LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
..0
-
Which is why the car manufacturers putting out their bitching statement was unnecessary. They were having to change anyway.rjsterry said:
The important bit was the 2030 deadline, which has moved manufacturers into offering those vehicles. Relaxing the deadline on just a small proportion of those sales is not actually going to change anything.focuszing723 said:
Yeah, for many people in the right circumstance it will just will make financial/practical sense and that's how it should be.rjsterry said:
Cost is definitely an issue at the moment but the gap is closing fast. We replaced our old 2004 Peugeot about 7 years ago. Our budget meant new was not an option and at that point there was barely a market for second hand EVs (I looked). That's already changed significantly and I think it will accelerate. We'll probably need to replace before 2030, and by then I doubt there will be a premium on EVs. In the meantime, it gets used little enough to have moss on the cills and spiders living in the panel seams.focuszing723 said:
I apologise if it come across as not playing the ball. I'm just trying to understand why people who aren't there yet themselves are so keen to talk a good game.rick_chasey said:lol why so personal focus?
Relative to Humanities evolution five a hundred years is a blink of an eye. The Brushless motor/battery combination has been proven, let it sell it's self.
I mean, look at that efficiency, beautiful. No oil, no/low servicing, immediate torque...
0 -
All EVs look massive. All cars look massive. Personally, I'm waiting patiently for something ID2 sized because I don't want to drive a barge or sit 1m off the ground.kingstongraham said:Toyota seem happy with the deadline moving. Maybe because they're still pretty heavy on the "self charging hybrid".
Ford's EVs look massive.
Toyota were quite late to commit to EVs, and were pushing hydrogen harder than other big manufacturers. This may work out well for them, because cars aren't the end of the story. Anyway, if you've followed their latest press releases, you will understand why they are phlegmatic about a delay. They seem to think they are close to cracking solid electrolyte batteries (which exist, but lack longevity), and are projecting 10-20 min charging times and 600-1000 km ranges by the end of the decade. At that point given you don't need a 1000 km range, you can have a lighter cheaper battery that charges in 10 minutes at the motorway service station, and the transition becomes a no-brainer (if the UK has got its act together and created a charging network that's fit for purpose).0 -
It's literally the argument used by the government to persuade BMW to manufacture their EV Mini in the UK rather than China.First.Aspect said:
Look whatever I think about the announcement yesterday, this is just plainly nonsense I'm sorry. We are a comparatively small market, and most of Europe, California, Canada etc etc have gone for 2035. Nothing the UK alone does is going to influence what global manufacturers do or when they do it. The only difference the 2030 target would make is to put the UK in prime spot for manufacture and sales. So the judgement of this government is that the economic cost of delay is outweighed by the benefits of not transitioning before the infrastructure is ready.rjsterry said:
The important bit was the 2030 deadline, which has moved manufacturers into offering those vehicles. Relaxing the deadline on just a small proportion of those sales is not actually going to change anything.focuszing723 said:
Yeah, for many people in the right circumstance it will just will make financial/practical sense and that's how it should be.rjsterry said:
Cost is definitely an issue at the moment but the gap is closing fast. We replaced our old 2004 Peugeot about 7 years ago. Our budget meant new was not an option and at that point there was barely a market for second hand EVs (I looked). That's already changed significantly and I think it will accelerate. We'll probably need to replace before 2030, and by then I doubt there will be a premium on EVs. In the meantime, it gets used little enough to have moss on the cills and spiders living in the panel seams.focuszing723 said:
I apologise if it come across as not playing the ball. I'm just trying to understand why people who aren't there yet themselves are so keen to talk a good game.rick_chasey said:lol why so personal focus?
Relative to Humanities evolution five a hundred years is a blink of an eye. The Brushless motor/battery combination has been proven, let it sell it's self.
I mean, look at that efficiency, beautiful. No oil, no/low servicing, immediate torque...
