Electric vehicles infrastructure

BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I've not painted any picture... I just made a statement and then asked you to point me in the direction of the 'experts' so that I could do some research and try to educate myself.

That's a rather longwinded way of not providing any evidence by the way. Ah Well!

Like yoiu say, You're conscious that you've taken the thread off on a tangent, so best to conveniently exit, now you've been asked to evidence your claims 😂

Classic AVFTT!!
Click to expand...

Another conspiracy theory of yours. I thought you didn’t like them?

You say one thing then say the next in the following breath. You do it on thread after thread and it’s boring that I have to keep highlighting it to you.

You seem to debate yourself by your compete contradictions.

Any story you don’t like is not newsworthy. Or it’s extremist. Or it’s conspiracy.
Well that’s the behavior of someone very closed minded and paranoid.
 
And so the PM is reported today to be flip flopping on the 2030 date for phasing out of petrol and diesel vehicles calling for a "pragmatic" approach.

Was never going to be long enough.
 
Macseasider said:
So the government plans for the whole of the UK to be driving electric vehicles by 2030 with petrol and diesel having a last stand of 2035.

2030 is less than 7 years away and the more I read from both car journalists and car manufacturers and sellers this is pie in the sky.

Not only can people not afford to purchase an electric vehicle but there is next to zero infrastructure to support it AND most importantly they are no better for the environment and will cost more to run.

Personally I've alway thought the idea of electric cars a load of bollocks and the charging of them requires immense use of fossil fuels anyway. I was always under the impression that until vehicles are run on hydrogen then it's a waste of time?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Yours is a reasonable post. The infrastructure is not great. My hope is that there will be a massive change to green energy so that the generation of electricity becomes clear of carbon fuels but it is a huge ask.
 
I read somewhere about the issue years down the line about the disposal of these batteries, it doesn’t seem to be talked about much, is it an issue?
 
I know this isn't on the same lines as you are discussing but does anyone know if the new multi storey near the courts is designed to take electric cars on all floors
 
Macseasider said:
And so the PM is reported today to be flip flopping on the 2030 date for phasing out of petrol and diesel vehicles calling for a "pragmatic" approach.

Was never going to be long enough.
Click to expand...
There was reporting that he was planning to attack Labour on it considering the relative success of their anti ULEZ campaign. I think he probably at some remembered it's the Conservatives who have been in power for 13 years and literally their policy.

I'm sure there will be lots of talk about the cost of green policies, but a new car costs 40k on average. Households struggling with the cost of living crisis will not be affected by this policy. If you are buying a new car you are clearly doing well.
 
WTF will happen to all the 'old' vehicles?
Where will they go?
Fortunately I don't think I'll be around to see. 😉
 
These Clean Air Zones (CAZ) and (Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) charges are unfair, and effectively are a tax on the less well off.

Those that can’t afford to switch to electric vehicles will be faced with the punitive charges. The poorer one is, the longer they’ll have to pay the charge.

It’s like the Government saying they want everyone to be a homeowner. So if you’re in rented accommodation in a Homeowner only zone (HOZ) you’ll have to pay a daily charge. It’s ridiculous.

Whilst the aims are admirable (to have less air pollution from older vehicles) it’s not right or fair to engender change in this way.

Andy Burnham seems to have recognised that. The Manchester CAZ implementation has been delayed and is under review. He seems to be in touch with the people of Manchester and not sat in an ivory tower as Sadiq Khan appears to be.

Government, both National and Local, and the car industry, need to work together to make this a positive change in which all citizens can engage. They need to take the public with them and not have punitive measures, which effectively would drive more people into poverty.

The cost of new electric vehicles has to come down. Local authorities need innovative trade in schemes which will incentivise people to swap their old car for a new cleaner one.

This move to electric vehicles is a seismic, landmark, transition. Transitioning society from petrol/diesel to electric can and will be achieved. But the way we achieve it shouldn’t be punitive taxes on the poor, causing further poverty and misery to millions for maybe a decade or longer. This will only make the gap between rich and poor even wider.

