The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

My point was more that mass car ownership is a relatively new phenomenon: 60-70years, and that is largely because manufacturing and fuel was cheap for most of that. I don't think those conditions will persist.

It maybe the case that the less well off get priced out of car ownership. Some policies such as the ULEZ expansion appear to be pushing things that way. And the relatively high price of EVs will go further if there is no decent alternative post 2030.

Mate, the less well off have always been priced out of car ownership. There's no maybe about it.

Yes but to get what you want to happen (and which everyone with half a brain knows what has to happen) you aren't helping things by making inequalities even worse. Encourage people to chose wisely, rather than trying to remove the choice, that's the way forward.

We're already doing the encourage bit. I think we have a choice of making things a bit more uncomfortable now, or very uncomfortable in 10-20 years time.

We aren't. There is miles room for more. Not having some of the most expensive rail travel in the world would be one thing we might do. Is that better or worse than just making ALL travel more expensive? Think carrot, not stick.

Fine. Take your time. By the time you get around to it there will just be a choice of sticks and no carrot.

You don't get it really. Your idea doesn't save time, it just creates hardship. Making it a no brainer for me to get the train into the office doesn't, so it's likely to be more widely adopted sooner, by more people.

#carrot

Pross

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

.

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

What is Dutch car ownership like compared to here?

This is a bit out of date but makes interesting reading. You would expect car ownership in a flat more densely populated country with better public transport and active travel infrastructure, and a better climate, to be lower wouldn't you?

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Transport/Road/Motor-vehicles-per-1000-people

Does the UK/NL comparison challenge anyone's notions that cars as a possession are a problem as such? Or does it suggest the issue is a lack of alternatives to how they are used?

It's quite interesting to see how low down that list the UK is and also that the top countries are a mix of small, high population density countries and large low density countries where everything is miles away. You would think that somewhere like Monaco could more or less eliminate car reliance but then it is a very rich nation where the inhabitants probably own several cars each and take them for a spin for fun.

Edit

In answer though it certainly seems it is relatively easy to reduce car usage without having to reduce car ownership and people can then make a decision for themselves on whether the cost of retaining a car for the amount of driving they do is worthwhile. The key is having a very good public transport system that significantly reduces car reliance , you can then take other measures to deter unnecessary car use (which I think most have been saying all along).

Oh don't be so reasonable.

Sorry, what I meant is they should confiscate everyone's cars and burn them. They should start with the most expensive and work their way down so the richest lose their cars first.

But what about the old lady who still has her Bugatti from when she had a large family, and doesn't want to downsize?

Lock her in the car then burn it. One less boomer, one less car and a huge 6 bedroom house no doubt that can go to a young family. Better for the environment as well as it saves on gas for a separate cremation when the time would have arisen anyway.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

My point was more that mass car ownership is a relatively new phenomenon: 60-70years, and that is largely because manufacturing and fuel was cheap for most of that. I don't think those conditions will persist.

It maybe the case that the less well off get priced out of car ownership. Some policies such as the ULEZ expansion appear to be pushing things that way. And the relatively high price of EVs will go further if there is no decent alternative post 2030.

Mate, the less well off have always been priced out of car ownership. There's no maybe about it.

Yes but to get what you want to happen (and which everyone with half a brain knows what has to happen) you aren't helping things by making inequalities even worse. Encourage people to chose wisely, rather than trying to remove the choice, that's the way forward.

We're already doing the encourage bit. I think we have a choice of making things a bit more uncomfortable now, or very uncomfortable in 10-20 years time.

We aren't. There is miles room for more. Not having some of the most expensive rail travel in the world would be one thing we might do. Is that better or worse than just making ALL travel more expensive? Think carrot, not stick.

Fine. Take your time. By the time you get around to it there will just be a choice of sticks and no carrot.

You don't get it really. Your idea doesn't save time, it just creates hardship. Making it a no brainer for me to get the train into the office doesn't, so it's likely to be more widely adopted sooner, by more people.

#carrot

Who is paying for 'making it a no brainer to get the train? As your trains are publicly owned, so reducing the fares means raising taxes on higher earners such as yourself. It boils down to the same thing: it's going to cost. All of us.