There are no benefits to delay. It doesn't cost less to transition later.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Its baffling why he's done it. I can only seen it as a hail Mary, probably the first of many, to win the election by somehow or other differentiating.rjsterry said:
It's literally the argument used by the government to persuade BMW to manufacture their EV Mini in the UK rather than China.First.Aspect said:
Look whatever I think about the announcement yesterday, this is just plainly nonsense I'm sorry. We are a comparatively small market, and most of Europe, California, Canada etc etc have gone for 2035. Nothing the UK alone does is going to influence what global manufacturers do or when they do it. The only difference the 2030 target would make is to put the UK in prime spot for manufacture and sales. So the judgement of this government is that the economic cost of delay is outweighed by the benefits of not transitioning before the infrastructure is ready.rjsterry said:
The important bit was the 2030 deadline, which has moved manufacturers into offering those vehicles. Relaxing the deadline on just a small proportion of those sales is not actually going to change anything.focuszing723 said:
Yeah, for many people in the right circumstance it will just will make financial/practical sense and that's how it should be.rjsterry said:
Cost is definitely an issue at the moment but the gap is closing fast. We replaced our old 2004 Peugeot about 7 years ago. Our budget meant new was not an option and at that point there was barely a market for second hand EVs (I looked). That's already changed significantly and I think it will accelerate. We'll probably need to replace before 2030, and by then I doubt there will be a premium on EVs. In the meantime, it gets used little enough to have moss on the cills and spiders living in the panel seams.focuszing723 said:
I apologise if it come across as not playing the ball. I'm just trying to understand why people who aren't there yet themselves are so keen to talk a good game.rick_chasey said:lol why so personal focus?
Relative to Humanities evolution five a hundred years is a blink of an eye. The Brushless motor/battery combination has been proven, let it sell it's self.
I mean, look at that efficiency, beautiful. No oil, no/low servicing, immediate torque...
There are no benefits to delay. It doesn't cost less to transition later.
0 -
Have you actually spoken to anyone over 60 about this? Ideally a daily mail reader.First.Aspect said:
Its baffling why he's done it. I can only seen it as a hail Mary, probably the first of many, to win the election by somehow or other differentiating.rjsterry said:
It's literally the argument used by the government to persuade BMW to manufacture their EV Mini in the UK rather than China.First.Aspect said:
Look whatever I think about the announcement yesterday, this is just plainly nonsense I'm sorry. We are a comparatively small market, and most of Europe, California, Canada etc etc have gone for 2035. Nothing the UK alone does is going to influence what global manufacturers do or when they do it. The only difference the 2030 target would make is to put the UK in prime spot for manufacture and sales. So the judgement of this government is that the economic cost of delay is outweighed by the benefits of not transitioning before the infrastructure is ready.rjsterry said:
The important bit was the 2030 deadline, which has moved manufacturers into offering those vehicles. Relaxing the deadline on just a small proportion of those sales is not actually going to change anything.focuszing723 said:
Yeah, for many people in the right circumstance it will just will make financial/practical sense and that's how it should be.rjsterry said:
Cost is definitely an issue at the moment but the gap is closing fast. We replaced our old 2004 Peugeot about 7 years ago. Our budget meant new was not an option and at that point there was barely a market for second hand EVs (I looked). That's already changed significantly and I think it will accelerate. We'll probably need to replace before 2030, and by then I doubt there will be a premium on EVs. In the meantime, it gets used little enough to have moss on the cills and spiders living in the panel seams.focuszing723 said:
I apologise if it come across as not playing the ball. I'm just trying to understand why people who aren't there yet themselves are so keen to talk a good game.rick_chasey said:lol why so personal focus?
Relative to Humanities evolution five a hundred years is a blink of an eye. The Brushless motor/battery combination has been proven, let it sell it's self.
I mean, look at that efficiency, beautiful. No oil, no/low servicing, immediate torque...
There are no benefits to delay. It doesn't cost less to transition later.
