental cost. I use one for commuting when I could actually walk.

If it's flat then it's possible that you use fewer calories on the bike. You can't freewheel while walking.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Cars are here to stay. The model of ownership might change in the coming years, maybe driverless technologies will mean more car sharing schemes but my guess is that for the foreseable future, private cars will be the norm with an increasing number of people opting for electric models when they replace those vehicles. Those trend lines are only going one way.

At the moment - with current societal norms, shopping behaviours etc. But it is not inevitable. It's neither environmentally sustainable or practical for everyone to replace their fossil fuel car with an electric one. And that's before you address resources and power generation. When governments see the light about the benefits of active travel and come to believe that, alongside that, public and shared transport are a solution instead of the fantasy of private car use for all, then attitudes will change.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

The Stray Defence Association in Harrogate are currently trying to stop a new cycle path being built, on environmental grounds(!)

One tree may have to be felled, and the argument goes, 'think of all the CO2 a tree absorbs'. About the amount produced by 2 cars, that's how much.

I believe that sabotaging an active travel route, so that people have no alternative but to drive their Range Rovers everywhere, is not a winning strategy for the environment.

I don't suppose Stray Defence actually care about the environment, they just hate the idea of anyone riding a bicycle.

that's a poor argument, but I'm sorta with them in preferring to leave the Stray to walkers. Harrogate has a pretty serious car addiction though, and something needs to be done about that. 

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Gosh, the Labour party does seem to be attracting a lot of deranged people these days.  To be fair, there seem to be more deranged people around in general now and the Labour Party has more members than other parties, so they will presumably end up with more of them.

 

What price "the will of the people" or "a people's vote" when so many of "the people" appear to be cycling with less than the full complement of spokes?

This is one of the issues with democracy - it relies on an informed public, comrade.

(I'm just glad to see the latest news that Teresa May has agreed a timetable to sit down and arrange a timetable to agree a date on her departure)

hawkinspeter wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Gosh, the Labour party does seem to be attracting a lot of deranged people these days.  To be fair, there seem to be more deranged people around in general now and the Labour Party has more members than other parties, so they will presumably end up with more of them.

 

What price "the will of the people" or "a people's vote" when so many of "the people" appear to be cycling with less than the full complement of spokes?

This is one of the issues with democracy - it relies on an informed public, comrade.

(I'm just glad to see the latest news that Teresa May has agreed a timetable to sit down and arrange a timetable to agree a date on her departure)

I am ashamed of my own elitism, it's a trait I've often argued _against_.  But sometimes one just despairs at the bizarre things people believe.  I probably listen to LBC phone-ins too much.  So much crazy out there (e.g. caller angrily insisting all MPs be arrested as, in causing a delay to Brexit, they are 'breaking the law').

This guy should form an anti-cycle-pollution party with Robert Winston.  They might have to agree not to discuss the Holocaust though.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

What price "the will of the people" or "a people's vote" when so many of "the people" appear to be cycling with less than the full complement of spokes?

I once proposed that people should have to sit an exam before being allowed to vote. I did however want to keep it simple, and not set the bar too high. So I proposed just one question: 

• Do you read the Daily Mail?

hawkinspeter wrote:

I just don't understand how anti-cycling campaigners can believe that cycle lanes increase air pollution.

I don't understand why they pretend to care about it - I doubt their audience does.

srchar wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I just don't understand how anti-cycling campaigners can believe that cycle lanes increase air pollution.

I don't understand why they pretend to care about it - I doubt their audience does.

they don’t care about it. If they cared about pollution they’d get an electric car or stop using cars altogether.

They see this as part of the war against the car, which it is, and they don’t want to stop using their cars so they use any means available, including blatant lies, to try and hang on. They will lose.

ConcordeCX wrote:

srchar wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I just don't understand how anti-cycling campaigners can believe that cycle lanes increase air pollution.