It’s heartening to hear Starmer speak critically about the planned London ULEZ expansion. The London Mayor had previously been dismissive to any concerns raised by the locals. But now he might be thinking again. Not because he gives a damn about the people affected, but because it could cost Labour a few seats. Only when it hurts at the ballot box do politicians listen, or so it seems in this case.
 
I watched a program last night and we seem to be miles behind in electricity supply capacity charging infrastructure & almost nonexistent battery production. Reliant on China. Now what could possibly go wrong with that. Plus an incompatibility issue with different types of charging systems, bit like Betamax & VHS ( for the older posters)
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I have saved around £2-3 grand this year changing from a Diesel to Electric. Miles cheaper!
Click to expand...
Likewise and also major savings on servicing costs. Tesla charging is free for me so my savings are probably greater. It seems to be oblivious to most that the gulf stream is now projected as turning off by 2025 thus this part of the planet may become more challenging - we need to do something
 
south shore swampy said:
I know this isn't on the same lines as you are discussing but does anyone know if the new multi storey near the courts is designed to take electric cars on all floors
Click to expand...

Doubt it. All car parks are still making parking spaces for cars the size of Ford Zephyr with little gaps between them. Despite knowing fair well that cars are significantly wider and higher these days.

Unless they are mandated to do so by the law they’ll bang out the cheapest option
 
Cuthbert said:
Likewise and also major savings on servicing costs. Tesla charging is free for me so my savings are probably greater. It seems to be oblivious to most that the gulf stream is now projected as turning off by 2025 thus this part of the planet may become more challenging - we need to do something
Click to expand...
Where's that prediction come from?

The closest I can see is that it might happen by 2025 (Ditlevsen), but they claim at some point between 2025 and 2095.

Other scientists have described their model as "heavily oversimplified" and it contains "uncertain assumptions", and the IPCC say it's unlikely to happen this century.
 
If you take into account all the mining for battery materials, all the extra damage to roads and car parks due to their additional weight, all the extra electricity needed to be generated (often using coal to create the electricity), all the problems with end of life battery disposal, all the extra wiring and building of infrastructure to recharge the vehicles etc., then it probably works out a lot worse than sticking with the combustion engine.
 
Malced said:
These Clean Air Zones (CAZ) and (Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) charges are unfair, and effectively are a tax on the less well off.

Those that can’t afford to switch to electric vehicles will be faced with the punitive charges. The poorer one is, the longer they’ll have to pay the charge.

It’s like the Government saying they want everyone to be a homeowner. So if you’re in rented accommodation in a Homeowner only zone (HOZ) you’ll have to pay a daily charge. It’s ridiculous.

Whilst the aims are admirable (to have less air pollution from older vehicles) it’s not right or fair to engender change in this way.

Andy Burnham seems to have recognised that. The Manchester CAZ implementation has been delayed and is under review. He seems to be in touch with the people of Manchester and not sat in an ivory tower as Sadiq Khan appears to be.

Government, both National and Local, and the car industry, need to work together to make this a positive change in which all citizens can engage. They need to take the public with them and not have punitive measures, which effectively would drive more people into poverty.

The cost of new electric vehicles has to come down. Local authorities need innovative trade in schemes which will incentivise people to swap their old car for a new cleaner one.

This move to electric vehicles is a seismic, landmark, transition. Transitioning society from petrol/diesel to electric can and will be achieved. But the way we achieve it shouldn’t be punitive taxes on the poor, causing further poverty and misery to millions for maybe a decade or longer. This will only make the gap between rich and poor even wider.

It’s heartening to hear Starmer speak critically about the planned London ULEZ expansion. The London Mayor had previously been dismissive to any concerns raised by the locals. But now he might be thinking again. Not because he gives a damn about the people affected, but because it could cost Labour a few seats. Only when it hurts at the ballot box do politicians listen, or so it seems in this case.
Click to expand...


