Motoring in Britain:- the future

[Dieselman]

Point 1) I don't believe that global warming is caused by human activity that produces CO2. There are too many holes in the theory, for me the biggest one is that there has been so many extreme changes in earth's climate long before Human production of CO2. I'm sure supporters of the theory have a comeback for that, but I've not heard one good enough to convince me.

It has become more a political argument than a scientific one.

Point 2) Even if cars were 'causing' climate change, it isn't the government's job to force people to change their behaviour. They can educate, but from there it should be up to individuals. If people wanted to 'stop' climate change, then they would do so under their own merit. I don't like the bully-boy tactics of the road tax system or Gordon Brown's government.

Any chance of answering the question..

 

[hawk20]

Any chance of answering the question..

He does answer it. He says they are wrong to believe we need to reduce man-made CO2 until and unless there is a more conclusive argument in favour of doing so. Perfectly fair answer.

Nothing we do on this small island will make a blind bit of difference, but if you feel we must reduce CO2 then build nuclear power stations as fast as possible and encourage plug-in hybrids and electric cars. Plus bio-diesel for me please.

I would have penal taxes on new cars over 225 gms /km and a flat rate for all below that level of £100.

Same flat rate for all older cars. Once they have been bought, taxing them on CO2 is useless. Scrapping older cars would use more CO2 to build new ones than would be saved.

Any shortfall in tax should be made up by higher tax on fuel at the pumps. The more you use the car, the more you pay (unlike VED).

Require all new cars to have electronic limiter set at 80 mph.

 

[Dieselman]

He does answer it. .

No he doesn't. He gives his reason for not answering it, but fails to provide an answer.

If we look at it again as a theoretical question and accept that the issue is real, and even if not it has been mandated that it has been accepted, what suggestion would ms500 have.?

 

[ms500]

No he doesn't. He gives his reason for not answering it, but fails to provide an answer.

If we look at it again as a theoretical question and accept that the issue is real, and even if not it has been mandated that it has been accepted, what suggestion would ms500 have.?

It's like asking me what's the best way of mugging somebody; It isn't something I'd ever do so I just don't think about it, and therefore don't have an answer.

 

[ms500]

Isn't there another forum that this can be debated on, this has been done to death on here. Its thursday night, there must be better things to do - I'm off home to help with bathtime


Ade

I wish you'd stop trolling all my posts, you did this in my last thread. Thank god for the ignore list.

 

[NewMB]

i cannot see the confusion.

It punishes the rich, by taking all their money.
it punishes the poor by driving them off the road

So just like in Sweden then! The main reason why I left.....

 

[st13phil]

How does one avoid it if it's imposed by their employer.?

Fair question.

Simplest (and possibly unattractive) answer is to move job. Having said that, I and many others have made employment and living location choices based upon travel / congestion and will probably do so again in the future.

A more complex answer has already been posted:

...what we need is an incentive for employers to promote working from home or highly staggered working hours in order to reduce the choke points and flash queues we see every day between 7-9am and 5-7pm.

I completely accept that it's not possible for many people to work from home but for those who could the only obstacle is usually an employer which lacks the imagination or will to make it happen. Staggered start and finish times are the simplest way in which employers could make a massive difference to peak period congestion, at no cost, and often with tangible benefits to themselves in terms of absenteeism. Once again, lack of imagination or will is the obstacle.

 

[NewMB]

Fair question.

Simplest (and possibly unattractive) answer is to move job. Having said that, I and many others have made employment and living location choices based upon travel / congestion and will probably do so again in the future.

A more complex answer has already been posted:I completely accept that it's not possible for many people to work from home but for those who could the only obstacle is usually an employer which lacks the imagination or will to make it happen. Staggered start and finish times are the simplest way in which employers could make a massive difference to peak period congestion, at no cost, and often with tangible benefits to themselves in terms of absenteeism. Once again, lack of imagination or will is the obstacle.

Sounds good, BUT, for me as an employer (and I don't think I would only speak for myself) a staggered working environment would send my business to the yard as we are all in the service industry and of course, our clients work 9-5 Monday-Friday.