I don't understand why they pretend to care about it - I doubt their audience does.

they don’t care about it. If they cared about pollution they’d get an electric car or stop using cars altogether.

They see this as part of the war against the car, which it is, and they don’t want to stop using their cars so they use any means available, including blatant lies, to try and hang on. They will lose.

Electric cars produce significant amounts of air polution too - due to break dust, rubber and just kicking up the dust that is lying on the road.  Cycles create also create air polution in the same manner, but 100kg of bike and rider will produce a lot less than ~2000kg of car and driver.

ConcordeCX wrote:

They will lose.

I like your optimism.  I don't share it, which is odd really - given that I often have the choice between using a car or a bicycle and opt for the latter almost every time.  I guess I just see all the massive advantages of cycling over driving - and when I see someone making a journey by car that could easily be cycled, I just figure they are incurable (idiots/sloths/something else).

ConcordeCX wrote:

they don’t care about it. If they cared about pollution they’d get an electric car or stop using cars altogether.

They see this as part of the war against the car, which it is, and they don’t want to stop using their cars so they use any means available, including blatant lies, to try and hang on. They will lose.

Electric cars have a lifetime carbon footprint of between 80-109% of a normal car, depending on the source of the electricity, so at best they will only reduce CO2 emissions by 20%.  But people will drive them more, because they are "green" so it is likely that it will be less than 20%.  They do reduce pollution at the point of use, their single benefit.

They won't reduce climate change, pollution from tyre and brake dust, congestion, obesity, danger or any of the other problems caused by excessive car use, they will require expensive infrastructure and upgrades to the national grid, they will deter cycling and walking and the money spent on them would be much more effectively spent on cycling and walking; so why exactly, are we investing so much taxpayers' money in them?

I can only see two reasons; to placate the driving lobby and to prop up the car industry.

We could achieve pretty much the same local pollution reduction by banning gas guzzling cars and deisels and investing in cycling walking and public transport, with massive other benefits.  I have a car, and it will do 60mpg and it's petrol, so why aren't all cars like that?

burtthebike wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

they don’t care about it. If they cared about pollution they’d get an electric car or stop using cars altogether.

They see this as part of the war against the car, which it is, and they don’t want to stop using their cars so they use any means available, including blatant lies, to try and hang on. They will lose.

Electric cars have a lifetime carbon footprint of between 80-109% of a normal car, depending on the source of the electricity, so at best they will only reduce CO2 emissions by 20%.  But people will drive them more, because they are "green" so it is likely that it will be less than 20%.  They do reduce pollution at the point of use, their single benefit.

They won't reduce climate change, pollution from tyre and brake dust, congestion, obesity, danger or any of the other problems caused by excessive car use, they will require expensive infrastructure and upgrades to the national grid, they will deter cycling and walking and the money spent on them would be much more effectively spent on cycling and walking; so why exactly, are we investing so much taxpayers' money in them?

I can only see two reasons; to placate the driving lobby and to prop up the car industry.

We could achieve pretty much the same local pollution reduction by banning gas guzzling cars and deisels and investing in cycling walking and public transport, with massive other benefits.  I have a car, and it will do 60mpg and it's petrol, so why aren't all cars like that?

In the short term, electric vehicles are not massively less environmentally damaging than their fossil fuel equivalents (currently 17 - 30% according to the European Environment agency). However, as you state, the pollution at point of use is transferred back to a power station where it could be more easily mitigated. They will benefit the environment in the longer term as a greater percentage of electricity in the grid is produced from renewables and non carbon / lower carbon sources. The energy grid is already in place, so not much infrastructure actually needed outside of fast charging terminals. There is also the possibility that plugged in vehicles could act as the transient storage capacity that renewable energy sources require to be reliable.

As with most new technologies they are not an overnight panacea for every person and every situation. Neither is limiting all urban travel to active and public transport solutions, though undoubtedly those options could be pushed more.

