The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)
Comments
-
I'm bang in the middle of the ULEZ right now.rick_chasey said:TBH, how many of you are actually writing this from inside the ULEZ?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
And the charges will only ever go up. And what is classified as compliant will likely change so they can charge swathes of currently compliant cars.First.Aspect said:
Is this the doesn't affect you so shut up part of the thread?rick_chasey said:TBH, how many of you are actually writing this from inside the ULEZ?
If so, see above. City councils will be monkey see monkey do on this, so will affect almost everyone in a year or two.
Edinburgh and Glasgow have just taken the first step. The sizes of the zones will get bigger, for sure."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
First.Aspect said:
Well given your wholehearted support od the London one, I'd love to hear why the Cambridge one isn't just tough censored .rick_chasey said:TBF, I have offered a running commentary on the Cambridge proposal which is significantly more onerous but no-one is interested
rick_chasey said:In less high profile ULEZ, the one they're thinking of in Cambridge is in the process of being watered down.
Currently suggestion is going from £5er a day for any car travel anywhere in the city limits, to now only at peak times (the peak is unusually strong because of the size of the hopsital and the number of private schools versus size of the place), with your first 50 days travel free.
Which would mean I would end up paying virtually zero, which I feel rather defeats the point.0 -
If everything is electrified then I think electricity usage over a year would triple. That's going to lead to higher peak demand.First.Aspect said:
I can never tell if you work in this area in some way. I thought there was a legitimate concern that peak demand would need to increase to cope with, for example, peak fast charging demands. And also that the nation coming home after work and plugging the car in would itself compound the early evening put the kettle on demands seen now?TheBigBean said:
If they are overnight chargers, then the cars can use electricity when there is less demand, so not necessarily a strain on the grid.First.Aspect said:
Yeah, hot wiring a lap post or two will be fairly quick to implement. The national grid is made of bubble gum and string though. That's a bit more of an issue.TheBigBean said:
In my neck of the woods, there are lots of EVs and lots of chargers. No one seems to have a problem despite needing to park on the street. Therefore, I'd imagine people with drives would find it even easierfocuszing723 said:Get the charging network up to scratch first! What are they doing about that?
That said, owning an EV is not being car free.
Boris had thought it through though, when he suggested lots of little nuclear reactors. They can be replaced with fusion reactors in a couple of years.
I miss his vision.
If everyone with an EV has a smart meter, then it will be possible to charge them when demand is low. Some people think it should even be possible to use the batteries on EVs during peak demand, but that seems a bit bonkers to me.
Clearly there will still be people with only street parking available who may choose to charge quickly during peak times, so this will increase total demand. My point was that it is not the case for all EVs.
In general though the grid is a mess and needs upgrading everywhere. Not least Scotland to England. You are in the fortunate position of having lots of local generators.
0 -
Everyone else thinks like that though so nothing changes. Much in the same way as congestion being solved by other people driving less.rick_chasey said:
I think the "trivial things that annoy you" thread show how much a) public transport I already use and b) what I think of the current state of it.TheBigBean said:
I think this thread has shown that you haven't tried that hard.rick_chasey said:I'd like to go car free but currently it's not practical. Not enough infrastructure, and cheaper to run a car.
But yeah, I can't get the family to where they need to be often enough in a time and money efficient way without a car to justify going without one.0 -
Edit. Beaten to the joke.kingstongraham said:
Not every reply is an argument.TheBigBean said:
Yes, hence my second paragraph.kingstongraham said:
Electric cars replacing petrol and diesel for journeys in cities just means traffic jams full of quiet, lower pollution cars.TheBigBean said:
In my neck of the woods, there are lots of EVs and lots of chargers. No one seems to have a problem despite needing to park on the street. Therefore, I'd imagine people with drives would find it even easierfocuszing723 said:Get the charging network up to scratch first! What are they doing about that?
That said, owning an EV is not being car free.0 -
That would suggest that the point is to extract money from drivers.rick_chasey said:
Which would mean I would end up paying virtually zero, which I feel rather defeats the point.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Yes, that's why the system needs to change. People respond to incentives and you cannot expect to rely on collective altruism. That's naïve.TheBigBean said:
Everyone else thinks like that though so nothing changes. Much in the same way as congestion being solved by other people driving less.rick_chasey said:
I think the "trivial things that annoy you" thread show how much a) public transport I already use and b) what I think of the current state of it.TheBigBean said:
I think this thread has shown that you haven't tried that hard.rick_chasey said:I'd like to go car free but currently it's not practical. Not enough infrastructure, and cheaper to run a car.
