TdF Beefeaters win UCI Fans’ Award with THAT video; Hope in Lotus tie-up; British Cycling slams e-car 'green' number plate plans; 6 Day London – how to watch on BBC; Lookalike trophies; 'Auction for Kennaugh's Dogma F1 + more on live blog

alansmurphy wrote:

And no, it's your logic that is flawed Rich. If more people left their cars at home, increasing space and safety, then more people would realise the lack of the need for the car and more people would ride... In fact, driving would then be seen as a luxury, economies of scale would lessen, investment could move away from building more and more roads car parks and be placed instead into sustainable transport...

 

That isn't the argument that's being made by FKoT. They argue that increased road space leads to more traffic. Ergo, anything that frees up road space creates pollution. If it's true for EVs it will be even more true for cycling/walking.

Personally I think cycling/walking etc are the best solution to pollution, followed by (electric) public transport, followed by EVs.

EVs are a good short term solution to local pollution while we work on the huge cultural shift required to get more people cycling and walking.

Jetmans Dad wrote:

The other problem with the green plate thing is that you are once again rewarding those who don't really need it. There was some idiot politician on the radio this morning proclaiming electric cars as "affordable to all" now that you can pick up a second hand one for "less than £7,000". 

I don't know about anyone here, but in my 30+ years of adulthood I have never spent even half that on a vehicle, and could not do so now, even earning more than the national average, without putting myself into debt to do so ... not if I want to pay the mortgage every month anyway. 

If they were genuinely affordable I might be tempted, regardless of any daft perks like free parking or using the bus lane (for which I can always use the bike), but our nation's leadership believing that something is affordable to all as soon as the cost drops below 5 figures is one of the major reasons why the country is in a hole. 

You could make the argument that everybody benefits when a consumer chooses an EV rather than an ICEV.

There was some research published in the last few days showing how serious illness rates and local pollution levels are closely associated.

If you also consider the CO2 reduction (depends on grid but applies in UK) then again it's a win for everybody.

Rich_cb wrote:

Jetmans Dad wrote:

The other problem with the green plate thing is that you are once again rewarding those who don't really need it. There was some idiot politician on the radio this morning proclaiming electric cars as "affordable to all" now that you can pick up a second hand one for "less than £7,000". 

I don't know about anyone here, but in my 30+ years of adulthood I have never spent even half that on a vehicle, and could not do so now, even earning more than the national average, without putting myself into debt to do so ... not if I want to pay the mortgage every month anyway. 

If they were genuinely affordable I might be tempted, regardless of any daft perks like free parking or using the bus lane (for which I can always use the bike), but our nation's leadership believing that something is affordable to all as soon as the cost drops below 5 figures is one of the major reasons why the country is in a hole. 

You could make the argument that everybody benefits when a consumer chooses an EV rather than an ICEV.

There was some research published in the last few days showing how serious illness rates and local pollution levels are closely associated.

If you also consider the CO2 reduction (depends on grid but applies in UK) then again it's a win for everybody.

But that involves other assumptions. Mainly, that the perks offered to EV users only cause a shift from ICEV to EV, and doesn't increase the total use of motorised vehicles.

That some of those suggested perks clearly involve taking things away from non-car users (delaying buses and making it slower and less safe for cyclists), and creating more space on the carriageway for ICEV users (removing the EVs from the main carriageway) suggests the total effect could easily be to increase pollution rather than reduce it. So the policy will have redistributed assets from the less-well-off to the wealthy _and_ increased pollution by making space for still more cars.

Also, the OP still has a general point about the politicians who don't have a good grasp of what constitutes 'affordable' for ordinary people. Even if your point were true, that's still not a good thing.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

Jetmans Dad wrote:

The other problem with the green plate thing is that you are once again rewarding those who don't really need it. There was some idiot politician on the radio this morning proclaiming electric cars as "affordable to all" now that you can pick up a second hand one for "less than £7,000". 

I don't know about anyone here, but in my 30+ years of adulthood I have never spent even half that on a vehicle, and could not do so now, even earning more than the national average, without putting myself into debt to do so ... not if I want to pay the mortgage every month anyway. 

