Bunkermagnet
Journeyman Pro
I doubt that very much, even in America. For a start, population growth has been immense and with it brings the increase in car numbers.
What's going to get us to leave the car.
- Thread starter SocketRocket
- Start date
Ye Olde Boomer
Well-known member
In that sense, I totally agree. Population has certainly increased the total number of cars, but car use per capita, at least in America, was quite established by the 1950s.
They made enough 1932 Fords that hot rods made from 1932 Fords with 1960s engines are still seen on the road today. Most are terrifyingly unsafe if pushed hard,
but they pass inspection anyway.
And 1932 was during the Great Depression in America.
D
Deleted member 21784
Guest
Few "radical" changes that wouldn't be unreasonable but would make a huge difference
Ban all sports cars .. their mpg is rubbish and just carry max 2 people. All cars minimum 4 seats encourage sharing
Ban all ownership of more than 1 car per person in house .. if you have 2 adults fine 2 cars but 2 for 1? Really
Ban motor racing. Your basically burning oil for no reason
Formular one for example must be up there as one of the biggest wastes of oil
However even changes like that people wouldn't accept so it does doom us all
Then by that token aswell all the small changes we make just is like throwing a deckchair off the Titanic compared to how much co2 motor racing throws into the air
Ban all sports cars .. their mpg is rubbish and just carry max 2 people. All cars minimum 4 seats encourage sharing
Ban all ownership of more than 1 car per person in house .. if you have 2 adults fine 2 cars but 2 for 1? Really
Ban motor racing. Your basically burning oil for no reason
Formular one for example must be up there as one of the biggest wastes of oil
However even changes like that people wouldn't accept so it does doom us all
Then by that token aswell all the small changes we make just is like throwing a deckchair off the Titanic compared to how much co2 motor racing throws into the air
Blue in Munich
Crocked Professional Yeti Impersonator
Would they?
How many cars, regardless of type, do you see with a single occupant? The only multiple occupancy you see round here is the chaos that is the school run. As to the mpg, I've recently changed car, same size engine as the old one, 15% more power, but the mpg is about 40% better than the old one. The new one would be classified as a sportier variant, so in this instance sportier is greener.
How much damage does this actually do; they can only drive one car at a time. And how many people that have a second car will have one that is smaller & more economical to preserve the value of the better car? If that is brought in, which car are they going to get rid of? My money is the smaller more economical one, thus potentially creating more of an issue than it will solve.
Is motor racing not a test bed for stuff that will trickle down into general use, thus saving pollution in the long run?
https://www.planetf1.com/uncategorized/formula-1-killing-the-planet-they-just-might-save-it/
https://www.roadandtrack.com/motors...re-pollution-than-an-entire-formula-one-race/
Why just pick on motor racing; now much pollution does professional golf, with the air travel round the globe, or professional cycling with its fleet of support cars & coaches put into the atmosphere? And how much do golf & cycling produce in terms of trickle down technology to assist in reducing pollution in the future.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2006/oct/29/features.environment
Incidentally, few if any posts in this thread encourage the use of motorcycles to reduce jams on the road, reduce pollution, reduce damage to the infrastructure(a bit like transport planners then). Anyone explain why?
D
Deleted member 21784
Guest
Apart from the fact that building this second car would be a massive use of energy and resources not just owning it. materials for tyres.. another saving to the enviorment
cars should be banned from being produced that dont provide a minium of 40mpg on average. force the companies to ditch the rubbish engines that burn oil for fun.
F1 you could argue do some good but they do much more harm. same as the golf for traveling around.. but added burning oil .. you could produce better tech without having F1 .. its just motorheads excuse ..
bikes are a very good way of getting around but then again the standard of driving would put most people off. the NHS would crumble under the added cost of injuries.
GB72
Money List Winner
Thing is that many of the less polluting options are financially out of reach of many. You bring down the cost of fuel efficient cars or even electric cars and you may start the change. Many can only afford older cars on the second hand market and they are the least efficient. It is ok to preach change but many more environmentally sound options are simply out of reach of many, and maybe most, people whilst trying to tax people into better habits will only impact those who can least afford it
D
Deleted member 21784
Guest
This is so true
ive looked at a 2 year lease on a leaf as my cheapest option.... £260 PM with £260 down
had a look at tesla model 3... £460pm with 6k down over 48 months....
just wow.. i know there good but make them cheaper so petrol looks less attractive
Blue in Munich
Crocked Professional Yeti Impersonator
A lot of the vehicles kept in multiple ownership have already been made, so it is not an ongoing issue; guy I work has 3 cars, 1 modern, 1 old Land Rover and an old Triumph. As far as the impact to the environment, are the electric cars as green as they seem?