I get it. I just think a hardship-free option is a fantasy. It's just a question of timing and distribution.

Dorset_Boy

rick_chasey said:

Is it air or ground?

Air source heat pump, installed about 8 years ago.
Our electicity bill fell by 50% when we had it installed.
Current electricity costs aren't, shall we say, helpful!

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

My point was more that mass car ownership is a relatively new phenomenon: 60-70years, and that is largely because manufacturing and fuel was cheap for most of that. I don't think those conditions will persist.

It maybe the case that the less well off get priced out of car ownership. Some policies such as the ULEZ expansion appear to be pushing things that way. And the relatively high price of EVs will go further if there is no decent alternative post 2030.

Mate, the less well off have always been priced out of car ownership. There's no maybe about it.

Yes but to get what you want to happen (and which everyone with half a brain knows what has to happen) you aren't helping things by making inequalities even worse. Encourage people to chose wisely, rather than trying to remove the choice, that's the way forward.

We're already doing the encourage bit. I think we have a choice of making things a bit more uncomfortable now, or very uncomfortable in 10-20 years time.

We aren't. There is miles room for more. Not having some of the most expensive rail travel in the world would be one thing we might do. Is that better or worse than just making ALL travel more expensive? Think carrot, not stick.

Fine. Take your time. By the time you get around to it there will just be a choice of sticks and no carrot.

You don't get it really. Your idea doesn't save time, it just creates hardship. Making it a no brainer for me to get the train into the office doesn't, so it's likely to be more widely adopted sooner, by more people.

#carrot

Who is paying for 'making it a no brainer to get the train? As your trains are publicly owned, so reducing the fares means raising taxes on higher earners such as yourself. It boils down to the same thing: it's going to cost. All of us.

I get it. I just think a hardship-free option is a fantasy. It's just a question of timing and distribution.

Well is that you are thinking about progressive? Because I'm okay with progressive taxation.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

.

Pross said:

First.Aspect said:

What is Dutch car ownership like compared to here?

This is a bit out of date but makes interesting reading. You would expect car ownership in a flat more densely populated country with better public transport and active travel infrastructure, and a better climate, to be lower wouldn't you?

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Transport/Road/Motor-vehicles-per-1000-people

Does the UK/NL comparison challenge anyone's notions that cars as a possession are a problem as such? Or does it suggest the issue is a lack of alternatives to how they are used?

It's quite interesting to see how low down that list the UK is and also that the top countries are a mix of small, high population density countries and large low density countries where everything is miles away. You would think that somewhere like Monaco could more or less eliminate car reliance but then it is a very rich nation where the inhabitants probably own several cars each and take them for a spin for fun.

Edit

In answer though it certainly seems it is relatively easy to reduce car usage without having to reduce car ownership and people can then make a decision for themselves on whether the cost of retaining a car for the amount of driving they do is worthwhile. The key is having a very good public transport system that significantly reduces car reliance , you can then take other measures to deter unnecessary car use (which I think most have been saying all along).

Oh don't be so reasonable.

Sorry, what I meant is they should confiscate everyone's cars and burn them. They should start with the most expensive and work their way down so the richest lose their cars first.

But what about the old lady who still has her Bugatti from when she had a large family, and doesn't want to downsize?

Lock her in the car then burn it. One less boomer, one less car and a huge 6 bedroom house no doubt that can go to a young family. Better for the environment as well as it saves on gas for a separate cremation when the time would have arisen anyway.

He's definitely hacked your account.

rjsterry

You could just use the train now. It would be cheaper.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

You could just use the train now. It would be cheaper.

I cycle to work. Im not your target audience.

rjsterry

Eh? I don't have any audience.
You're the one saying we need encouragement.
I think people know what the choices are if they are honest. If they put it off, they'll have fewer less palatable choices further down the line.

rjsterry

Anyway, this amused me.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

Eh? I don't have any audience.
You're the one saying we need encouragement.
I think people know what the choices are if they are honest. If they put it off, they'll have fewer less palatable choices further down the line.

You are doing that repeating thing. Again.