If they were genuinely affordable I might be tempted, regardless of any daft perks like free parking or using the bus lane (for which I can always use the bike), but our nation's leadership believing that something is affordable to all as soon as the cost drops below 5 figures is one of the major reasons why the country is in a hole. 

You could make the argument that everybody benefits when a consumer chooses an EV rather than an ICEV. There was some research published in the last few days showing how serious illness rates and local pollution levels are closely associated. If you also consider the CO2 reduction (depends on grid but applies in UK) then again it's a win for everybody.

But that involves other assumptions. Mainly, that the perks offered to EV users only cause a shift from ICEV to EV, and doesn't increase the total use of motorised vehicles. That some of those suggested perks clearly involve taking things away from non-car users (delaying buses and making it slower and less safe for cyclists), and creating more space on the carriageway for ICEV users (removing the EVs from the main carriageway) suggests the total effect could easily be to increase pollution rather than reduce it. So the policy will have redistributed assets from the less-well-off to the wealthy _and_ increased pollution by making space for still more cars. Also, the OP still has a general point about the politicians who don't have a good grasp of what constitutes 'affordable' for ordinary people. Even if your point were true, that's still not a good thing.

Fluffy Kitten baby, consider your head well and truly scratched.  A masterly summation of why the argument for e-cars is false.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

But that involves other assumptions. Mainly, that the perks offered to EV users only cause a shift from ICEV to EV, and doesn't increase the total use of motorised vehicles.

That some of those suggested perks clearly involve taking things away from non-car users (delaying buses and making it slower and less safe for cyclists), and creating more space on the carriageway for ICEV users (removing the EVs from the main carriageway) suggests the total effect could easily be to increase pollution rather than reduce it. So the policy will have redistributed assets from the less-well-off to the wealthy _and_ increased pollution by making space for still more cars.

Also, the OP still has a general point about the politicians who don't have a good grasp of what constitutes 'affordable' for ordinary people. Even if your point were true, that's still not a good thing.

The argument you've presented, if true, would be an argument against any form of transport other than a car.

Leave your car at home and take a bicycle and you'll create more road capacity and therefore more cars will appear.

If 50 people leave their cars at home and take a bus then 50 more cars appear.

In fact, by your own argument, EVs are the best alternative to ICEVs as they would free up the least amount of road space therefore leading to the smallest increase in car numbers.

Clearly your argument is flawed.

The most disadvantaged members of society tend to be exposed to the highest levels of pollution so while perks of EV ownership may benefit the wealthy disproportionately, the benefits of reduced local
pollution will be felt mostly by the disadvantaged.

Your point about decreasing safety for cyclists is valid.

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

But that involves other assumptions. Mainly, that the perks offered to EV users only cause a shift from ICEV to EV, and doesn't increase the total use of motorised vehicles.

That some of those suggested perks clearly involve taking things away from non-car users (delaying buses and making it slower and less safe for cyclists), and creating more space on the carriageway for ICEV users (removing the EVs from the main carriageway) suggests the total effect could easily be to increase pollution rather than reduce it. So the policy will have redistributed assets from the less-well-off to the wealthy _and_ increased pollution by making space for still more cars.

Also, the OP still has a general point about the politicians who don't have a good grasp of what constitutes 'affordable' for ordinary people. Even if your point were true, that's still not a good thing.

The argument you've presented, if true, would be an argument against any form of transport other than a car.

Leave your car at home and take a bicycle and you'll create more road capacity and therefore more cars will appear.

If 50 people leave their cars at home and take a bus then 50 more cars appear.

In fact, by your own argument, EVs are the best alternative to ICEVs as they would free up the least amount of road space therefore leading to the smallest increase in car numbers.

Clearly your argument is flawed.

The most disadvantaged members of society tend to be exposed to the highest levels of pollution so while perks of EV ownership may benefit the wealthy disproportionately, the benefits of reduced local
pollution will be felt mostly by the disadvantaged.

I think it's quite possible that my not driving leaves more space which is then taken up by others. Certainly the space it makes available for parking outside gets used by others. That's why individual choices not to drive don't necessarily achieve much, when what is needed is collective action enforced by the state.

