The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)
Comments
-
Bubble alert.rick_chasey said:
Yes, yes it is.First.Aspect said:
Seemed a reasonable approach during covid.rick_chasey said:What, so if they earn money from it, it’s ok to pollute more?
Driving is a privilege not a right.
If you earn 20k visiting people to deliver meals or change nappies or other fun stuff like that, us it reasonable to incur 10k in fees to do it?
Is it reasonable to need to replace your car to do it?
And if you read the research, for commercial vehicles, they had 97% compliance.
1 -
I can't see how anyone who has got on a commercial flight recently can agree with Ulez and tell some who is trying to get by should pay an extra tax. They will already pay a higher road car tax anyway!
Again, a commercial flight will use the same comparative fuel as a car would for it's lifetime.1 -
Anyone who pontificates about global warming, pollution, emissions... should be banned from using commercial flights, for crimes to hypocrisy alone.1
-
Who knew the transition to a less pollutant, greener economy would have some inflationary side effects?First.Aspect said:
Bubble alert.rick_chasey said:
Yes, yes it is.First.Aspect said:
Seemed a reasonable approach during covid.rick_chasey said:What, so if they earn money from it, it’s ok to pollute more?
Driving is a privilege not a right.
If you earn 20k visiting people to deliver meals or change nappies or other fun stuff like that, us it reasonable to incur 10k in fees to do it?
Is it reasonable to need to replace your car to do it?
And if you read the research, for commercial vehicles, they had 97% compliance.
It's the poorest who suffer the most with pollution anyway.0 -
Pffft.rick_chasey said:
Who knew the transition to a less pollutant, greener economy would have some inflationary side effects?First.Aspect said:
Bubble alert.rick_chasey said:
Yes, yes it is.First.Aspect said:
Seemed a reasonable approach during covid.rick_chasey said:What, so if they earn money from it, it’s ok to pollute more?
Driving is a privilege not a right.
If you earn 20k visiting people to deliver meals or change nappies or other fun stuff like that, us it reasonable to incur 10k in fees to do it?
Is it reasonable to need to replace your car to do it?
And if you read the research, for commercial vehicles, they had 97% compliance.
It's the poorest who suffer the most with pollution anyway.0 -
I don't really see why people who live and work in city centres should have to suffer worse air because it might be a bit more expensive for some people to come in by car?
An old colleague who had a stroke which put him out of the industry now delivers food all over London for a living; he does it all by electric bike as it's cheaper and faster for the food he delivers.
Win win.0 -
Air travel is undoubtedly horrendous for the environment, but there are many journeys where the practicalities win out, you'd either just not make them or it's going to be via plane.focuszing723 said:Anyone who pontificates about global warming, pollution, emissions... should be banned from using commercial flights, for crimes to hypocrisy alone.
However little time for 1. Short haul flights where time saving is marginal over land travel e.g. London to Edinburgh or even London to Paris / other northern European cities 2. Vegetables flown in from Africa/ South America "off season"0 -
City centres will always have higher levels of pollution by definition. Vehicle pollution is not the only source.rick_chasey said:I don't really see why people who live and work in city centres should have to suffer worse air because it might be a bit more expensive for some people to come in by car?
An old colleague who had a stroke which put him out of the industry now delivers food all over London for a living; he does it all by electric bike as it's cheaper and faster for the food he delivers.
Win win.
Electric vehicles are simply outsourcing the fuel pollution. Discuss.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Well yes, if you have to pollute, it makes sense to do it away from where people live.pblakeney said:
City centres will always have higher levels of pollution by definition. Vehicle pollution is not the only source.rick_chasey said:I don't really see why people who live and work in city centres should have to suffer worse air because it might be a bit more expensive for some people to come in by car?
An old colleague who had a stroke which put him out of the industry now delivers food all over London for a living; he does it all by electric bike as it's cheaper and faster for the food he delivers.
Win win.
Electric vehicles are simply outsourcing the fuel pollution. Discuss.
City centres don't necessarily need to have higher levels of pollution by definition.
And if we move to a more renewable power grid, which we need to anyway, then win win.