Train isn't cheaper. For me, it's about £15 for 12 miles each way. That's about twice as much as the fuel costs. Bearing in mind we AREN'T going to get people not to have cars, because cars have been invented and people know about them, plus need them for Xmas trees, wall paper and visiting the countryside, that's the equation people will see.

You seem to be proposing that the cost of the car trip doubles, which doesn't make sense to me, of the two.

pblakeney

I'll sum it up for you FA.
The stick is cheaper and easier to implement than the carrot.

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

I'll sum it up for you FA.
The stick is cheaper and easier to implement than the carrot.

There's more tax in increasing prices for both, essentially. But there are other ways to tax.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Eh? I don't have any audience.
You're the one saying we need encouragement.
I think people know what the choices are if they are honest. If they put it off, they'll have fewer less palatable choices further down the line.

You are doing that repeating thing. Again.

Train isn't cheaper. For me, it's about £15 for 12 miles each way. That's about twice as much as the fuel costs. Bearing in mind we AREN'T going to get people not to have cars, because cars have been invented and people know about them, plus need them for Xmas trees, wall paper and visiting the countryside, that's the equation people will see.

You seem to be proposing that the cost of the car trip doubles, which doesn't make sense to me, of the two.

I'll assume you've factored in the cost to the environment too, right?

If not, would you object to the regs basically converting the environmental cost to a financial one?

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Eh? I don't have any audience.
You're the one saying we need encouragement.
I think people know what the choices are if they are honest. If they put it off, they'll have fewer less palatable choices further down the line.

You are doing that repeating thing. Again.

Train isn't cheaper. For me, it's about £15 for 12 miles each way. That's about twice as much as the fuel costs. Bearing in mind we AREN'T going to get people not to have cars, because cars have been invented and people know about them, plus need them for Xmas trees, wall paper and visiting the countryside, that's the equation people will see.

You seem to be proposing that the cost of the car trip doubles, which doesn't make sense to me, of the two.

I'll assume you've factored in the cost to the environment too, right?

If not, would you object to the regs basically converting the environmental cost to a financial one?

Not about me. I cycle.

I'm saying how do you sell it to the proletariat? Surely even you lot can see by now that asking people to act in the greater good goes against our fundamental perception of risk and doesn't adequately affect individual decision making. Bang on about climate change all you like, but you are largely shouting at the sea. Climate change WILL change people's behaviour, but only when they are directly affected by it. As far as I can tell you want something a bit more preemptive?

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Eh? I don't have any audience.
You're the one saying we need encouragement.
I think people know what the choices are if they are honest. If they put it off, they'll have fewer less palatable choices further down the line.

You are doing that repeating thing. Again.

Train isn't cheaper. For me, it's about £15 for 12 miles each way. That's about twice as much as the fuel costs. Bearing in mind we AREN'T going to get people not to have cars, because cars have been invented and people know about them, plus need them for Xmas trees, wall paper and visiting the countryside, that's the equation people will see.

You seem to be proposing that the cost of the car trip doubles, which doesn't make sense to me, of the two.

I meant cheaper than your suggestion of further subsidising rail through increased taxation (which is already pretty high).

I'm not proposing that the cost of a car trip triples, I'm saying it is likely to happen due to external forces in the same way food and fuel have massively increased recently.

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

I'll sum it up for you FA.
The stick is cheaper and easier to implement than the carrot.

Thanks. Much more succinct.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Eh? I don't have any audience.
You're the one saying we need encouragement.
I think people know what the choices are if they are honest. If they put it off, they'll have fewer less palatable choices further down the line.

You are doing that repeating thing. Again.

Train isn't cheaper. For me, it's about £15 for 12 miles each way. That's about twice as much as the fuel costs. Bearing in mind we AREN'T going to get people not to have cars, because cars have been invented and people know about them, plus need them for Xmas trees, wall paper and visiting the countryside, that's the equation people will see.

You seem to be proposing that the cost of the car trip doubles, which doesn't make sense to me, of the two.

I meant cheaper than your suggestion of further subsidising rail through increased taxation (which is already pretty high).