If it truly is a tax on the poorest then I'm against it, we can agree on that basic principle. However, there is a scrappage scheme available in London so that if you are on low income or are a registered small business/sole trader you can get thousands for trading in your old car. Considering petrol cars that are up to 16 years old are ULEZ compliant, there's clearly low cost solutions that exist. I suspect this is actually mostly griping from people who are actually a bit more well off than they let on in interview vox pops on the news.

As to your other point about switching to electric cars, it's worth pointing out that new petrol cars were already very expensive, and anyone struggling for money in the cost of living crisis who needs a new car is going second hand. The petrol/diesel ban does not affect second hand cars.
 
BigHandsOliverKahn said:
If you take into account all the mining for battery materials, all the extra damage to roads and car parks due to their additional weight, all the extra electricity needed to be generated (often using coal to create the electricity), all the problems with end of life battery disposal, all the extra wiring and building of infrastructure to recharge the vehicles etc., then it probably works out a lot worse than sticking with the combustion engine.
Click to expand...
I think I will make a point again that I've made before but governments can and actually should be able to invest in and create infastrcuture. We've all got used to a country that doesn't work but that's not actually supposed to be how things are. Car parks once didn't exist and now they do, to use one of your examples. The thousands of petrol stations we have in the UK once did not exist and now they do. Cars used to be pretty much totally scrapped and now are 95% recycled. Why is it that all these problems that were fixed suddenly stop being able to be fixed when we start talking about electric vehicles?
 
foggy said:
I think I will make a point again that I've made before but governments can and actually should be able to invest in and create infastrcuture. We've all got used to a country that doesn't work but that's not actually supposed to be how things are. Car parks once didn't exist and now they do, to use one of your examples. The thousands of petrol stations we have in the UK once did not exist and now they do. Cars used to be pretty much totally scrapped and now are 95% recycled. Why is it that all these problems that were fixed suddenly stop being able to be fixed when we start talking about electric vehicles?
Click to expand...
The government doesn't even provide public toilets anymore, the most basic of human needs, so I doubt it will bother spending billions providing infrastructure for electric cars. It will just leave it to market forces which won't be so strong given there are such massive disadvantages to owing an EV compared to a combustion engine vehicle.
 
BigHandsOliverKahn said:
The government doesn't even provide public toilets anymore, the most basic of human needs, so I doubt it will bother spending billions providing infrastructure for electric cars. It will just leave it to market forces which won't be so strong given there are such massive disadvantages to owing an EV compared to a combustion engine vehicle.
Click to expand...
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I don't really know what to say mate... Did he not check the vehicle range was suitable for his needs before buying?
Click to expand...
Interesting thread BFC*3. I’ve has an EV for 4; years. First, a Peugeot E-208, and now an MG4.. I’m cross with myself for not switching earlier. Both super cars but the MG has much better range (280 vs 170). I always charge at home, so little planning required. Councils need to much more - they control most carparks in their area.

As for govt targets, yes they will kick the can down the road. But we all need to do what we can to delay climate change (viz Greece and Algeria), but we also have our own big problems from city air pollution.

The second hand market in EVs is developing
 
Wilburrabbit said:
Truth is that the National Grid cannot generate enough electricity to sustain everyone running electric cars and until that is rectified it is as the poster says, pie in the sky.
Click to expand...
That’s a load of piffle, WR. There is loads of little used clean generation on the system. In fact during surplus periods a lot of mucky stuff is pushed off the system at high cost to the consumer. There’s also a lot more wind and solar due to come onto the system before 2030. It’s not pie in the sky but does require the govt to push things along through tax breaks and possibly a scrappage scheme.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
They did show / cover alternate views though?

Obviously the level of credibility that you are going to attach to any particular ‘perspective’ will always be based upon the credibility and expertise of the proponents.

And at times it was a case of ‘Expert Scientist’ vs ‘Crackpot with a Laptop’.

I’m not sure you can start giving equal weight to the crackpot element in the midst of an international crisis and if that means a few crackpots get more paranoid and deluded than usual, I suppose it’s probably a price worth paying.