They think the whole transition thing is scare mongering idiot children who don't understand the *real world* and if they want to go and do their stupid transition they should do it after they're dead.0 -
All the over 60s I know are all for the transition and are putting money into it as well.rick_chasey said:
Have you actually spoken to anyone over 60 about this? Ideally a daily mail reader.First.Aspect said:
Its baffling why he's done it. I can only seen it as a hail Mary, probably the first of many, to win the election by somehow or other differentiating.rjsterry said:
It's literally the argument used by the government to persuade BMW to manufacture their EV Mini in the UK rather than China.First.Aspect said:
Look whatever I think about the announcement yesterday, this is just plainly nonsense I'm sorry. We are a comparatively small market, and most of Europe, California, Canada etc etc have gone for 2035. Nothing the UK alone does is going to influence what global manufacturers do or when they do it. The only difference the 2030 target would make is to put the UK in prime spot for manufacture and sales. So the judgement of this government is that the economic cost of delay is outweighed by the benefits of not transitioning before the infrastructure is ready.rjsterry said:
The important bit was the 2030 deadline, which has moved manufacturers into offering those vehicles. Relaxing the deadline on just a small proportion of those sales is not actually going to change anything.focuszing723 said:
Yeah, for many people in the right circumstance it will just will make financial/practical sense and that's how it should be.rjsterry said:
Cost is definitely an issue at the moment but the gap is closing fast. We replaced our old 2004 Peugeot about 7 years ago. Our budget meant new was not an option and at that point there was barely a market for second hand EVs (I looked). That's already changed significantly and I think it will accelerate. We'll probably need to replace before 2030, and by then I doubt there will be a premium on EVs. In the meantime, it gets used little enough to have moss on the cills and spiders living in the panel seams.focuszing723 said:
I apologise if it come across as not playing the ball. I'm just trying to understand why people who aren't there yet themselves are so keen to talk a good game.rick_chasey said:lol why so personal focus?
Relative to Humanities evolution five a hundred years is a blink of an eye. The Brushless motor/battery combination has been proven, let it sell it's self.
I mean, look at that efficiency, beautiful. No oil, no/low servicing, immediate torque...
There are no benefits to delay. It doesn't cost less to transition later.
They think the whole transition thing is scare mongering idiot children who don't understand the *real world* and if they want to go and do their stupid transition they should do it after they're dead.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
They've not been paying attention. Their pin-up is arguing strongly in favour of net zero.rick_chasey said:
So I spent some time with my MIL and her friends - all BoJo loving ("Bring Him Back!") daily mail reading retirees.rjsterry said:
All the over 60s I know are all for the transition and are putting money into it as well.
And they think it's kids being hysterical because they're lazy. Genuinely.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
No, but it's been clear for a long time the Tories are aiming for the core vote and trying to maximise turnout in that. Their problem is that the core vote is, well, dying of old age.rick_chasey said:
Have you actually spoken to anyone over 60 about this? Ideally a daily mail reader.First.Aspect said:
Its baffling why he's done it. I can only seen it as a hail Mary, probably the first of many, to win the election by somehow or other differentiating.rjsterry said:
It's literally the argument used by the government to persuade BMW to manufacture their EV Mini in the UK rather than China.First.Aspect said:
Look whatever I think about the announcement yesterday, this is just plainly nonsense I'm sorry. We are a comparatively small market, and most of Europe, California, Canada etc etc have gone for 2035. Nothing the UK alone does is going to influence what global manufacturers do or when they do it. The only difference the 2030 target would make is to put the UK in prime spot for manufacture and sales. So the judgement of this government is that the economic cost of delay is outweighed by the benefits of not transitioning before the infrastructure is ready.rjsterry said:
The important bit was the 2030 deadline, which has moved manufacturers into offering those vehicles. Relaxing the deadline on just a small proportion of those sales is not actually going to change anything.focuszing723 said:
Yeah, for many people in the right circumstance it will just will make financial/practical sense and that's how it should be.rjsterry said:
Cost is definitely an issue at the moment but the gap is closing fast. We replaced our old 2004 Peugeot about 7 years ago. Our budget meant new was not an option and at that point there was barely a market for second hand EVs (I looked). That's already changed significantly and I think it will accelerate. We'll probably need to replace before 2030, and by then I doubt there will be a premium on EVs. In the meantime, it gets used little enough to have moss on the cills and spiders living in the panel seams.focuszing723 said:
I apologise if it come across as not playing the ball. I'm just trying to understand why people who aren't there yet themselves are so keen to talk a good game.rick_chasey said:lol why so personal focus?