But yeah, I can't get the family to where they need to be often enough in a time and money efficient way without a car to justify going without one.
When you don't want people to litter, you don't just ask them not to. You put bins in and do regular bin collections and fine those who litter.
That's why the whole argument that you must live in a some kind of apostolic sustainable way in order to be able to have a credible view on this is so stupid.0 -
The possibility of being fined for littering is pretty negligible, and yet only a minority of non-smokers do it. Why don't you litter?rick_chasey said:
Yes, that's why the system needs to change. People respond to incentives and you cannot expect to rely on collective altruism. That's naïve.TheBigBean said:
Everyone else thinks like that though so nothing changes. Much in the same way as congestion being solved by other people driving less.rick_chasey said:
I think the "trivial things that annoy you" thread show how much a) public transport I already use and b) what I think of the current state of it.TheBigBean said:
I think this thread has shown that you haven't tried that hard.rick_chasey said:I'd like to go car free but currently it's not practical. Not enough infrastructure, and cheaper to run a car.
But yeah, I can't get the family to where they need to be often enough in a time and money efficient way without a car to justify going without one.
When you don't want people to litter, you don't just ask them not to. You put bins in and do regular bin collections and fine those who litter.
That's why the whole argument that you must live in a some kind of apostolic sustainable way in order to be able to have a credible view on this is so stupid.
It may require a carrot and stick approach to get people out of cars, but it also requires some leaders. People need to see that it is possible. Noting that it is a bad example, look at EVs. If no one had one, there would be scepticism about it all, but as soon as lots of neighbours get them, then the doubters can be made to believe.0 -
With the London mayoral elections about 8 months off, I have a feeling that this will be Khan's 'Poll Tax' moment. The Tory mayoral candidate has already said that she will reverse the ULEZ expansion which I think will be a big vote winner."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
lol you think London is gonna vote a tory in? in 2024?Stevo_666 said:With the London mayoral elections about 8 months off, I have a feeling that this will be Khan's 'Poll Tax' moment. The Tory mayoral candidate has already said that she will reverse the ULEZ expansion which I think will be a big vote winner.
0 -
Nah, once again the Tory mayoral candidate has been picked to appeal to people living outside of London.0
-
That's what they said about the Uxbridge and Hillingdon by-election.rick_chasey said:
lol you think London is gonna vote a tory in? in 2024?Stevo_666 said:With the London mayoral elections about 8 months off, I have a feeling that this will be Khan's 'Poll Tax' moment. The Tory mayoral candidate has already said that she will reverse the ULEZ expansion which I think will be a big vote winner.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
What part of "it's not practical to where I need to get my family" is hard to understand?TheBigBean said:
The possibility of being fined for littering is pretty negligible, and yet only a minority of non-smokers do it. Why don't you litter?rick_chasey said:
Yes, that's why the system needs to change. People respond to incentives and you cannot expect to rely on collective altruism. That's naïve.TheBigBean said:
Everyone else thinks like that though so nothing changes. Much in the same way as congestion being solved by other people driving less.rick_chasey said:
I think the "trivial things that annoy you" thread show how much a) public transport I already use and b) what I think of the current state of it.TheBigBean said:
I think this thread has shown that you haven't tried that hard.rick_chasey said:I'd like to go car free but currently it's not practical. Not enough infrastructure, and cheaper to run a car.
But yeah, I can't get the family to where they need to be often enough in a time and money efficient way without a car to justify going without one.
When you don't want people to litter, you don't just ask them not to. You put bins in and do regular bin collections and fine those who litter.
That's why the whole argument that you must live in a some kind of apostolic sustainable way in order to be able to have a credible view on this is so stupid.
It may require a carrot and stick approach to get people out of cars, but it also requires some leaders. People need to see that it is possible. Noting that it is a bad example, look at EVs. If no one had one, there would be scepticism about it all, but as soon as lots of neighbours get them, then the doubters can be made to believe.
When the bus routes from train stations to villages are shut down and no alternatives are given, what is to be done?
It's just not practical with the current public transport infrastructure.