Of course, there’s been quite a bit of revisionist opinion since CoViD is no longer the pressing issue it was and we have more information available….. Those kind of ‘benefit of hindsight’ experts will always raise their heads and bless everyone with their wisdom after the event.
Click to expand...
Yet that's exactly what happened in the name of balance.

For climate change, Brexit and Covid, there were hundreds of scientists pointing out the dangers, but because of so called balance, you get the other viewpoint portrayed as 50/50. See Farage on QT as a classic example. Can't win an election to save his life yet is on more often than any other person ever.
 
Nigel Cornwall said:
That’s a load of piffle, WR. There is loads of little used clean generation on the system. In fact during surplus periods a lot of mucky stuff is pushed off the system at high cost to the consumer. There’s also a lot more wind and solar due to come onto the system before 2030. It’s not pie in the sky but does require the govt to push things along through tax breaks and possibly a scrappage scheme.
Click to expand...
Last night's programme on it did point out that the infrastructure basically isn't in place, especially in the North. If you don't have off road parking you're screwed from being unable to do a trickle charge, while fast charging needs a massive change to the local infrastructure to produce the charge needed. Plus there is the hidden cost of being stuck in a service station for 45 minutes being sold coffees, cakes, travel chairs etc etc
 
foggy said:
I think I will make a point again that I've made before but governments can and actually should be able to invest in and create infastrcuture. We've all got used to a country that doesn't work but that's not actually supposed to be how things are. Car parks once didn't exist and now they do, to use one of your examples. The thousands of petrol stations we have in the UK once did not exist and now they do. Cars used to be pretty much totally scrapped and now are 95% recycled. Why is it that all these problems that were fixed suddenly stop being able to be fixed when we start talking about electric vehicles?
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more. That is why the public sector so often creates car parks in town centres as they are the only ones to be able to mobilise assets, when the private sector is fragmented in ownership and its own interests. The lack of electricity supply is a massive concern and dealing with the providers, as a developer, is much more problematic than any planning authority. The lack of charging points near the football ground is a disgrace especially as the council owns so much car parking.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Where's that prediction come from?

The closest I can see is that it might happen by 2025 (Ditlevsen), but they claim at some point between 2025 and 2095.

Other scientists have described their model as "heavily oversimplified" and it contains "uncertain assumptions", and the IPCC say it's unlikely to happen this century.
Click to expand...
Just look at the evidence of climate change - its on the new every night. We are destroying the planet as nobody is willing to challenge the mantra of economic growth at any cost and greed. Climate change is occurring at a faster rate than predicted - so maybe the sceptics were right and the science was not robust; its worse than predicted.
 
Cuthbert said:
Just look at the evidence of climate change - its on the new every night. We are destroying the planet as nobody is willing to challenge the mantra of economic growth at any cost and greed. Climate change is occurring at a faster rate than predicted - so maybe the sceptics were right and the science was not robust; its worse than predicted.
Click to expand...
So you made it up then.
 
Nigel Cornwall said:
That’s a load of piffle, WR. There is loads of little used clean generation on the system. In fact during surplus periods a lot of mucky stuff is pushed off the system at high cost to the consumer. There’s also a lot more wind and solar due to come onto the system before 2030. It’s not pie in the sky but does require the govt to push things along through tax breaks and possibly a scrappage scheme.
Click to expand...
There is a lot of infrastructure and cable laying which is required before domestic charging can handle everyone changing. That’s a fact. If that is not in place it’s putting the cart before the horse.
 
foggy said:
I think I will make a point again that I've made before but governments can and actually should be able to invest in and create infastrcuture. We've all got used to a country that doesn't work but that's not actually supposed to be how things are. Car parks once didn't exist and now they do, to use one of your examples. The thousands of petrol stations we have in the UK once did not exist and now they do. Cars used to be pretty much totally scrapped and now are 95% recycled. Why is it that all these problems that were fixed suddenly stop being able to be fixed when we start talking about electric vehicles?
Click to expand...
Don't disagree, but Sunak is signalling we can't afford green policies as a result of the cost of living crisis, ( ULEZ being the factor in the Uxbridge by-election a mere coincidence, I'm sure).
 