Relative to Humanities evolution five a hundred years is a blink of an eye. The Brushless motor/battery combination has been proven, let it sell it's self.
I mean, look at that efficiency, beautiful. No oil, no/low servicing, immediate torque...
There are no benefits to delay. It doesn't cost less to transition later.
They think the whole transition thing is scare mongering idiot children who don't understand the *real world* and if they want to go and do their stupid transition they should do it after they're dead.
I'm like Brian, in really wanting balanced politics. Even if it would be good to have a labour government, I don't want a landslide, because it has its own matjematically and economically challenged lunatic fringe we need protecting from.
0 -
-
I had to look up iirc and I think you've not used it right.rick_chasey said:No chance of a turbo majority IIRC - Tory lead is too big to begin with.
This makes us both bang in the target demographic for the Tories.0 -
If I Remember Correctly, is exactly what I meant.First.Aspect said:
I had to look up iirc and I think you've not used it right.rick_chasey said:No chance of a turbo majority IIRC - Tory lead is too big to begin with.
This makes us both bang in the target demographic for the Tories.0 -
It's just me then.rick_chasey said:
If I Remember Correctly, is exactly what I meant.First.Aspect said:
I had to look up iirc and I think you've not used it right.rick_chasey said:No chance of a turbo majority IIRC - Tory lead is too big to begin with.
This makes us both bang in the target demographic for the Tories.
0 -
Tried pointing this sort of thing out.rick_chasey said:
Hadn’t realised this. What a sh!tshow
But people just wanted to claim Brexit was done.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
-
It's over stated though because not that many cars would come across. It is no more true than the EUs notion that chlorinated pigs and steroidal chickens would flood the other way.tailwindhome said:
Tried pointing this sort of thing out.rick_chasey said:
Hadn’t realised this. What a sh!tshow
But people just wanted to claim Brexit was done.
0 -
how come Denmark and Netherlands have an earlier date for banning them then?tailwindhome said:
Tried pointing this sort of thing out.rick_chasey said:
Hadn’t realised this. What a sh!tshow
But people just wanted to claim Brexit was done.0 -
So does Ireland.kingstongraham said:
how come Denmark and Netherlands have an earlier date for banning them then?tailwindhome said:
Tried pointing this sort of thing out.rick_chasey said:
Hadn’t realised this. What a sh!tshow
But people just wanted to claim Brexit was done.
It's just bollocks.
0 -
Dunno, and it's not really relevant to the broader point.kingstongraham said:
how come Denmark and Netherlands have an earlier date for banning them then?tailwindhome said:
Tried pointing this sort of thing out.rick_chasey said:
Hadn’t realised this. What a sh!tshow
But people just wanted to claim Brexit was done.
The UK doesn't make rules for the whole UK, and can't (in practice) ban anything which is legal in the EU without border checks on NI>GB trade, which breachs their commitment to unfettered trade NI>GB.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!1 -
OK. Y'all know best.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Border controls are not the only way to implement law.tailwindhome said:
Dunno, and it's not really relevant to the broader point.kingstongraham said:
how come Denmark and Netherlands have an earlier date for banning them then?tailwindhome said:
Tried pointing this sort of thing out.rick_chasey said:
Hadn’t realised this. What a sh!tshow
But people just wanted to claim Brexit was done.
The UK doesn't make rules for the whole UK, and can't (in practice) ban anything which is legal in the EU without border checks on NI>GB trade, which breachs their commitment to unfettered trade NI>GB.