Working from home (or Shanghai or New York or whatever) is possible only for me.

Personally I think I'll end up some other place in Europe within a few years. Then the english government can go and hide.....

My 2p.

 

[jeremytaylor]

hmmm there's free sea front parking here (plenty of it), plenty of restaurants (italian, Belgian and traditional english), boat hire can easily be aranged at the sailing club (on the beach). Sadly we are a bit short of campsites although there are a couple a bit further down the coast that are cheap and good and the council/police tend to turn a blind eye to motorhomes that park up overnight on the west end of the beach

Loads of places in Wales allow camping on or right next to the beach none are free but it's always reasonable to pay for facilities

"rough camping" is allowed pretty much all over Scotland so you could always head there

So, why not have a look around this country before immediately assuming that it it's impossible

Yeah, but Bexhill???

Actually we camped at Norman's Bay earlier this year and in the morning drove into Bexhill and saw some campers and surfers at the west end of the beach who looked suspiciously like they had been there all night. Didn't realise you could do this and wouldn't actually be moved on!

I was comparing to Hayling Island and West Wittering to be fair, and whilst I'm sure you could camp for free in the wilds of Wales and Scotland, it's a bit far from civilisation.

 

[st4]

One says the rich, one says the poor....I'm confused...

I'll elaborate, I've just come to this thread and MS500 and recycled have said exactly what I think but this road pricing malarky effects rich and poor. It effects the privacy and breaches thereof of everyone, it won't ease congestion (which effects all drivers, not those with big jeeps but old nissan micras too) and MS500's suggestion of building new roads is a sterling suggestion.

CC charges hit poorer people harder arguably, and those who struggle to fill up their cars due to fuel prices will be hurt more, as rest assured, this will yield more money for UK PLC than fuel duty, otherwise they wouldn't be pumping so much time and money into researching it. You've also got to consider the rise of anticipated rise in electic cars, and the fact they'll be charged at home, where the fuel won't be taxed as much, and being the "sort of government it is" they'll use their imagination to raise money for those who it always raises money from, the car driver.

I feel that the "motorist" is a majority pressure group, plenty of car drivers thoughts echo those put forward but MS500 recyled and me, but for some reason motorists seem a bottom priority for a government to please. Why is that, why are car drivers a silent majority. Eco groups get their point accross, why can't we?

Why shouldn't motorways be widened, roads be improved, city bybasses built to ease congestion. It would be better than paying people to take methadone and not to work. It would be a source of work actually.

 

[st4]

Please don't think I'm picking on your posts, I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on this.

Given that the general perceived wisdom is that CO2 is a major problem and as such all Western Governments have pledged to reduce it's output, how would you go about reducing it's output from cars.?

It's worth remembering that many devices that create CO2 emmissions have been forced to reduce by simply banning higher output devices. Is that what should happen to cars.?

Point 1) I don't believe that global warming is caused by human activity that produces CO2. There are too many holes in the theory, for me the biggest one is that there has been so many extreme changes in earth's climate long before Human production of CO2. I'm sure supporters of the theory have a comeback for that, but I've not heard one good enough to convince me.

It has become more a political argument than a scientific one.

Point 2) Even if cars were 'causing' climate change, it isn't the government's job to force people to change their behaviour. They can educate, but from there it should be up to individuals. If people wanted to 'stop' climate change, then they would do so under their own merit. I don't like the bully-boy tactics of the road tax system or Gordon Brown's government.

MS500 answers your post better than you think. Your choice of words says it all dieselman, perceived wisdom - I've put them in bold. Its not hard fact or hard truth, there is not 100% degree of certainty over this CO2, emissions theory, otherwise you'd have said more convincingly that it was fact.

Whilst its fact that oil is finite, as it comes out from underneath the ground and there isn't a finite amount of that, we will at some stage have to look at alternative fuels, but thats not to be confused with the man made climate change theory. The market will dictate that, and cars like the Chevrolet Volt if they are good will pave the way. Paul Horrell reviewed the Tesla roadster, and rated it highly so cars like that will remove us from our petrols and diesels in time, but there will still be a CO2 source, but a lesser one, but thats debateable whether the climate will be effected, just like its debatable that driving V8 Hummers changes the climate.