Wizaard said:
Last night's programme on it did point out that the infrastructure basically isn't in place, especially in the North. If you don't have off road parking you're screwed from being unable to do a trickle charge, while fast charging needs a massive change to the local infrastructure to produce the charge needed. Plus there is the hidden cost of being stuck in a service station for 45 minutes being sold coffees, cakes, travel chairs etc etc
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree about the infrastructure. It’s not just the north but most rural areas, plus shared housing and houses that don’t have off street parking. As I said councils need a kick up the arse. As for service stations, it’s no different from petrol refuelling is it?
 
Nigel Cornwall said:
I don’t disagree about the infrastructure. It’s not just the north but most rural areas, plus shared housing and houses that don’t have off street parking. As I said councils need a kick up the arse. As for service stations, it’s no different from petrol refuelling is it?
Click to expand...
It is, in that I fill up with petrol in around 3 mins, pay and leave. Being forced to wait around three quarters of an hour for a 'fast' charge in the middle of nowhere, leads to a closed market.
 
Wizaard said:
Last night's programme on it did point out that the infrastructure basically isn't in place, especially in the North. If you don't have off road parking you're screwed from being unable to do a trickle charge, while fast charging needs a massive change to the local infrastructure to produce the charge needed. Plus there is the hidden cost of being stuck in a service station for 45 minutes being sold coffees, cakes, travel chairs etc etc
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree about the infrastructure. It’s not just the north but most rural areas, plus shared housing and houses that don’t have off street parking. As I said councils need a kick up the arse. As for service stations, it’s no different from petrol refuelling is it
 
Lost Seasider said:
Is dry grass and wood notably more combustible at 41c than it is at 40c?

These wildfires are not a result of climate change.
Click to expand...
And here comes the denier again, putting up an Aunt Sally.

You are correct, but forgot to add that longer dry spells from weather patterns change, leads to drier vegetation at the warmer times of year. There was an article on the net last week detailing the changes to uk rainfall over the last umpteen years.
 
Nigel Cornwall said:
I don’t disagree about the infrastructure. It’s not just the north but most rural areas, plus shared housing and houses that don’t have off street parking. As I said councils need a kick up the arse. As for service stations, it’s no different from petrol refuelling is it
Click to expand...
Yes, as you have to wait 50 mins for a 'fast' charge.
 
foggy said:
If it truly is a tax on the poorest then I'm against it, we can agree on that basic principle. However, there is a scrappage scheme available in London so that if you are on low income or are a registered small business/sole trader you can get thousands for trading in your old car. Considering petrol cars that are up to 16 years old are ULEZ compliant, there's clearly low cost solutions that exist. I suspect this is actually mostly griping from people who are actually a bit more well off than they let on in interview vox pops on the news.

As to your other point about switching to electric cars, it's worth pointing out that new petrol cars were already very expensive, and anyone struggling for money in the cost of living crisis who needs a new car is going second hand. The petrol/diesel ban does not affect second hand cars.
Click to expand...
foggy said:
If it truly is a tax on the poorest then I'm against it, we can agree on that basic principle. However, there is a scrappage scheme available in London so that if you are on low income or are a registered small business/sole trader you can get thousands for trading in your old car. Considering petrol cars that are up to 16 years old are ULEZ compliant, there's clearly low cost solutions that exist. I suspect this is actually mostly griping from people who are actually a bit more well off than they let on in interview vox pops on the news.

As to your other point about switching to electric cars, it's worth pointing out that new petrol cars were already very expensive, and anyone struggling for money in the cost of living crisis who needs a new car is going second hand. The petrol/diesel ban does not affect second hand cars.
Click to expand...

Low cost solutions? What are they? You are very relaxed about the very real financial difficulties this will cause to people who can’t avoid these zones. Maybe that’s because you’re not in their situation?
Perhaps you wouldn’t be so passive if you actually had to pay the charge everyday to merely take your kids to school, go to work, or go to the supermarket.
Of course it’s a tax on the poor. It’s the same amount for all, yet the richest can avoid it by having a newer car. The charge is proportionally more of a poorer persons disposable income than a wealthier persons.