Mungecrundle wrote:

In the short term, electric vehicles are not massively less environmentally damaging than their fossil fuel equivalents (currently 17 - 30% according to the European Environment agency). However, as you state, the pollution at point of use is transferred back to a power station where it could be more easily mitigated. They will benefit the environment in the longer term as a greater percentage of electricity in the grid is produced from renewables and non carbon / lower carbon sources. The energy grid is already in place, so not much infrastructure actually needed outside of fast charging terminals. There is also the possibility that plugged in vehicles could act as the transient storage capacity that renewable energy sources require to be reliable.

As with most new technologies they are not an overnight panacea for every person and every situation. Neither is limiting all urban travel to active and public transport solutions, though undoubtedly those options could be pushed more.

Cogent arguments, but you missed the main one: if we can achieve pretty much the same thing by investing the money in other solutions which have far greater benefits, i.e. much more cost effective, why are we spending all that money on electric cars when a much greater effect could be achieved for the same or less money?

As I've already said, I can't see any other reasons than to placate the driving lobby and to prop up the car industry.  E-cars have a single identifiable benefit and do nothing for the other massive, huge, gigantic problems caused by mass car use, and the money being invested in them could be much more effectively spent.

The grid is already in place, but as the e-car proponent told me at a meeting last night, it will require significant modification i.e. expensive.

burtthebike wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

In the short term, electric vehicles are not massively less environmentally damaging than their fossil fuel equivalents (currently 17 - 30% according to the European Environment agency). However, as you state, the pollution at point of use is transferred back to a power station where it could be more easily mitigated. They will benefit the environment in the longer term as a greater percentage of electricity in the grid is produced from renewables and non carbon / lower carbon sources. The energy grid is already in place, so not much infrastructure actually needed outside of fast charging terminals. There is also the possibility that plugged in vehicles could act as the transient storage capacity that renewable energy sources require to be reliable.

As with most new technologies they are not an overnight panacea for every person and every situation. Neither is limiting all urban travel to active and public transport solutions, though undoubtedly those options could be pushed more.

Cogent arguments, but you missed the main one: if we can achieve pretty much the same thing by investing the money in other solutions which have far greater benefits, i.e. much more cost effective, why are we spending all that money on electric cars when a much greater effect could be achieved for the same or less money?

As I've already said, I can't see any other reasons than to placate the driving lobby and to prop up the car industry.  E-cars have a single identifiable benefit and do nothing for the other massive, huge, gigantic problems caused by mass car use, and the money being invested in them could be much more effectively spent.

The grid is already in place, but as the e-car proponent told me at a meeting last night, it will require significant modification i.e. expensive.

"Who are the "we" you're talking about-The ones spending all the money on electric cars? I know I'm not.In the countries that subsidise such vehicles heavily it's done to help the industry compete globally.Most of the money is being invested by the Motor Industry.It's what they do,Burt.They make cars.In this country,millions of people have rooftop solar installations and are pumping huge amounts of power into the grid.There's excess power during daylight hours while cars are parked up at workplaces."Mass car use" will continue as long as it's what most people want.Electric cars are the least worst solution.If you think you're going to get the voting public out of their cars before they're good and ready,you're dreaming.

Argus Tuft wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

In the short term, electric vehicles are not massively less environmentally damaging than their fossil fuel equivalents (currently 17 - 30% according to the European Environment agency). However, as you state, the pollution at point of use is transferred back to a power station where it could be more easily mitigated. They will benefit the environment in the longer term as a greater percentage of electricity in the grid is produced from renewables and non carbon / lower carbon sources. The energy grid is already in place, so not much infrastructure actually needed outside of fast charging terminals. There is also the possibility that plugged in vehicles could act as the transient storage capacity that renewable energy sources require to be reliable.

As with most new technologies they are not an overnight panacea for every person and every situation. Neither is limiting all urban travel to active and public transport solutions, though undoubtedly those options could be pushed more.

