No I mean if you work in an area that is not covered by public transport or your shift starts and finishes when public transport is not running you need a car there are many such places where I live.
Just stop oil
- Thread starter Chippy_Tea
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2012
- Messages
- 471
- Reaction score
- 273
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2012
- Messages
- 471
- Reaction score
- 273
I refer you back to "proper" public transport.
Shifts could be changed to fit in? It should not be just down to the end user.
Gingerbrews
Regular.
Public transport is definitely the answer.
However, this throws up problems too.
I am lucky enough to live in a city close to a major road for 2 bus routes; the buses are run by by 1 company but are timetabled to come within 2/3 minutes of each other. They are regular up until about 18.30, then the timings drop off a cliff, and if one is cancelled you can wait for about an hour (or a lot more).
Rural areas are worse. I travel to Argyll and there are only 4 buses per day and if one is full (as can happen in summer particularly) you're stuffed and left standing at the roadside.
My other personal bugbear is, that outside the city, you can't take a dog on the bus; so for me it's a necessity to take the car, and I resent that. Complaints and comments to the bus company are ignored and the reply to my suggestions to the Scottish Transport Minister to look at things ( after all the bus service is subsidised by Scottish Govt) were basically "Go raffle yourself"
Rant over.
Still think if public transport was better, more people would use it and therefore less cars on the road
However, this throws up problems too.
I am lucky enough to live in a city close to a major road for 2 bus routes; the buses are run by by 1 company but are timetabled to come within 2/3 minutes of each other. They are regular up until about 18.30, then the timings drop off a cliff, and if one is cancelled you can wait for about an hour (or a lot more).
Rural areas are worse. I travel to Argyll and there are only 4 buses per day and if one is full (as can happen in summer particularly) you're stuffed and left standing at the roadside.
My other personal bugbear is, that outside the city, you can't take a dog on the bus; so for me it's a necessity to take the car, and I resent that. Complaints and comments to the bus company are ignored and the reply to my suggestions to the Scottish Transport Minister to look at things ( after all the bus service is subsidised by Scottish Govt) were basically "Go raffle yourself"
Rant over.
Still think if public transport was better, more people would use it and therefore less cars on the road
It was 30c here two weeks ago if you wear a suit for work You are going to sweat like a pig by the time you get to work, some places may have showers and a place to change from your cycle gear into your work gear but I imagine most places don't, we are not set up for cycling in this country we don't have cycle llanes here you would risk getting killed if you cycled in rush hour here.
Then there is the state of our pot holed roads another risk to a cyclists life.
absolutely not. ev cars going up in flames whilst less likely because they are regulated more tightly are more hazardous when they burn. Of course unless you have an integral garage you store your ev in normally your car is a bit away from the house. Mrs DOJ cousin's husband saw smoke coming from a garage whilst walking the dog. He alerted them just in time. The family got out the ev fire destroyed the garage and badly damaged the house.
I can imagine what my boss would say if I went into the office tonight and said I want to start and finish at a different time so I could catch the bus to work, I think the second word would be off.
Motoring has got too cheap, convenient, and in many parts of the uk essential to move around. Outside of the major cities and tourist areas, public transport is never going to get to the levels where people are going to start getting rid of their car in droves. Hence why I believe the "robotaxi" is prob the only viable option (for much of the uk at least) to finally get us out of our cars and move into shared/on-demand transport assuming the price point per journey, and hail wait time is right. Its a long way away for sure, but I don't see anything else that has the same potential in the next couple of decades.
Hydrogen or something else will eventually replace EVs unless a new type of battery comes along that improves battery range significantly meaning people with no off street parking wouldn't find a lack of chargers a reason not to switch.
Yeah i was more thinking about our culture of car ownership because of the shortfall of public transport in many areas - rather than whatever technology wins through. the self-driving taxi is the only thing i can see that has the potential to solve the issues of public transport i.e. when we want it, where we want to go etc and has the potential to actually reverse car ownership or at least significantly reduce multiple cars per household.
To be honest I wouldn't want to be without my car the freedom of stepping out of the front door and getting into your car is something you don't give a thought to and I couldn't imagine life without a car.
If the majority of us gave up driving where would the government get their billions in tax when we stop paying road tax and fuel tax when we stop driving.