If someone has a diesel car which is earlier than 2015, they will have to pay the charges. Many people simply don’t have money to buy a newer model. Especially as the cost of second hand cars is indeed higher than it used to be.

Any scheme to help people move to a newer car is welcomed but it’s not nearly enough help. Far too many will be stuck paying the daily charge due to the vehicle they currently have, and with no means to switch vehicles.

To try and paint the genuine concerns as some sort of middle class whingeing seems incredibly harsh, baseless, and quite perverse in my opinion. Thankfully the politicians are seeing sense, even if others aren’t.

I’m sure the many who are just about managing, or more accurately slowly sinking, would be so enthused to know that you’re with them in principle. But in practice as they have to pay these punitive daily unaffordable charges, you’re not with them at all. According to you it’s not an issue. Nothing to see here. All they need to do is buy a better/newer car and stop whinging.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Malced said:
Low cost solutions? What are they? You are very relaxed about the very real financial difficulties this will cause to people who can’t avoid these zones. Maybe that’s because you’re not in their situation?
Perhaps you wouldn’t be so passive if you actually had to pay the charge everyday to merely take your kids to school, go to work, or go to the supermarket.
Of course it’s a tax on the poor. It’s the same amount for all, yet the richest can avoid it by having a newer car. The charge is proportionally more of a poorer persons disposable income than a wealthier persons.

If someone has a diesel car which is earlier than 2015, they will have to pay the charges. Many people simply don’t have money to buy a newer model. Especially as the cost of second hand cars is indeed higher than it used to be.

Any scheme to help people move to a newer car is welcomed but it’s not nearly enough help. Far too many will be stuck paying the daily charge due to the vehicle they currently have, and with no means to switch vehicles.

To try and paint the genuine concerns as some sort of middle class whingeing seems incredibly harsh, baseless, and quite perverse in my opinion. Thankfully the politicians are seeing sense, even if others aren’t.

I’m sure the many who are just about managing, or more accurately slowly sinking, would be so enthused to know that you’re with them in principle. But in practice as they have to pay these punitive daily unaffordable charges, you’re not with them at all. According to you it’s not an issue. Nothing to see here. All they need to do is buy a better/newer car and stop whinging.
Click to expand...
The real cost probably falls on those just above the very poorest, those who are running maybe an 8 - 10 y/o diesel worth £4,000 or so, too much to qualify for the scrappage scheme, so forced to sell into a market that no longer wants non-ULEZ vehicles and replace it with an older and less reliable petrol model, likely a couple of thousand quid hit to someone who's just seen their mortgage repayments go up by several thousand quid per year as well.
 
Lost Seasider said:
The real cost probably falls on those just above the very poorest, those who are running maybe an 8 - 10 y/o diesel worth £4,000 or so, too much to qualify for the scrappage scheme, so forced to sell into a market that no longer wants non-ULEZ vehicles and replace it with an older and less reliable petrol model, likely a couple of thousand quid hit to someone who's just seen their mortgage repayments go up by several thousand quid per year as well.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Malced said:
Low cost solutions? What are they? You are very relaxed about the very real financial difficulties this will cause to people who can’t avoid these zones. Maybe that’s because you’re not in their situation?
Perhaps you wouldn’t be so passive if you actually had to pay the charge everyday to merely take your kids to school, go to work, or go to the supermarket.
Of course it’s a tax on the poor. It’s the same amount for all, yet the richest can avoid it by having a newer car. The charge is proportionally more of a poorer persons disposable income than a wealthier persons.

If someone has a diesel car which is earlier than 2015, they will have to pay the charges. Many people simply don’t have money to buy a newer model. Especially as the cost of second hand cars is indeed higher than it used to be.

Any scheme to help people move to a newer car is welcomed but it’s not nearly enough help. Far too many will be stuck paying the daily charge due to the vehicle they currently have, and with no means to switch vehicles.