 

[recycled]

because they need to create artificial congestion so as to bring charges.

Even the electric cars will be found out, as they will charge as well.
A V8 parked in a garage can never pollute as much as a micra doing 50k miles a year

 

[st4]

because ythey need to create artificial congestion

To raise real money as they can't manage the money they're given. Come to think of it neither can Landesbank, Northern Rock, B&B....one bunch of clowns bailing out another...

 

[st4]

because they need to create artificial congestion so as to bring charges.

Even the electric cars will be found out, as they will charge as well.
A V8 parked in a garage can never pollute as much as a micra doing 50k miles a year

If the V8 was doing 300k miles pa would you really expect the rainfall patterns and the temperatures in the world to change?

Even so, it would be an expensive business. I for one am looking forward to electric cars, they're fast, and so long as we get a government thats sympathetic to car drivers will be cheap as chips to run (no fuel duty, just a wee recharge at home). The engineering possibilities are far more, particularly with wheel hub motors, fancy AWD, RWF FWD all in one car by changing the power sent to the wheels.

However if they come with spy boxes then I'd rather not be electronically tagged like a paedophile and drive a convention fossil fueled car.

 

[mattc]

If the V8 was doing 300k miles pa would you really expect the rainfall patterns and the temperatures in the world to change?

Even so, it would be an expensive business. I for one am looking forward to electric cars, they're fast, and so long as we get a government thats sympathetic to car drivers will be cheap as chips to run (no fuel duty, just a wee recharge at home). The engineering possibilities are far more, particularly with wheel hub motors, fancy AWD, RWF FWD all in one car by changing the power sent to the wheels.

However if they come with spy boxes then I'd rather not be electronically tagged like a paedophile and drive a convention fossil fueled car.

HOW DARE YOU IMPUNE the good intentions of our glorious leaders ....they are, after all, only here to serve us ..not to veiw us as incipid cash cows to milk...my left one!!

 

[st4]

HOW DARE YOU IMPUNE the good intentions of our glorious leaders ....they are, after all, only here to serve us ..not to veiw us as incipid cash cows to milk...my left one!!

Read my signature, more truth in that then 1 year of Mr Clown's spurious nonsense

 

[Dieselman]

MS500 answers your post better than you think. Your choice of words says it all dieselman, perceived wisdom - I've put them in bold. Its not hard fact or hard truth, there is not 100% degree of certainty over this CO2, emissions theory, otherwise you'd have said more convincingly that it was fact.

Not in this case as I was attempting to get an answer given that it has been accepted that the issue of rising Co2 is fact and Governments have agreed to act on it.

Forget attempting to avoid the question and accept that the mandate is set and an answer has to be found.

Given that scenario what is anyones proposal.

 

[Dieselman]

because they need to create artificial congestion so as to bring charges.

Even the electric cars will be found out, as they will charge as well.
A V8 parked in a garage can never pollute as much as a micra doing 50k miles a year

and a micra parked in a garage will not polute as much as a V8 doing 50k miles per year.

what's your point.?

 

[recycled]

and a micra parked in a garage will not polute as much as a V8 doing 50k miles per year.

what's your point.?

the point is claiming that to force a V8 owner to fork out £1000 in charges helps to cut congestion/ CO2, without taking it into consideration that he drives it one a week on sunday and then letting a micra pay £100 to do millions of miles, will save the planet.
It will not. A million micras will congest the road as much as a million corvettes and a million micras driven everyday, will cause more pollution than a million corvettes driven on sundays

 

[recycled]

Not in this case as I was attempting to get an answer given that it has been accepted that the issue of rising Co2 is fact and Governments have agreed to act on it.

.

yes it is fact. it is fact also it has been rising, before the car came, and it is not a poven fact that is has been caused by the car.
overpopulation is also a leading cause for rising co2 and dwindling/ demand of resources so let us start by taxing to death those with too many children.
Not very popular is it as those that tend to have army of kids never have any money