I'm not proposing that the cost of a car trip triples, I'm saying it is likely to happen due to external forces in the same way food and fuel have massively increased recently.

What are you proposing that isn't a form of increased taxation?

pblakeney

Another summary about the general population.
Repeated yet again but obviously needed.

rjsterry

I don't think I'm proposing anything. I'm suggesting that a big campaign to gently persuade people to use their cars less is an expensive way for the government to miss the targets they have signed up to. See heat pump grants for evidence.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

I don't think I'm proposing anything. I'm suggesting that a big campaign to gently persuade people to use their cars less is an expensive way for the government to miss the targets they have signed up to. See heat pump grants for evidence.

Oh. I thought you were suggesting something. That's the hard part though isn't it?

davebradswmb

photonic69 said:

The future is Hydrogen and not electric, or maybe a combination of both. Fuel cells plus battery backups. Far more convenient and you can fill up in a few minutes. Easier to store/produce hydrogen at times when there is less demand on the grid (night time etc), OK solar is out but windfarms etc.
The trouble is that demand for energy across the board becomes higher and higher and more expensive. Homes requiring more electricity to operate heat pumps is one. We will suffer from "energy anxiety" instead of "range anxiety". We might also see transport poverty where people that cannot afford the new hydrogen/electric cars are stuck with older ICE cars and fuel stations becoming few and far between meaning you might have to travel 15-20 miles to fill up. Also likely to be heavily taxed to reduce use.
Meh, whatever way you look at it, the future looks shite!

Unless things change radically hydrogen is not a viable alternative to batteries. Currently most hydrogen is made using natural gas but that doesn't address the issue of CO2 since this is emitted during the production process, and also maintains our reliance on fossil fuels. Production of "green" hydrogen from the electrolysis of water consumes a lot of energy and only a small amount of that energy will be available at the wheels of a hydrogen fueled vehicle due to the ineficiency of hydrogen fuel cell engines. The result of that is if we do go down the road of hydrogen vehicles we will have to generate about 5x the amount of electricity than if we use batteries.

First.Aspect

Five times?

Do you want to show working?

First.Aspect

Okay, I looked it up. Volkwagen say ita about a factor of two. For cars.

There will be a cross over for larger modes of transport due to the weight of batteries, because for larger vehicles progressively more energy is needed in total for a battery powered vehicle, as compared to hydrogen fuel cell.

As ever, there's no single "right" answer and we need both. Also needed is means to store renewable energy to provide a stable power grid. Without mass hydro power storage options, which we don't have here, hydrogen and lower grade batteries are both viable options. Hydrogen storage would be less resource intensive I would have thought.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Eh? I don't have any audience.
You're the one saying we need encouragement.
I think people know what the choices are if they are honest. If they put it off, they'll have fewer less palatable choices further down the line.

You are doing that repeating thing. Again.

Train isn't cheaper. For me, it's about £15 for 12 miles each way. That's about twice as much as the fuel costs. Bearing in mind we AREN'T going to get people not to have cars, because cars have been invented and people know about them, plus need them for Xmas trees, wall paper and visiting the countryside, that's the equation people will see.

You seem to be proposing that the cost of the car trip doubles, which doesn't make sense to me, of the two.

I meant cheaper than your suggestion of further subsidising rail through increased taxation (which is already pretty high).

I'm not proposing that the cost of a car trip triples, I'm saying it is likely to happen due to external forces in the same way food and fuel have massively increased recently.

What are you proposing that isn't a form of increased taxation?

The cost of private car travel is naturally going up and will continue to do so anyway.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Eh? I don't have any audience.
You're the one saying we need encouragement.
I think people know what the choices are if they are honest. If they put it off, they'll have fewer less palatable choices further down the line.

You are doing that repeating thing. Again.

Train isn't cheaper. For me, it's about £15 for 12 miles each way. That's about twice as much as the fuel costs. Bearing in mind we AREN'T going to get people not to have cars, because cars have been invented and people know about them, plus need them for Xmas trees, wall paper and visiting the countryside, that's the equation people will see.

You seem to be proposing that the cost of the car trip doubles, which doesn't make sense to me, of the two.

I meant cheaper than your suggestion of further subsidising rail through increased taxation (which is already pretty high).