Cogent arguments, but you missed the main one: if we can achieve pretty much the same thing by investing the money in other solutions which have far greater benefits, i.e. much more cost effective, why are we spending all that money on electric cars when a much greater effect could be achieved for the same or less money?

As I've already said, I can't see any other reasons than to placate the driving lobby and to prop up the car industry.  E-cars have a single identifiable benefit and do nothing for the other massive, huge, gigantic problems caused by mass car use, and the money being invested in them could be much more effectively spent.

The grid is already in place, but as the e-car proponent told me at a meeting last night, it will require significant modification i.e. expensive.

"Who are the "we" you're talking about-The ones spending all the money on electric cars? I know I'm not.In the countries that subsidise such vehicles heavily it's done to help the industry compete globally.Most of the money is being invested by the Motor Industry.It's what they do,Burt.They make cars.In this country,millions of people have rooftop solar installations and are pumping huge amounts of power into the grid.There's excess power during daylight hours while cars are parked up at workplaces."Mass car use" will continue as long as it's what most people want.Electric cars are the least worst solution.If you think you're going to get the voting public out of their cars before they're good and ready,you're dreaming.

Do you want to post that again when you're sober?

burtthebike wrote:

Argus Tuft wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

In the short term, electric vehicles are not massively less environmentally damaging than their fossil fuel equivalents (currently 17 - 30% according to the European Environment agency). However, as you state, the pollution at point of use is transferred back to a power station where it could be more easily mitigated. They will benefit the environment in the longer term as a greater percentage of electricity in the grid is produced from renewables and non carbon / lower carbon sources. The energy grid is already in place, so not much infrastructure actually needed outside of fast charging terminals. There is also the possibility that plugged in vehicles could act as the transient storage capacity that renewable energy sources require to be reliable.

As with most new technologies they are not an overnight panacea for every person and every situation. Neither is limiting all urban travel to active and public transport solutions, though undoubtedly those options could be pushed more.

Cogent arguments, but you missed the main one: if we can achieve pretty much the same thing by investing the money in other solutions which have far greater benefits, i.e. much more cost effective, why are we spending all that money on electric cars when a much greater effect could be achieved for the same or less money?

As I've already said, I can't see any other reasons than to placate the driving lobby and to prop up the car industry.  E-cars have a single identifiable benefit and do nothing for the other massive, huge, gigantic problems caused by mass car use, and the money being invested in them could be much more effectively spent.

The grid is already in place, but as the e-car proponent told me at a meeting last night, it will require significant modification i.e. expensive.

"Who are the "we" you're talking about-The ones spending all the money on electric cars? I know I'm not.In the countries that subsidise such vehicles heavily it's done to help the industry compete globally.Most of the money is being invested by the Motor Industry.It's what they do,Burt.They make cars.In this country,millions of people have rooftop solar installations and are pumping huge amounts of power into the grid.There's excess power during daylight hours while cars are parked up at workplaces."Mass car use" will continue as long as it's what most people want.Electric cars are the least worst solution.If you think you're going to get the voting public out of their cars before they're good and ready,you're dreaming.

Do you want to post that again when you're sober?

Happy to address any specific errors you'd like to point out

Mungecrundle wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

they don’t care about it. If they cared about pollution they’d get an electric car or stop using cars altogether.

They see this as part of the war against the car, which it is, and they don’t want to stop using their cars so they use any means available, including blatant lies, to try and hang on. They will lose.

Electric cars have a lifetime carbon footprint of between 80-109% of a normal car, depending on the source of the electricity, so at best they will only reduce CO2 emissions by 20%.  But people will drive them more, because they are "green" so it is likely that it will be less than 20%.  They do reduce pollution at the point of use, their single benefit.

They won't reduce climate change, pollution from tyre and brake dust, congestion, obesity, danger or any of the other problems caused by excessive car use, they will require expensive infrastructure and upgrades to the national grid, they will deter cycling and walking and the money spent on them would be much more effectively spent on cycling and walking; so why exactly, are we investing so much taxpayers' money in them?