A simple per-mile tax (based on the car you drive) and get rid of other road/fuel tax. That could easily be extended to include self-driving/robotaxi's as well and you pay a per-mile tax on top of your fare.
The air you breath
i will never give my car up unless forced, as you say freedom is the word and being retired i can pick the sunny days for days out and good weeks for holidays all, without going on dirty smelly public transport as you can guess i loath public transport with a passion, i do make an exception on holiday so i don't have to drive to the pub 
And what percentage of workers are fit enough to cycle 4/5 miles and it is not safe in adverse weather conditions, totally not doable. Might be ok for some regular fit cyclists but not for the majority and what about the disabled workers there are plenty of them who certainly need transport
I looked further into this too and, yes, it is just partially true. There was actually a study carried out to see if the claims were true.
The full report is here: https://cedelft.eu/wp-content/uploa...9_The_basic_facts_Summary_and_Conclusions.pdf
For those that cannot open it -
Summary As a stark illustration of the scale of maritime shipping emissions these are often compared with car emissions, with claims like the following being made: ‐
‘The sixteen largest ships emit the same amount of CO2 as all the world’s cars.’ ‐
‘The world’s seventeen largest ships emit more sulphur than the global car fleet.’ ‐
‘A seagoing container vessel is just as polluting as up to 50 million cars.’
The aim of this concise study is to fact-check these kinds of claims.
To this end estimates of the CO2, SOX and NOx emissions of maritime vessels and cars were established and used to assess the veracity of these claims.
The study shows that the majority of such claims are false. CO2 The CO2 emissions of the global car fleet are two to four times higher than those of the maritime fleet and those of a relatively small number of the largest vessels (e.g. sixteen) thus at least an order of magnitude lower than the emissions of the car fleet. NOx Per unit of fuel, ship’s engines emit more NOx than most car engines.
The NOx emissions of the maritime fleet are therefore probably higher than those of the global car fleet. It does hold, though, that the NOx emissions of the largest seagoing vessels are several orders of magnitude lower than those of all cars combined. SOx The statutory limits for sulphur in shipping fuel are higher than for road-vehicle fuels, in most countries at any rate. In Europe the limit for road-vehicle fuels is 0.001%, whereas the global limit for shipping is 3.5% (to be lowered to 0.5% in 2020). This means it is feasible that the sixteen largest maritime vessels emit just as much SOX as 800 million cars. It then needs to be assumed, though, that the ships burn fuel with 3.5% sulphur, while the average sulphur content is a percentage point lower than this limit. This also makes it feasible that a single container vessel emits the same amount of SOX as 50 million cars. It must then be assumed, though, that these cars use fuel with a very
Summary As a stark illustration of the scale of maritime shipping emissions these are often compared with car emissions, with claims like the following being made: ‐
‘The sixteen largest ships emit the same amount of CO2 as all the world’s cars.’ ‐
‘The world’s seventeen largest ships emit more sulphur than the global car fleet.’ ‐
‘A seagoing container vessel is just as polluting as up to 50 million cars.’
The aim of this concise study is to fact-check these kinds of claims.
To this end estimates of the CO2, SOX and NOx emissions of maritime vessels and cars were established and used to assess the veracity of these claims.
The study shows that the majority of such claims are false. CO2 The CO2 emissions of the global car fleet are two to four times higher than those of the maritime fleet and those of a relatively small number of the largest vessels (e.g. sixteen) thus at least an order of magnitude lower than the emissions of the car fleet. NOx Per unit of fuel, ship’s engines emit more NOx than most car engines.
The NOx emissions of the maritime fleet are therefore probably higher than those of the global car fleet. It does hold, though, that the NOx emissions of the largest seagoing vessels are several orders of magnitude lower than those of all cars combined. SOx The statutory limits for sulphur in shipping fuel are higher than for road-vehicle fuels, in most countries at any rate. In Europe the limit for road-vehicle fuels is 0.001%, whereas the global limit for shipping is 3.5% (to be lowered to 0.5% in 2020). This means it is feasible that the sixteen largest maritime vessels emit just as much SOX as 800 million cars. It then needs to be assumed, though, that the ships burn fuel with 3.5% sulphur, while the average sulphur content is a percentage point lower than this limit. This also makes it feasible that a single container vessel emits the same amount of SOX as 50 million cars. It must then be assumed, though, that these cars use fuel with a very
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2012
- Messages
- 471
- Reaction score
- 273
Summary so far seems to be a divide between there is something that needs to be done about global warming but I'm not going to give up my car versus there needs to be a wholesale change to get the necessary effect to alter global warming
Living in the South Wales valleys, I can hand on heart say that I believe public transport will never be good enough to replace the car, not even if there were robotaxis.