I'm not proposing that the cost of a car trip triples, I'm saying it is likely to happen due to external forces in the same way food and fuel have massively increased recently.

What are you proposing that isn't a form of increased taxation?

The cost of private car travel is naturally going up and will continue to do so anyway.

Petrol is coming down a fair bit - cycled* past a station in South London this morning that had unleaded below 143p/l.

(* Doing my bit to save the planet)

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Eh? I don't have any audience.
You're the one saying we need encouragement.
I think people know what the choices are if they are honest. If they put it off, they'll have fewer less palatable choices further down the line.

You are doing that repeating thing. Again.

Train isn't cheaper. For me, it's about £15 for 12 miles each way. That's about twice as much as the fuel costs. Bearing in mind we AREN'T going to get people not to have cars, because cars have been invented and people know about them, plus need them for Xmas trees, wall paper and visiting the countryside, that's the equation people will see.

You seem to be proposing that the cost of the car trip doubles, which doesn't make sense to me, of the two.

I'll assume you've factored in the cost to the environment too, right?

If not, would you object to the regs basically converting the environmental cost to a financial one?

Not about me. I cycle.

I'm saying how do you sell it to the proletariat? Surely even you lot can see by now that asking people to act in the greater good goes against our fundamental perception of risk and doesn't adequately affect individual decision making. Bang on about climate change all you like, but you are largely shouting at the sea. Climate change WILL change people's behaviour, but only when they are directly affected by it. As far as I can tell you want something a bit more preemptive?

Not just that, but as a country that makes up less than 1% of the global population and is well down the rankings of carbon emitters, we are also 'p1$$ing in the sea' unless China, USA, India etc do something about it.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/carbon-footprint-by-country

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Eh? I don't have any audience.
You're the one saying we need encouragement.
I think people know what the choices are if they are honest. If they put it off, they'll have fewer less palatable choices further down the line.

You are doing that repeating thing. Again.

Train isn't cheaper. For me, it's about £15 for 12 miles each way. That's about twice as much as the fuel costs. Bearing in mind we AREN'T going to get people not to have cars, because cars have been invented and people know about them, plus need them for Xmas trees, wall paper and visiting the countryside, that's the equation people will see.

You seem to be proposing that the cost of the car trip doubles, which doesn't make sense to me, of the two.

I meant cheaper than your suggestion of further subsidising rail through increased taxation (which is already pretty high).

I'm not proposing that the cost of a car trip triples, I'm saying it is likely to happen due to external forces in the same way food and fuel have massively increased recently.

What are you proposing that isn't a form of increased taxation?

The cost of private car travel is naturally going up and will continue to do so anyway.

Petrol is coming down a fair bit - cycled* past a station in South London this morning that had unleaded below 143p/l.

(* Doing my bit to save the planet)

Do you ever think beyond 2 years?

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Eh? I don't have any audience.
You're the one saying we need encouragement.
I think people know what the choices are if they are honest. If they put it off, they'll have fewer less palatable choices further down the line.

You are doing that repeating thing. Again.

Train isn't cheaper. For me, it's about £15 for 12 miles each way. That's about twice as much as the fuel costs. Bearing in mind we AREN'T going to get people not to have cars, because cars have been invented and people know about them, plus need them for Xmas trees, wall paper and visiting the countryside, that's the equation people will see.

You seem to be proposing that the cost of the car trip doubles, which doesn't make sense to me, of the two.

I meant cheaper than your suggestion of further subsidising rail through increased taxation (which is already pretty high).

I'm not proposing that the cost of a car trip triples, I'm saying it is likely to happen due to external forces in the same way food and fuel have massively increased recently.

What are you proposing that isn't a form of increased taxation?

The cost of private car travel is naturally going up and will continue to do so anyway.

Petrol is coming down a fair bit - cycled* past a station in South London this morning that had unleaded below 143p/l.

(* Doing my bit to save the planet)

Do you ever think beyond 2 years?

Yep. See my post above yours which is clearly considering things on a time horizon over 2 years.

Do you ever reply to me without being patronising?

Stevo_666

Double post.