I can only see two reasons; to placate the driving lobby and to prop up the car industry.

We could achieve pretty much the same local pollution reduction by banning gas guzzling cars and deisels and investing in cycling walking and public transport, with massive other benefits.  I have a car, and it will do 60mpg and it's petrol, so why aren't all cars like that?

 

In the short term, electric vehicles are not massively less environmentally damaging than their fossil fuel equivalents (currently 17 - 30% according to the European Environment agency). However, as you state, the pollution at point of use is transferred back to a power station where it could be more easily mitigated. They will benefit the environment in the longer term as a greater percentage of electricity in the grid is produced from renewables and non carbon / lower carbon sources. The energy grid is already in place, so not much infrastructure actually needed outside of fast charging terminals. There is also the possibility that plugged in vehicles could act as the transient storage capacity that renewable energy sources require to be reliable.

As with most new technologies they are not an overnight panacea for every person and every situation. Neither is limiting all urban travel to active and public transport solutions, though undoubtedly those options could be pushed more.

How long is long term though? Currently California which is supposedly one of the US states that has stricter pollution controls, currently produces over a third of its electricity by gas, 4% by coal and a fair amount imported that the state does not classify how the electricty is produced.

Whilst some European countries and others around the globe are trying to move away from burning fossil fuels, even long term that's still not going to be gone and all the whilst motors become even more disposible with a shorter lifespan thus using up even more materials and producing more pollution. Those big fuck off ships that transport millions of cars around don't seem to be able to run on anything but fossil fuel either. 

burtthebike wrote:

They won't reduce climate change, pollution from tyre and brake dust,

I totally agree with you in general, but electric cars do reduce pollution from brake dust. As they use regenerative braking, they use their friction brakes a lot less than petrol or diesel cars, so there should be a lot less brake dust produced.

Mark B wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

They won't reduce climate change, pollution from tyre and brake dust,

I totally agree with you in general, but electric cars do reduce pollution from brake dust. As they use regenerative braking, they use their friction brakes a lot less than petrol or diesel cars, so there should be a lot less brake dust produced.

Fair point, but they still use brakes and will produce brake dust.  How much less, I don't know, but they will still produce it.

burtthebike wrote:

Mark B wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

They won't reduce climate change, pollution from tyre and brake dust,

I totally agree with you in general, but electric cars do reduce pollution from brake dust. As they use regenerative braking, they use their friction brakes a lot less than petrol or diesel cars, so there should be a lot less brake dust produced.

Fair point, but they still use brakes and will produce brake dust.  How much less, I don't know, but they will still produce it.

I occasionally drive a BMW i3. If you plan ahead, you don't need to touch the friction brakes. Sadly, I find the challenge of driving to my destination without touching the brake pedal rather entertaining...

srchar wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Mark B wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

They won't reduce climate change, pollution from tyre and brake dust,

I totally agree with you in general, but electric cars do reduce pollution from brake dust. As they use regenerative braking, they use their friction brakes a lot less than petrol or diesel cars, so there should be a lot less brake dust produced.

Fair point, but they still use brakes and will produce brake dust.  How much less, I don't know, but they will still produce it.

I occasionally drive a BMW i3. If you plan ahead, you don't need to touch the friction brakes. Sadly, I find the challenge of driving to my destination without touching the brake pedal rather entertaining...

I drive a hybrid, and I rarely need to use the friction brakes - when my wife drives the same car, she rarely uses the regenerative braking.  Unfortunately, most people seem to drive like my wife.  The people I know with EVs or PHVs, have less incentive to take advantage of regenerative braking - because they pay less for their fuel, or their employer pays for it.

Something that might be interesting to see is an e-bike with regenerative braking. I suppose it would only really work with hub motors (I presume regenerative braking works by switching the motor into a generator - though i've never looked into it closely).  I wonder if Toyota would be interested in making a Hybrid Synergy Drive for push bikes (although, I wouldn't want an NiMH battery).