0 -
This feels like a larger scale version of when the Council in my home town finally decided to make all their car parks pay & display. Businesses were up in arms that it would kill business and affect tourism. The local press was full of it for ages but it still happened. Since then prices have been increased a few times and each time you get the same arguments from business owners on how it will kill trade. The same tired arguments were rolled out when an extra section of the main street was pedestrianised and yet the town is thriving compared to most comparable places and regularly appears in articles about the best town centres.
There were similar protests when another town nearby was going to go to pay & display. The town council was up in arms led by someone I know well, him and his then wife used to work right next to the car park and would both take their (separate) cars to work everyday despite living a 500 metre walk from the office through a church yard and quite residential streets and not having to travel during the work day. They were complaining about the extra cost to them if they had to pay to park!0 -
Okay, so why is ULEZ a fair way to encourage people onto public transport.rick_chasey said:
What part of "it's not practical to where I need to get my family" is hard to understand?TheBigBean said:
The possibility of being fined for littering is pretty negligible, and yet only a minority of non-smokers do it. Why don't you litter?rick_chasey said:
Yes, that's why the system needs to change. People respond to incentives and you cannot expect to rely on collective altruism. That's naïve.TheBigBean said:
Everyone else thinks like that though so nothing changes. Much in the same way as congestion being solved by other people driving less.rick_chasey said:
I think the "trivial things that annoy you" thread show how much a) public transport I already use and b) what I think of the current state of it.TheBigBean said:
I think this thread has shown that you haven't tried that hard.rick_chasey said:I'd like to go car free but currently it's not practical. Not enough infrastructure, and cheaper to run a car.
But yeah, I can't get the family to where they need to be often enough in a time and money efficient way without a car to justify going without one.
When you don't want people to litter, you don't just ask them not to. You put bins in and do regular bin collections and fine those who litter.
That's why the whole argument that you must live in a some kind of apostolic sustainable way in order to be able to have a credible view on this is so stupid.
It may require a carrot and stick approach to get people out of cars, but it also requires some leaders. People need to see that it is possible. Noting that it is a bad example, look at EVs. If no one had one, there would be scepticism about it all, but as soon as lots of neighbours get them, then the doubters can be made to believe.
When the bus routes from train stations to villages are shut down and no alternatives are given, what is to be done?
It's just not practical with the current public transport infrastructure.
I'm talking about people like you, but poorer, who don't have an alternative. Because that's a legitimate excuse.
0 -
I thought 'move to the city' was your solution when others previously pointed this out.rick_chasey said:
What part of "it's not practical to where I need to get my family" is hard to understand?TheBigBean said:
The possibility of being fined for littering is pretty negligible, and yet only a minority of non-smokers do it. Why don't you litter?rick_chasey said:
Yes, that's why the system needs to change. People respond to incentives and you cannot expect to rely on collective altruism. That's naïve.TheBigBean said:
Everyone else thinks like that though so nothing changes. Much in the same way as congestion being solved by other people driving less.rick_chasey said:
I think the "trivial things that annoy you" thread show how much a) public transport I already use and b) what I think of the current state of it.TheBigBean said:
I think this thread has shown that you haven't tried that hard.rick_chasey said:I'd like to go car free but currently it's not practical. Not enough infrastructure, and cheaper to run a car.
But yeah, I can't get the family to where they need to be often enough in a time and money efficient way without a car to justify going without one.
When you don't want people to litter, you don't just ask them not to. You put bins in and do regular bin collections and fine those who litter.
That's why the whole argument that you must live in a some kind of apostolic sustainable way in order to be able to have a credible view on this is so stupid.
It may require a carrot and stick approach to get people out of cars, but it also requires some leaders. People need to see that it is possible. Noting that it is a bad example, look at EVs. If no one had one, there would be scepticism about it all, but as soon as lots of neighbours get them, then the doubters can be made to believe.
When the bus routes from train stations to villages are shut down and no alternatives are given, what is to be done?
It's just not practical with the current public transport infrastructure.0 -
I do have to wonder how many of the protesters have 10 year old diesels, tbh. And how many drive into town in their ULEZ compliant vehicles to protest.Pross said:This feels like a larger scale version of when the Council in my home town finally decided to make all their car parks pay & display. Businesses were up in arms that it would kill business and affect tourism. The local press was full of it for ages but it still happened. Since then prices have been increased a few times and each time you get the same arguments from business owners on how it will kill trade. The same tired arguments were rolled out when an extra section of the main street was pedestrianised and yet the town is thriving compared to most comparable places and regularly appears in articles about the best town centres.