Same goes for your bus 'argument' - that's why just providing buses isn't enough, you also need bus lanes and other restrictions on car use (I hate buses, personally, always get horribly travel sick on them, especially in winter when they seem to recycle engine fumes as heating, plus I always find them, door-to-door, slower than walking, never mind cycling - but I guess they have their place as part of a solution)

But what does any of that have to do with the point about EVs? My argument isn't flawed, your counter-argument makes no sense! Probably because it was hastily cobbled together.

As for the last point - how nice of the fortunate to deign to stop poisoning the less-fortunate. Maybe they could be obliged to do that via a stick rather than a carrot, though? Why should they have to be bribed to do that?

Perks for EVs would be acceptable if, and only if, they came entirely at the cost of ICEVs. By all means ban ICEVs from some roads that are currently used by all, leaving them for cyclists and EVs only. Just don't take space from buses or cyclists or pedestrians to do it. Same with parking.

(Oh, though Jetmans_dad's argument would still apply, though while I do take that point it's not a fight I personally feel like getting into...it is similar, though, to why I don't like excessively generous 'feed in' tariffs for micro solar and the like - it ends up as a means of redistributing wealth upward, with not much real environmental benefit)

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I think it's quite possible that my not driving leaves more space which is then taken up by others. Certainly the space it makes available for parking outside gets used by others. That's why individual choices not to drive don't necessarily achieve much, when what is needed is collective action enforced by the state.

Same goes for your bus 'argument' - that's why just providing buses isn't enough, you also need bus lanes and other restrictions on car use (I hate buses, personally, always get horribly travel sick on them, especially in winter when they seem to recycle engine fumes as heating, plus I always find them, door-to-door, slower than walking, never mind cycling - but I guess they have their place as part of a solution)

But what does any of that have to do with the point about EVs? My argument isn't flawed, your counter-argument makes no sense! Probably because it was hastily cobbled together.

As for the last point - how nice of the fortunate to deign to stop poisoning the less-fortunate. Maybe they could be obliged to do that via a stick rather than a carrot, though? Why should they have to be bribed to do that?

Perks for EVs would be acceptable if, and only if, they came entirely at the cost of ICEVs. By all means ban ICEVs from some roads that are currently used by all, leaving them for cyclists and EVs only. Just don't take space from buses or cyclists or pedestrians to do it. Same with parking.

(Oh, though Jetmans_dad's argument would still apply, though while I do take that point it's not a fight I personally feel like getting into...it is similar, though, to why I don't like excessively generous 'feed in' tariffs for micro solar and the like - it ends up as a means of redistributing wealth upward, with not much real environmental benefit)

Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, all bus passengers, pedestrians and cyclists should get EVs. This would (apparently) reduce pollution...
Car drivers however should not.

The problem with the stick approach is that, inevitably, it is the poorest in society who can least easily adjust to new punitive regulations.

Emission regulations merely punish the owners of older cars who tend to be poorer. Likewise road charging and any other financial penalty. The rich can simply pay it, the poor, less so.

Perks for EVs can be viewed in the same way as subsidies for off shore wind. Initially expensive but once the subsidised infrastructure is in place and the technology established then the free market will rapidly increase take up benefiting everyone.

I agree that home solar is/was an expensive farce.

Rich_cb wrote:

 The argument you've presented, if true, would be an argument against any form of transport other than a car. Leave your car at home and take a bicycle and you'll create more road capacity and therefore more cars will appear. If 50 people leave their cars at home and take a bus then 50 more cars appear. d.

This does appear to be what happens in London as far as I can see, as the number of cars on the road doesn't seem to decrease as the number of bikes increases. But that doesn't mean that there are more cars on the road than there were before, it just means that there are different cars, presumably the ones whose drivers previously didn't come into London because of congestion, or chose another method.

And as the number of bikes grows so they take up more road space and, where they would use segregated space, including bus lanes, they also use more unsegregated space, which makes life more difficult for a lot of drivers, and could stop them from driving in, or make them come in at a less cyclist-heavy time.