0 -
I only asked a question - maybe the Denmark and Netherlands bans aren't compatible with EU law now.tailwindhome said:
Dunno, and it's not really relevant to the broader point.kingstongraham said:
how come Denmark and Netherlands have an earlier date for banning them then?tailwindhome said:
Tried pointing this sort of thing out.rick_chasey said:
Hadn’t realised this. What a sh!tshow
But people just wanted to claim Brexit was done.
The UK doesn't make rules for the whole UK, and can't (in practice) ban anything which is legal in the EU without border checks on NI>GB trade, which breachs their commitment to unfettered trade NI>GB.
It seemed weird that the UK would be more constrained by EU law than an actual EU member.0 -
.....when there is a border, however.TheBigBean said:
Border controls are not the only way to implement law.tailwindhome said:
Dunno, and it's not really relevant to the broader point.kingstongraham said:
how come Denmark and Netherlands have an earlier date for banning them then?tailwindhome said:
Tried pointing this sort of thing out.rick_chasey said:
Hadn’t realised this. What a sh!tshow
But people just wanted to claim Brexit was done.
The UK doesn't make rules for the whole UK, and can't (in practice) ban anything which is legal in the EU without border checks on NI>GB trade, which breachs their commitment to unfettered trade NI>GB.0 -
rick_chasey said:
Life in Bike Theft Britain
Hard to believe it's a serious country at this point.In recent years, around 11,000 bicycles have been reported stolen in Amsterdam per year; the city estimates that the total number actually stolen is higher, around 28,500 per year. Cycling advocates suggest the number may be even higher, around 80,000 per year. Whatever the proper estimate, bike theft is a hazard that accompanies bike-friendly urban design.https://news.mit.edu/2023/where-do-stolen-bikes-go-0215#:~:text=In recent years, around 11,000,higher, around 28,500 per year.
“Almost everybody in Amsterdam, or even in Cambridge, if you ride a bike, has had the experience of leaving somewhere and not finding their bike,” Venverloo says.
It ain't just blighty it happens in the land of the tulip too.
0 -
With all due respect, the Dutch do not march about declaring they're a great power or a serious country.focuszing723 said:rick_chasey said:Life in Bike Theft Britain
Hard to believe it's a serious country at this point.In recent years, around 11,000 bicycles have been reported stolen in Amsterdam per year; the city estimates that the total number actually stolen is higher, around 28,500 per year. Cycling advocates suggest the number may be even higher, around 80,000 per year. Whatever the proper estimate, bike theft is a hazard that accompanies bike-friendly urban design.https://news.mit.edu/2023/where-do-stolen-bikes-go-0215#:~:text=In recent years, around 11,000,higher, around 28,500 per year.
“Almost everybody in Amsterdam, or even in Cambridge, if you ride a bike, has had the experience of leaving somewhere and not finding their bike,” Venverloo says.
It ain't just blighty it happens in the land of the tulip too.0 -
Yes they do. I rember on holiday abroad as a kid (Cyprus) they had their orange beach towels on all the sun loungers!rick_chasey said:
With all due respect, the Dutch do not march about declaring they're a great power or a serious country.focuszing723 said:rick_chasey said:Life in Bike Theft Britain
Hard to believe it's a serious country at this point.In recent years, around 11,000 bicycles have been reported stolen in Amsterdam per year; the city estimates that the total number actually stolen is higher, around 28,500 per year. Cycling advocates suggest the number may be even higher, around 80,000 per year. Whatever the proper estimate, bike theft is a hazard that accompanies bike-friendly urban design.https://news.mit.edu/2023/where-do-stolen-bikes-go-0215#:~:text=In recent years, around 11,000,higher, around 28,500 per year.
“Almost everybody in Amsterdam, or even in Cambridge, if you ride a bike, has had the experience of leaving somewhere and not finding their bike,” Venverloo says.
It ain't just blighty it happens in the land of the tulip too.
"If you ain't Dutch, you ain't much"
Outrageous!0 -
And Dutch corner!0
-
The Dutch c...0