There were similar protests when another town nearby was going to go to pay & display. The town council was up in arms led by someone I know well, him and his then wife used to work right next to the car park and would both take their (separate) cars to work everyday despite living a 500 metre walk from the office through a church yard and quite residential streets and not having to travel during the work day. They were complaining about the extra cost to them if they had to pay to park!0 -
It's fair in that everyone pays the same if they're driving a car that doesn't meet the regs.
That's fair. The gov't even will pay up to £2k for you to scrap your car if it doesn't meet the regs.
What more do you want?
Is it fair that people are breathing in air that is beyond the WHO limit? How far do you want to take the fairness?0 -
I think it's a classic case of a 'cause' being hijacked.First.Aspect said:
I do have to wonder how many of the protesters have 10 year old diesels, tbh. And how many drive into town in their ULEZ compliant vehicles to protest.Pross said:This feels like a larger scale version of when the Council in my home town finally decided to make all their car parks pay & display. Businesses were up in arms that it would kill business and affect tourism. The local press was full of it for ages but it still happened. Since then prices have been increased a few times and each time you get the same arguments from business owners on how it will kill trade. The same tired arguments were rolled out when an extra section of the main street was pedestrianised and yet the town is thriving compared to most comparable places and regularly appears in articles about the best town centres.
There were similar protests when another town nearby was going to go to pay & display. The town council was up in arms led by someone I know well, him and his then wife used to work right next to the car park and would both take their (separate) cars to work everyday despite living a 500 metre walk from the office through a church yard and quite residential streets and not having to travel during the work day. They were complaining about the extra cost to them if they had to pay to park!0 -
I await FA's shock when he hears how unfairly priced parking is in central London. Poor people won't be able to afford it...!!! Oh ma gaaawd.0
-
Nah. Poll tax affected everyone. This affects maybe 5% of the 60% who didn't already live in the ULEZ.Stevo_666 said:With the London mayoral elections about 8 months off, I have a feeling that this will be Khan's 'Poll Tax' moment. The Tory mayoral candidate has already said that she will reverse the ULEZ expansion which I think will be a big vote winner.
Your newspaper is lying to you.0 -
Did your mum never tell you that two wrongs don't make a right?rick_chasey said:I await FA's shock when he hears how unfairly priced parking is in central London. Poor people won't be able to afford it...!!! Oh ma gaaawd.
I think driving between two private residences in outer London is slightly different though.0 -
It's a good time for anyone living outside London to buy a cheap 8 year old diesel car anyway. Must be having a knock on effect on the value of my car though so maye I should protest as well.0
-
I did FWIW cast my vote for someone who was going to support a very onerous congestion charge, so I did put my vote where my political mouth is on this. £5er a day was what was proposed for any car used within the city limits.
Cambridge in general has a well used park & ride setup and part of the deal with the charge is to expand the park & ride.0 -
When I went to Epoct as a kid there was solar panels of the roofs, monorails and even an example of hydroponics. It was like a little snapshot of what could be in the future.0
-
I have no issue whatsoever with congestion charging.rick_chasey said:I did FWIW cast my vote for someone who was going to support a very onerous congestion charge, so I did put my vote where my political mouth is on this. £5er a day was what was proposed for any car used within the city limits.
Cambridge in general has a well used park & ride setup and part of the deal with the charge is to expand the park & ride.
0 -
But that's even more onerous?First.Aspect said:
I have no issue whatsoever with congestion charging.rick_chasey said:I did FWIW cast my vote for someone who was going to support a very onerous congestion charge, so I did put my vote where my political mouth is on this. £5er a day was what was proposed for any car used within the city limits.
Cambridge in general has a well used park & ride setup and part of the deal with the charge is to expand the park & ride.0 -
I think you should moderate your expectations on the residual value of an 8 year old diesel.Pross said:It's a good time for anyone living outside London to buy a cheap 8 year old diesel car anyway. Must be having a knock on effect on the value of my car though so maye I should protest as well.
0 -
https://forum.bikeradar.com/discussion/13120673/be-afraid-be-very-afraid#latest
Why ain't anybody bothered with the AI taking over Humanity n' stuff thread?0
