[Tom_77]

Interesting piece in The Guardian about SUVs.

[quote]

Sold as a means of escape from the concrete realities of the modern world, a symbol of individualism and the pioneer spirit, the SUV represents instead a uniform kind of selfishness, a collective indifference to community to which, alas, we are all more or less prone.

[/quote]

 

Topic

[BalladOfStruth]

100% agreed – there are

100% agreed – there are people who much prefer the social setting of the office. I’m not suggesting forcing WFH on everyone, just make it a legal right for those with job roles that suit it. There’s also hybrid WFH too, so you can get all the face-to-face stuff out of the way on Monday and Tuesday and then not waste two hours of your day clogging up the roads for the rest of the week. I reckon this alone would take ~30% of commuter traffic off the roads.

[Rendel Harris]

chrisonatrike wrote:

Sometimes it’s good to get out of your house / away from your family for a bit!

My neighbour is a director at a firm of architects, I remember during the pandemic he said that all the twentysomethings were loving working from home, all the thirtysomethings and above with kids at home were absolutely begging to be allowed to come into the office!

[BalladOfStruth]

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

You can make quite a difference to MPG depending on how you drive, but the original issue still remains – how do you police this.

I’m really struggling to see the point you’re trying to make here – yes, the manner in which someone drives dictates fuel efficiency, but if you take the efficiency level that the average motorist drives at, and give them a much more efficient engine, their efficiency will increase. Someone doing a consistent 70mph in a 90s V8 Range Rover would see massive improvements in efficiency if they swapped to (for example) a new Seat Leon with a 63 combined MPG.

As for policing, like I said – you regulate a minimum level of efficiency and ban anything new that doesn’t meet it. You’re regulating the efficiency of the engine, not the manner in which people drive.

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

There’s a reason people who WFH are known as TWATS. It’s not so productive, you can’t learn from your colleagues as well, it’s harmful for collaboration, and doesn’t give you much in the way of promotion/prospects. Out of sight is out of mind.

Don’t agree with any of that. It’s becoming the standard for some sectors, such as tech. I WFH, my productivity has increased, I have no issues collaborating/troubleshooting with colleagues, and I’ve had no issues securing pay-rises or promotions, so you’re wrong on all those counts. If hands-on collaboration is required, then have 1-2 days in the office – you still have the benefits (such as happier, more productive staff, cost savings, less traffic, etc) on the other days. How many people need to visit clients these days, even in the small minority of roles where that would be a thing anyway? I visit a client at most, every couple of years in my role and company-wide only a couple of staff have regular interaction with clients (which has been done via Teams for years).

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

4 day weeks are a myth – companies will lose money, unless they pay to a 4 day week rate, i.e. less than a 5 day employee.

You’re going to need to substantiate that. Every study I’ve seen suggests the opposite. Also, I said in my initial comment that a 4-day week does depend on a company’s operations being suitable to it.

[wycombewheeler]

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

I’d also extend this to power limits, and minimum fuel econmy figures as well. Being out of the EU should allow us to control our own roads. Could be the first actual benefit of the whole debacle.

So, how would that be policed! Minimum fuel economy? I’m all for good economy, but that is impossible to police. 

I believe they type test cars before registering, if your Bugatti Veron or 4.0V6 Q8 has a stated MPG of 15mpg, then it does not meet requirements for UK registration

[chrisonabike]

On WFH – it is good in many

On WFH – it is good in many ways.  There are definitely some reasons for travelling into a different environment though – albeit having stopped doing so it’s easier to see what a giant waste of time all the commuting was.

Sometimes it’s just better working around other people / working face-to-face (if you’re old enough to remember times before zoom, anyway).

Sometimes it’s good to get out of your house / away from your family for a bit!

We have had a couple of members of staff who’ve moved on to other jobs since we went to remote working who’ve mentioned one thing they’re actually looking forward to is going back to an office!  However in one case a) this involved a very short commute and b) their new role has a 3 or 4 day week also.  So not “the same as before”.

[Rendel Harris]

There’s a great bit at the

There’s a great bit at the end of Good Morning Vietnam when Sergeant Dickerson is told by the General that he is sending him to Guam, the General says, “I’ve covered for you a lot of times cause I thought you were a little crazy. But you’re not crazy, you’re just mean.”

[Left_is_for_Losers]

Rendel Harris wrote:

4. You’re a contrarian troll with so little going on in life that you get off on provoking a reaction from people on a website you spend huge amounts of time on even though you are continually moaning that it’s rubbish.

Someones feeling cocky this morning. Your road.cc puppets bowed to your latest command did they?