ICEs are 100% fossil fuels (well, I guess some of it is bio fuel now) The power grid isn't.0 -
You'll be surprised how close power stations are to towns and cities.rick_chasey said:
Well yes, if you have to pollute, it makes sense to do it away from where people live.pblakeney said:
City centres will always have higher levels of pollution by definition. Vehicle pollution is not the only source.rick_chasey said:I don't really see why people who live and work in city centres should have to suffer worse air because it might be a bit more expensive for some people to come in by car?
An old colleague who had a stroke which put him out of the industry now delivers food all over London for a living; he does it all by electric bike as it's cheaper and faster for the food he delivers.
Win win.
Electric vehicles are simply outsourcing the fuel pollution. Discuss.
City centres don't necessarily need to have higher levels of pollution by definition.
And if we move to a more renewable power grid, which we need to anyway, then win win.
ICEs are 100% fossil fuels (well, I guess some of it is bio fuel now) The power grid isn't.
Tyre pollution, brake pollution, heat pollution, light pollution, human pollution, etc, etc.
Eventually, yes. But that is decades away. Start the work now but we need it immediately.
Last point is mixing examples. Not all cars are ICE and the power grid is greatly fossil.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Even with a fully fossil fuel grid, generating electricity, you generally get higher thermal efficiency from a power station than a car engine. Plus it's easier to do flue gas stuff, plus it's generally better to pollute as far away from large concentrations of people.pblakeney said:
City centres will always have higher levels of pollution by definition. Vehicle pollution is not the only source.rick_chasey said:I don't really see why people who live and work in city centres should have to suffer worse air because it might be a bit more expensive for some people to come in by car?
An old colleague who had a stroke which put him out of the industry now delivers food all over London for a living; he does it all by electric bike as it's cheaper and faster for the food he delivers.
Win win.
Electric vehicles are simply outsourcing the fuel pollution. Discuss.
But yea, electric cars aren't a cure all.0 -
No they're not, and that's what I've been arguing from the start. The trends of how people live are changing and cars are going to be less and less convenient anyway.
0 -
Anyone seen the light and gone car free yet?3
-
The best current solution was found during covid.rick_chasey said:No they're not, and that's what I've been arguing from the start. The trends of how people live are changing and cars are going to be less and less convenient anyway.
But apparently everyone "needs" to go to an office.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Productivity is lower when people are 100% WFH.pblakeney said:
The best current solution was found during covid.rick_chasey said:No they're not, and that's what I've been arguing from the start. The trends of how people live are changing and cars are going to be less and less convenient anyway.
But apparently everyone "needs" to go to an office.0 -
That's down to work ethics and incentives. Still, it's a choice. Save the planet and health, or the economy. Saving the economy is just kicking the can down the road.rick_chasey said:
Productivity is lower when people are 100% WFH.pblakeney said:
The best current solution was found during covid.rick_chasey said:No they're not, and that's what I've been arguing from the start. The trends of how people live are changing and cars are going to be less and less convenient anyway.
But apparently everyone "needs" to go to an office.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Well that'll help pollution won't it.rick_chasey said:
0 -
This is fatalistic nonsense. There is an opportunity to do both.pblakeney said:
That's down to work ethics and incentives. Still, it's a choice. Save the planet and health, or the economy. Saving the economy is just kicking the can down the road.rick_chasey said:
Productivity is lower when people are 100% WFH.pblakeney said:
The best current solution was found during covid.rick_chasey said:No they're not, and that's what I've been arguing from the start. The trends of how people live are changing and cars are going to be less and less convenient anyway.
But apparently everyone "needs" to go to an office.
Change is hard, especially in old age, I appreciate.0 -
rick_chasey said:
I don't really see why people who live and work in city centres should have to suffer worse air because it might be a bit more expensive for some people to come in by car?
An old colleague who had a stroke which put him out of the industry now delivers food all over London for a living; he does it all by electric bike as it's cheaper and faster for the food he delivers.
Win win.
This seems to be the direction of travel, if you'll pardon the pun, but there's a legitimate debate about how to get there.rick_chasey said:I don't really see why people who live and work in city centres should have to suffer worse air because it might be a bit more expensive for some people to come in by car?
An old colleague who had a stroke which put him out of the industry now delivers food all over London for a living; he does it all by electric bike as it's cheaper and faster for the food he delivers.
Win win.