You would need enough of these taxis to service pretty much the same number of cars on the road today, plus of course, they would need to be very very cheap and instantly available.
Traveling around the valleys is difficult and time consuming as it is given the geography of the area. Many areas in the UK are the same.
Journeys would be hateful and just as importantly, me and my family would be forced to share transport with others I would rather not share transport with. Now that will sound rather antisocial, but my car is an extension of my home, its my space with my things in it, I can treat it any way I feel, select who I let in it and leave things in it for the next day, week, month etc.
Public transport will help, but city dwellers that think public transport is a solution are deluded.
Also, the comment on living closer to work or suggesting that anyone living in a rural area is at fault for choosing to live a rural life is juat stupid.
Yeah ok, how about all those that live in rural areas move into the cities to help solve the transport problem. It would become like a 3rd world slum, there isn't enough space for the people that live in big cities as it is.
There is also the fact that the car is such a small player in the world's climate change issues when compared with major manufacturing, mining of all sorts of junk nobody needs, like precious gems and metals, and of course as already highlighted, the shipping industry.
Trouble is, all those things are far less visible and taxable than the car, so the car has been sold as thr devil's work. They do need to be cleaner, but they are way down the list of concerns in the real world.
You would need enough of these taxis to service pretty much the same number of cars on the road today, plus of course, they would need to be very very cheap and instantly available.
Traveling around the valleys is difficult and time consuming as it is given the geography of the area. Many areas in the UK are the same.
Journeys would be hateful and just as importantly, me and my family would be forced to share transport with others I would rather not share transport with. Now that will sound rather antisocial, but my car is an extension of my home, its my space with my things in it, I can treat it any way I feel, select who I let in it and leave things in it for the next day, week, month etc.
Public transport will help, but city dwellers that think public transport is a solution are deluded.
Also, the comment on living closer to work or suggesting that anyone living in a rural area is at fault for choosing to live a rural life is juat stupid.
Yeah ok, how about all those that live in rural areas move into the cities to help solve the transport problem. It would become like a 3rd world slum, there isn't enough space for the people that live in big cities as it is.
There is also the fact that the car is such a small player in the world's climate change issues when compared with major manufacturing, mining of all sorts of junk nobody needs, like precious gems and metals, and of course as already highlighted, the shipping industry.
Trouble is, all those things are far less visible and taxable than the car, so the car has been sold as thr devil's work. They do need to be cleaner, but they are way down the list of concerns in the real world.
I am in the i do not want to give up driving a car but would gladly move to EV to do my little bit for the planet, I cannot do this due to a lack of off street parking so plan to move to a hybrid car when i change my current car probably the Yaris or Yaris Cross as i dont need a big car, i mainly do town and rural driving so can look forward to 70 - 103 mpg.
https://www.whatcar.com/news/true-mpg-most-efficient-hybrid-cars/n19166
jeremy Hall
Active Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2023
- Messages
- 45
- Reaction score
- 32
I'm in a similar boat, and would probably favour a hybrid like the Yaris when my trusty diesel gives up. But I'm not in a hurry to change over. It gets 60mpg which is good for a people mover, and I pay very low tax. About £30 from memory. I don't drive into congestion zones, and don't drive much at all. Less than 5000 miles a year. I fill up less than once a month. A really don't think trading up to EVs will stop climate change. That's a nonsense. It may give cleaner air in the cities which is good. But if we wanted to do something about climate change we should have done it in the 70s. Much too late now. People will panic when we get the first climate famine, and the first climate war won't be that far behind. But these things can't be avoided now. Just changing deck chairs on the Titanic. The planet self regulates, and sadly that will result in a the reduction in a large number of humans. Plus it won't take that long. Within the next twenty years I'd guess. So enjoy your beers. I intend to. This isn't going to be pretty.