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/emissions/are-electric-cars-actually-worse-for-the-environment/
I don't dispute that something needs to be done, but personally I think someone else hit the crux of the matter; there's simply too many of us for the planet to sustain. I'm not saying the petrol engine is all good, but equally I'm not convinced that the electric car is the saviour of the planet it is being painted as.
D
Deleted member 21784
Guest
your closing statement 100% agree
I think we need to look at our uses
if we can go electric on numbers for day to day.. do it.. that will help
if we cant stick to petrol but something economical
and this new virus is doing its hardest to help the overpoplulation part!.. I can be quite morbid. however modern life we live longer because of bettter health care and people go over seas and helps others... has played its part in overpopluation for sure
but no way to fix that part so just have to hope some great leaps are found in tech soon
bobmac
Major Champion
From the article you highlighted.......
''This means that electric cars will get greener as the means to produce and power them begin to leave less of an environmental impact.''
Ye Olde Boomer
Well-known member
I find it really sad that you make everything about what's needed rather than what's wanted.
That's such a puritanical view from my perspective.
I personally would have preferred to have been aborted after conception than be forced to live in a world where I could only have what I needed and wasn't even to consider or aspire to what I might like or enjoy. And far too many of our species don't even have what they need. That's irresponsible procreation on the part of their parents, no matter where they live.
Indeed, that's probably the real answer. Everybody doesn't need to be a breeder. Don't have kids because it's the societal default mode but rather because you especially want them and have the means to be reasonably certain that they'll have a good life. Condoms are cheap. So are birth control pills--you have an NHS for Christ's sake.
If, in order to be considered socially responsible, you have to live a monastic life, wouldn't it be better to not have this life inflicted on you at all?
That would certainly be my position.
Blue in Munich
Crocked Professional Yeti Impersonator
Will get greener, not are greener.
Ye Olde Boomer
Well-known member
This is particularly absurd. One person owning two cars adds nothing to pollution. He/she can't drive both of them at once.
We have a vintage Corvette that we enjoy in the summer months.
When we're in it, the big Jeep Grand Cherokee gets to take a breather.
Doesn't burn a milliliter of gasoline sleeping in the garage.
D
Deleted member 21784
Guest
Bug bear of mine is everything is bashing the car.. we have to move away from driving etc . Gov helping electric cars
Yet we ignore the elephant in the room
The humble gas boiler
Maybe it really doesn't suit the agenda that the fact if we moved to electric boilers our carbon footprint would drop far more than taking cars off the road
We ofc would need to get the grid up to standard which I think lies the issue. They can't get the levels of clean energy needed
I wish we had gone electric boiler but it was going to cost £500-1000 more a year to run.. I'm not going to just pay that until the tech is better
I want to see clean energy pushed
Electric boilers replace gas long term , say all new builds maybe?
Then split energy tariffs ..say 16p per kWh for normal electric but 7p per kWh for the boiler use .
That would be a game changer
10-15 years time when the kitchen is looking tired I'm going to go induction hob and electric boiler and bin off the gas completely
Yet we ignore the elephant in the room
The humble gas boiler
Maybe it really doesn't suit the agenda that the fact if we moved to electric boilers our carbon footprint would drop far more than taking cars off the road
We ofc would need to get the grid up to standard which I think lies the issue. They can't get the levels of clean energy needed
I wish we had gone electric boiler but it was going to cost £500-1000 more a year to run.. I'm not going to just pay that until the tech is better
I want to see clean energy pushed
Electric boilers replace gas long term , say all new builds maybe?
Then split energy tariffs ..say 16p per kWh for normal electric but 7p per kWh for the boiler use .
That would be a game changer
10-15 years time when the kitchen is looking tired I'm going to go induction hob and electric boiler and bin off the gas completely
SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
I agree.
My point was that it's better to restrict where we can use cars than to tax their use. There are two big issues with cars: the effect they have on the environment and the reliance on fossil fuel which cannot last. There have been a lot of comments around how difficult life would be for people to use public transport but in many cases this is being considered in relation to the current infrastructure which is not suitable. I am suggesting the infrastructure needs changing so that it is a more reasonable option. In large towns and Cities we should be creating urban parking and a.mixture of options for commuting locally: Trams, hire bycles including electric, busses, trains, along with the means for them to operate. Also lets not forget walking.