[Left_is_for_Losers]

You can make quite a

You can make quite a difference to MPG depending on how you drive, but the original issue still remains – how do you police this. Plus the amount of legislation required to ban any mods or tuning would be massive, and be hugely detrimental to the whole vehicle market from sellers down to garages. 

There’s a reason people who WFH are known as TWATS. It’s not so productive, you can’t learn from your colleagues as well, it’s harmful for collaboration, and doesn’t give you much in the way of promotion/prospects. Out of sight is out of mind. 

4 day weeks are a myth – companies will lose money, unless they pay to a 4 day week rate, i.e. less than a 5 day employee. It just doesn’t work in so many service related industries for a start, an IT company or construction company couldn’t just decide to give all it’s employees every Friday off, and even if the days are staggered, it’s detrimental to relationships and efficiency if people deal with different people day to day. 

How about visiting clients too – you wouldn’t invite clients into your home for example, unless you lived in a mansion. 

WFH on the odd occasion to facilitate illness, dentist trips etc, yes I get that. But not full time. Just my tuppence though. 

[levestane]

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

Cars have been getting bigger… …Even a tesla is very wide – and a lot are not SUV’s per se

Is this because people are getting bigger courtesy of industrial edible products being addictive for many?

[chrisonabike]

Indeed – NL has a ton of cars
Indeed – NL has a ton of cars: they’ve just moved away from using them so frequently for short journeys.

I don’t live there so can’t be sure but it *looks* like this has mostly happened by making it more convenient and pleasant to cycle these or use public transport rather than simply the effect of tax. Certainly different shopping patterns have been encouraged (again by a combination of things including the existence of local shops! ).

Plenty on this by David Hembrow / notjustbikes – hopefully a local can comment also (although it’s always hard to see *why* things are from within a culture / place)

[Rendel Harris]

BalladOfStruth wrote:

There are only three reasons I can think of for someone to be against WFH:

1. You’re a commercial landlord who’s terrified that a company might downsize thier office.
2. You’re an empty suit middle-manager who can’t justify their own existence unless there are people in the office for you to micro-manage.
3. You’re an idiot.

4. You’re a contrarian troll with so little going on in life that you get off on provoking a reaction from people on a website you spend huge amounts of time on even though you are continually moaning that it’s rubbish.

[BalladOfStruth]

mattw wrote:

If someone can afford a £50-100k plank tank, they can afford £3k a year VED.

My only issue with this is rual areas where people:

1. Actually need big 4x4s.
2. Are far from rolling in it.

People who can drop £100k+ on a luxury SUV can afford £3k VED, so it won’t get them off the road. People who’ve scraped together £3k to get the only thing that allows them to get on/off thier own property can’t, so they’re buggered. This is why I suggested managing it in a similar way to a firearms licence – apply for a special 4×4/towing licence that doesn’t cost much, during the process of which you need to reasonably prove that you need such a vehicle.

[chrisonabike]

Kinda – noticed this account
Kinda – noticed this account month(s) back but it was just odd and not a definitive Nige then. Maybe it’s a new game and they took their account down themselves?

Having heard about the Wikipedia stuff it seems like road.cc may be but a minor break in a busy day…

[BalladOfStruth]

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

So basically, we would live in a government controlled state where there may as well be only one nationalised motor company as all cars will be pretty much the same due to detailed legislation?

There are already stringent regulations on most of those things (and plenty more besides) and there’s still plenty of choice in the car market. I see no issue with tightening a few up to prevent cars getting dangerously massive purely for the sake of fashion.

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

Minimum MPG numbers wont help – it’s how you drive a car that will.

Unless you’re suggesting that everyone currently drives their car in first gear with the throttle floored to get as low an MPG as possible, then yes it will help – even if they do, a car with a high combined MPG driven in this way will be more efficient than one with a low combined MPG.

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

WFH? No way, people should be back in the office, and yes – you would need to subsidise 4 day firms to allow for the lost revenue. 

Why? WFH has massive benefits in terms of quality of life and costs, it gives people hours of their day back and gets pointless traffic off the road. I work in tech and it’s become a pretty standard way of working – in my experience it increases productivity as it allows people to flex thier day to match incoming workflow, etc. There are only three reasons I can think of for someone to be against WFH:

1. You’re a commercial landlord who’s terrified that a company might downsize thier office.
2. You’re an empty suit middle-manager who can’t justify their own existence unless there are people in the office for you to micro-manage.
3. You’re an idiot.

Same for the 4-day week – providing that the company operates in a way that would make them suitable for it (a lot won’t, obviously), then there have been numerous studies that show a 4-day week either has no negative impact on productivity, or even increases it.

[mattw]

That, though, is a far

That, though, is a far smaller proportion of the population than currently drive them.

[Author]

Replies