0 -
ULEZ is about local pollution, not global climate change related emissions. They are two very different issues.focuszing723 said:I can't see how anyone who has got on a commercial flight recently can agree with Ulez and tell some who is trying to get by should pay an extra tax. They will already pay a higher road car tax anyway!
Again, a commercial flight will use the same comparative fuel as a car would for it's lifetime.
I'm quite bullish about London's ability to do something about air quality in London, much less so about London's ability to make any real impact on global emissions.0 -
So, apologies in advance for the source of this article, but it's another example of a blunt policy being based on assumptions that predate any evidence.
The cherry picking aspect of it is similar to the ULEZ justifications.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12459223/SNP-overstate-success-minimum-pricing-scheme-alcohol-deaths-soar-highest-level-14-years.html
The medical profession support higher minimum pricing, even though there's no data to support it having any effect so far other than a single outlier study that was questioned even at the time, but it stands to reason that if you increase prices even more, it will reduce the harms, right?
Do you see the parallels?1 -
Do you even google this stuff before you write it?First.Aspect said:So, apologies in advance for the source of this article, but it's another example of a blunt policy being based on assumptions that predate any evidence.
The cherry picking aspect of it is similar to the ULEZ justifications.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12459223/SNP-overstate-success-minimum-pricing-scheme-alcohol-deaths-soar-highest-level-14-years.html
The medical profession support higher minimum pricing, even though there's no data to support it having any effect so far other than a single outlier study that was questioned even at the time, but it stands to reason that if you increase prices even more, it will reduce the harms, right?
Do you see the parallels?
Literally the first hit.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/98100/impacts-alcohol-price-review.pdfon balance the evidence shows that increases in alcohol prices are linked to decreases in harms related to alcohol consumption. However, alcohol price is only one factor affecting levels of alcohol consumption with individual, cultural, situational and social factors also influential. • Available evidence suggests that increases in alcohol prices tend to be associated with reductions in crime. However, this relationship is not straightforward and linear and the evidence base is not able to support a causal relationship between alcohol pricing and crime. • When considering individual crime types rather than overall crime, there is a larger evidence base for a link between alcohol price and violence than for other crime types. The balance of this evidence tends to support an association between increasing alcohol price and decreasing levels of violence. No firm conclusions can be drawn around links between alcohol pricing and other specific crime types as the evidence is limited and some findings are inconclusive. • It is important to recognise that inconclusive evidence or an absence of evidence does not necessarily mean that increasing alcohol price does not impact on particular types of crime. Rather, this indicates that there is a lack of robust evidence to allow a judgement to be made either way.
Second hit:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3860576/
A large and growing body of research conducted by economists over the past two decades has examined the impact of alcoholic beverage taxes and prices on drinking prevalence, frequency, and intensity, as well as on a host of adverse outcomes related to alcohol use and abuse. The majority of these studies support the hypothesis that increases in alcoholic beverage prices, which can be achieved by raising federal and state alcohol excise taxes as well as through a variety of other policies, are effective in reducing alcohol use.0 -
Driving from Surrey into Kingston this morning, there was a matrix sign in esher (surrey) saying "new ulez covering whole of London from 29th August", and signs clearly saying where the boundary starts, with an opportunity to avoid it once inside the London borough.0
-
Sorry I should have explained what "minimum pricing" means. It means a minimum price per unit.rick_chasey said:
Do you even google this stuff before you write it?First.Aspect said:So, apologies in advance for the source of this article, but it's another example of a blunt policy being based on assumptions that predate any evidence.
The cherry picking aspect of it is similar to the ULEZ justifications.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12459223/SNP-overstate-success-minimum-pricing-scheme-alcohol-deaths-soar-highest-level-14-years.html
The medical profession support higher minimum pricing, even though there's no data to support it having any effect so far other than a single outlier study that was questioned even at the time, but it stands to reason that if you increase prices even more, it will reduce the harms, right?
Do you see the parallels?