So, get in your electric car if you must, drive it to an urban park and use the local transport systems. We also need to consider reducing the need to commute where possible, I am sure much of it can be reduced.
harpo_72
Journeyman Pro
I have been sat in front of the log burner going full pelt reading these... kiln dried though if that really makes a difference
Wolf
Well-known member
Denial or some people simply don't live others lives so can't understand their circumstances. I've literally just got in from work, had I used public transport I'd have been 3 hrs late arriving for work and my last bus home would have been 5 hrs before my shift finished. Mrs starts work at 530am tomorrow which is 3 hrs before the first bus. We also don't have a train station where I live, the nearest is 7 miles away and earliest train is 7am so still no good to my wife and last train back is 8pm so still 2hrs before I finish. None of this is denial this is purely facts of our working lives and transport links.
Only massive changes that will help people where I live is massively improved transport links, but they won't put them in which leaves the necessity for cars. As I've said we're actively looking at what we can do to reduce this but at the moment its not possible but we're hoping within 12 months to be down to 1 car which will be a hybrid.
Bunkermagnet
Journeyman Pro
We use a gas in wind turbines 23,500 times more harmful per gram to the enviroment than CO2, we use cargo ships that emit more CO2 than a million cars and yet we still insist on hammering the motorist.
I'm told we need to be more enviromental, so why then do we wring the neck of everything pushing efficiencys to the max so that it causes a much reduced life and need for another new product.
Why can't we build things to last so we don't need the continuous resources to rebuild/remake that item?
Perhaps if business, the politicians and enviromental envangelists were truly honest about the total enviromental impact of every item we might actually see a different direction, and more importantly a different reaction from everyone.
I'm told we need to be more enviromental, so why then do we wring the neck of everything pushing efficiencys to the max so that it causes a much reduced life and need for another new product.
Why can't we build things to last so we don't need the continuous resources to rebuild/remake that item?
Perhaps if business, the politicians and enviromental envangelists were truly honest about the total enviromental impact of every item we might actually see a different direction, and more importantly a different reaction from everyone.
Wolf
Well-known member
Not just cargo ships, I watched a C4 Despatches documentary a year or two ago that sent investigators on P&O cruise ships to assess the amount of particulates they gave off i believe it was the Oceana theybwere on and the measurements that gave off as horrendous, based of that x the amount of cruise liners at sea it worked out that the daily emissions of those ships was the equivalent to 1million cars.. Yet the demand for Cruises is going up..
Slab
Occasional Tour Caddy
Wolf I’ll just use your post to reply to if you don’t mind, although we’ve all got our own version of this scenario where our live/work/life structure doesn’t easily equal the ‘leave the car’ notion from the OP
So notwithstanding some revolutionary new environmentally friendly form of public/private transport getting rolled out tomorrow, we should also look at the other factors in the scenario that make public transport unviable as an option for so many of us
Is it really down to the public transport on offer (has it really regressed in the last 30 years and if so is any regression due more to people moving to cars and using the public services less or has it in fact expanded but only in areas where it is financially viable)
Is it simply that we live in the wrong place for the work we do
Is it because we work in the wrong place for where we live
Is it because we work at the wrong time of day for the available public transport
Did we choose to live and work where we do at a time we do knowing we would have a dependency on a petrol car/s (& if we really cared then why would we have made such choices)
And because I don’t see us giving up any of these choices I think we need to look at the hours that society is active and while there’s always been some elements of society that work shifts etc these were typically essential (or at least far more essential than they are now) but each day we’re moving closer to a 24 hour world where its seems its necessary for shelf stackers in asda to work night shifts that are incompatible with public transport meaning a car is needed for jobs paying minimum wage, but this surely is not the fault of public transport? (& if you’ll permit me to also give the example of 24 hour gyms,
is this really the fault of public transport that as a society we appear to need a gym to be accessible at 5am?)So if we’re really moving to a 24 hour world then it makes sense to radically speed up this process across all areas of work & society so that 9-5 is no longer the default and we can fully utilize the resources we've got and at the same time allowing congestion to be reduced, productivity increased and public transport to be run 24hrs making it more productive (with plenty passengers looking to use it) and while I don’t think we’ll get to a point where the world runs 2 or 3 equal shifts there is a helluva lot of unused productivity to be gained by getting people spread through a day especially as they commute & bring an end to blocked roads at rush hour
It can’t hope to eliminate all scenarios where people need a car but it can sure lessen/spread the load on the roads which will inevitably make it cleaner until such time we're ready to replace the car with something else