To try and paint the genuine concerns as some sort of middle class whingeing seems incredibly harsh, baseless, and quite perverse in my opinion. Thankfully the politicians are seeing sense, even if others aren’t.

I’m sure the many who are just about managing, or more accurately slowly sinking, would be so enthused to know that you’re with them in principle. But in practice as they have to pay these punitive daily unaffordable charges, you’re not with them at all. According to you it’s not an issue. Nothing to see here. All they need to do is buy a better/newer car and stop whinging.
Click to expand...
Maybe we just have to accept that a car is not a 'right', but instead it's increasingly becoming a 'luxury item' and perhaps that is necessary in order that we can limit the number of vehicles and encourage people to use alternative forms of transport?

Cleaner Air for people to breath (whether they are on a low income or not) ought to be the collective priority... If that means folk might need to rethink the way they get from A to B, then that can only be a good thing.... And if it goes some way to resolving the absolute shit show that has become the norm around most schools these days, then it gets the thumbs up from me.
 
Maybe we just have to accept that a car is not a 'right', but instead it's increasingly becoming a 'luxury item' and perhaps that is necessary in order that we can limit the number of vehicles and encourage people to use alternative forms of transport?

But that's a very general/blanket argument, there are so many jobs that could not be done without Cars/Vans I could list a few, but I'm sure we all can think of them.... Plus, trains!!!???!! who would ever rely upon a train, even when they are actually working??
 
Limechase said:
Maybe we just have to accept that a car is not a 'right', but instead it's increasingly becoming a 'luxury item' and perhaps that is necessary in order that we can limit the number of vehicles and encourage people to use alternative forms of transport?

But that's a very general/blanket argument, there are so many jobs that could not be done without Cars/Vans I could list a few, but I'm sure we all can think of them.... Plus, trains!!!???!! who would ever rely upon a train, even when they are actually working??
Click to expand...
Yes it is general…

If you want to deal with ‘specifics’ then come up with some examples. Otherwise yours is a general / blanket argument also.

I didn’t mention train’s specifically either.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Yes it is general…

If you want to deal with ‘specifics’ then come up with some examples. Otherwise yours is a general / blanket argument also.

I didn’t mention train’s specifically either.
Click to expand...
OK then
Drainage engineers,
Building contractors,

My work entails visiting many sites in Lancashire, & as a Local Govmnt officer, I need to show best value, so that means I HAVE to provide a car for work (written into my contract) & get the princely sum of 45p a mile..

Window cleaners
Delivery drivers

etc etc etc?

I used trains as surely no one relies upon buses? & Id love to use my bike, but a round trip to my sites in say Parbold, would require an overnight stop... 😂
 
Malced said:
Low cost solutions? What are they? You are very relaxed about the very real financial difficulties this will cause to people who can’t avoid these zones. Maybe that’s because you’re not in their situation?
Perhaps you wouldn’t be so passive if you actually had to pay the charge everyday to merely take your kids to school, go to work, or go to the supermarket.
Of course it’s a tax on the poor. It’s the same amount for all, yet the richest can avoid it by having a newer car. The charge is proportionally more of a poorer persons disposable income than a wealthier persons.

If someone has a diesel car which is earlier than 2015, they will have to pay the charges. Many people simply don’t have money to buy a newer model. Especially as the cost of second hand cars is indeed higher than it used to be.

Any scheme to help people move to a newer car is welcomed but it’s not nearly enough help. Far too many will be stuck paying the daily charge due to the vehicle they currently have, and with no means to switch vehicles.

To try and paint the genuine concerns as some sort of middle class whingeing seems incredibly harsh, baseless, and quite perverse in my opinion. Thankfully the politicians are seeing sense, even if others aren’t.

I’m sure the many who are just about managing, or more accurately slowly sinking, would be so enthused to know that you’re with them in principle. But in practice as they have to pay these punitive daily unaffordable charges, you’re not with them at all. According to you it’s not an issue. Nothing to see here. All they need to do is buy a better/newer car and stop whinging.
Click to expand...
The low cost solution is what I posted that you ignored before writing all that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top