Literally the first hit.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/98100/impacts-alcohol-price-review.pdfon balance the evidence shows that increases in alcohol prices are linked to decreases in harms related to alcohol consumption. However, alcohol price is only one factor affecting levels of alcohol consumption with individual, cultural, situational and social factors also influential. • Available evidence suggests that increases in alcohol prices tend to be associated with reductions in crime. However, this relationship is not straightforward and linear and the evidence base is not able to support a causal relationship between alcohol pricing and crime. • When considering individual crime types rather than overall crime, there is a larger evidence base for a link between alcohol price and violence than for other crime types. The balance of this evidence tends to support an association between increasing alcohol price and decreasing levels of violence. No firm conclusions can be drawn around links between alcohol pricing and other specific crime types as the evidence is limited and some findings are inconclusive. • It is important to recognise that inconclusive evidence or an absence of evidence does not necessarily mean that increasing alcohol price does not impact on particular types of crime. Rather, this indicates that there is a lack of robust evidence to allow a judgement to be made either way.
Second hit:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3860576/
A large and growing body of research conducted by economists over the past two decades has examined the impact of alcoholic beverage taxes and prices on drinking prevalence, frequency, and intensity, as well as on a host of adverse outcomes related to alcohol use and abuse. The majority of these studies support the hypothesis that increases in alcoholic beverage prices, which can be achieved by raising federal and state alcohol excise taxes as well as through a variety of other policies, are effective in reducing alcohol use.
Which means the price of lots of drinks, indeed most drinks, hasn't changed as a result of the policy. The criticism up here, which isn't the US incidentally, is that it is a pointless administrative burden that's made no difference.
Hope that helps.
1 -
So it's not like the ULEZ at all?
Seems the booze example is really about execution, not about the body of evidence that supports the premise of the policy.
Surprised you're not complaining how unfair it is that poor people can't drink as much.0 -
Does it say where to pay, how long you have to pay, the consequences of not having to pay or who has to pay? By analogy to parking (which honestly I don't know is a suitable analogy or not) if that information isn't clearly available then a fine isn't enforceable.kingstongraham said:Driving from Surrey into Kingston this morning, there was a matrix sign in esher (surrey) saying "new ulez covering whole of London from 29th August", and signs clearly saying where the boundary starts, with an opportunity to avoid it once inside the London borough.
I think that the opponents on ULEZ could really get their teeth into the signage issue.
I suppose TFL will say that the signs are more like yellow lines, in that if you don't know what it means, tough.
Get the popcorn out.0 -
Daisies don't come out the back of fookin jets!kingstongraham said:
ULEZ is about local pollution, not global climate change related emissions. They are two very different issues.focuszing723 said:I can't see how anyone who has got on a commercial flight recently can agree with Ulez and tell some who is trying to get by should pay an extra tax. They will already pay a higher road car tax anyway!
Again, a commercial flight will use the same comparative fuel as a car would for it's lifetime.
I'm quite bullish about London's ability to do something about air quality in London, much less so about London's ability to make any real impact on global emissions.0 -
I will easily admit to being fatalistic about the planet. We are killing it, as far as humans are concerned. Change doesn't bother me in the slightest, I've not commuted since March 2020 and never will again. So there.rick_chasey said:
This is fatalistic nonsense. There is an opportunity to do both.pblakeney said:
That's down to work ethics and incentives. Still, it's a choice. Save the planet and health, or the economy. Saving the economy is just kicking the can down the road.rick_chasey said:
Productivity is lower when people are 100% WFH.pblakeney said:
The best current solution was found during covid.rick_chasey said:No they're not, and that's what I've been arguing from the start. The trends of how people live are changing and cars are going to be less and less convenient anyway.
But apparently everyone "needs" to go to an office.
Change is hard, especially in old age, I appreciate.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Well it's a different policy entirely really.rick_chasey said:So it's not like the ULEZ at all?
Seems the booze example is really about execution, not about the body of evidence that supports the premise of the policy.
Surprised you're not complaining how unfair it is that poor people can't drink as much.
Somehat like the difference between a ULEZ scheme based on actual emissions of a given vehicle, vs one that is based on the emissions standards available to the manufacturers when it was actually built. Stevo, though it pains me to agree with him, posted a picture of a porsche that complies. Presumably something like a 4L turbo diesel X5 from 2015 would comply, but a 1L 2010 diesel Polo doesn't.
Minimum pricing, like ULEZ is a policy that on superficial inspection ought to work, but doesn't seem to actually make any difference to the intended outcome.
It isn't the way we should do policy.0