ConcordeCX wrote:

This does appear to be what happens in London as far as I can see, as the number of cars on the road doesn't seem to decrease as the number of bikes increases. But that doesn't mean that there are more cars on the road than there were before, it just means that there are different cars, presumably the ones whose drivers previously didn't come into London because of congestion, or chose another method.

And as the number of bikes grows so they take up more road space and, where they would use segregated space, including bus lanes, they also use more unsegregated space, which makes life more difficult for a lot of drivers, and could stop them from driving in, or make them come in at a less cyclist-heavy time.

London traffic has declined hugely since 2000. Driven largely by a decrease in private cars.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

RE green plates - it's an absolutely terrible idea, at least the part about using bus-lanes. That bit is profoundly stupid (or maybe they know full well what they are doing and are just hoping the rest of us are stupid?)

This has been Government policy for most of the last decade hasn't it? I can think of at least one prime example.

Plasterer's Radio wrote:

Slamming the car door on the driver's legs was a nice touch.

Worth remembering as it will negate the cleats disadvantage.

I've often wondered what fighting style would work best when wearing cleats. You could try using the cleat as a weapon with something like a high kick (aiming to connect with the sole of your foot ), but you've also got the disadvantage of being less stable performing such a kick. Maybe a jumping, spinning kick would work best and would look very cool if executed successfully.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Plasterer's Radio wrote:

Slamming the car door on the driver's legs was a nice touch.

Worth remembering as it will negate the cleats disadvantage.

I've often wondered what fighting style would work best when wearing cleats. You could try using the cleat as a weapon with something like a high kick (aiming to connect with the sole of your foot ), but you've also got the disadvantage of being less stable performing such a kick. Maybe a jumping, spinning kick would work best and would look very cool if executed successfully.

i don't wear cleats so I don't know if this would work, but in WWII our brave boys were taught to fight very dirty indeed by one W E Fairbairn (well worth googlng), who recommends as follows in his book "All-in Fighting" (I haven't tried any of this):

No. 3. Boot (Side Kick)

With a few exceptions, the kick with the boot should be made sideways. It will be noted that in this method you are able to put more force behind your blow and can, if necessary, reach farther.

1. Turn sideways to your opponent, taking the weight of your body on your left foot. Bending your left leg slightly from your knee, raise your right foot two to four inches off the ground, as in Fig. 7. Shoot your right foot outwards to your right, aiming to strike your opponent’s leg just below the knee-cap.

2. Follow the blow through, scraping your opponent’s shin with the edge of the boot from the knee to the instep, finishing up with all your weight on your right foot, and smash the small bones of the foot. If necessary, follow up with a chin jab with your left hand (Fig. 8).

Note. Where the kick is to be made with the left foot, reverse the above.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Plasterer's Radio wrote:

Slamming the car door on the driver's legs was a nice touch.

Worth remembering as it will negate the cleats disadvantage.

I've often wondered what fighting style would work best when wearing cleats. You could try using the cleat as a weapon with something like a high kick (aiming to connect with the sole of your foot ), but you've also got the disadvantage of being less stable performing such a kick. Maybe a jumping, spinning kick would work best and would look very cool if executed successfully.

Ah! At last, a sensible reason to settle the helmet debate forever! When attacked while on a bicycle, if you're wearing a helmet just headbutt the f*%kers. They won't forget that in a hurry...    (& if you're not wearing a helmet, well, it was your choice to leave home unarmed.)

Dangerous Dan wrote:

This incident did not happen in the US, Mexico or Canada.  The license plates visible on several vehicles are not in the North American format.

[...]

it's Russia. The billboards are in Russian.

ConcordeCX wrote:

it's Russia. The billboards are in Russian.

In that case, totally justified...

ConcordeCX wrote:

Dangerous Dan wrote:

This incident did not happen in the US, Mexico or Canada.  The license plates visible on several vehicles are not in the North American format.

[...]

it's Russia. The billboards are in Russian.

Good old Russian road rage. Possibly the best Russian road rage attack ever;

https://twitter.com/CamsRussian/status/1172638722174701568