Who would drive an EV ?

[Mick F]

Just been checking, and what I say isn't exactly true.
You can buy an EV and be able to tow, but these cars - from what I see - are circa £40,000 each.

Sorry, but if I had that much dosh to waste on a car, I wouldn't need a caravan in the first place!

[TrevA]

EVs (and Hybrids for that matter) aren't homologated to tow at this moment in time.
It will be the end of trailers and caravans perhaps.

If things change in the future, is just a guess.

There are a few that are. The Kia EV6 will tow a caravan up to 1500kg. YouTuber Andrew Ditton has one and tows a Bailey caravan with it. It does reduce the range, he only gets 1.8 miles per KWh, about half that of normal driving so he has to charge up every 120 miles or so. I think there is an equivalent Hyundai, possibly the Ioniq, that will also tow a caravan.

Yes, they are expensive, but a normal diesel tow car would probably be over £30,000 new.

[Bmblbzzz]

Higher prices for cars generally would be no bad thing.

[ANTONISH]

If we were serious about being green we’d structure society such that unnecessary travel - which seems to be the majority of it - stopped happening.

How would we define unnecessary ? - and how would we "structure" society in order to eliminate the unnecessary travel?

Encourage homeworking. My daughter has been working from home since the start of lockdown. She can do her job perfectly well without having to go into the office, but has now been told she must be in the office for 40% of her time. No real reason for this, she doesn’t work with any of her office co-workers, her team is spread around the country, so contact is by phone and email.

I did the same in the 3 years before I retired. I used to go into the office once every 2 months. Luckily, my organisation was a bit more forward thinking.

Shop local - shops and services should be within walking or cycling distance, so you don’t have to travel to get to them.

Not all jobs, not even the majority can be worked from home - "shops and services" how does that work without staff being present?
Not to mention train drivers, garage mechanics, bus drivers, refuse collectors, warehouse workers, supermarket shelf stackers, etc
I have always found it irritating when work is assumed to be in an office.

[Biospace]

I'd be quite happy to drive and own an EV or hydrogen powered car, only proviso is that we need one with some sort of 4wd to get up our drive (and occasionally pull another vehicle up) in bad conditions, restricts the choice at the moment to very expensive ones.

Four wheel drive seems to have become a fashion statement in recent years and so most cars with drive to both axles are expensive, especially those with electric motors. There doesn't seem to be a cheaper PHEV either, with the conventional engine and gearbox at the front driving the front wheels, with a battery and electric motor to drive the rear.

My experience of cars and steep drives in snow are that tyres, ground clearance and power delivery matter more than four wheel drive, unless you're towing a trailer. We used to live in a valley which was particularly prone to snow and most of the locals who'd been there for years didn't bother with 4x4s, even those living highest up and with the steepest drives.

Over and above the higher purchase price, It's a lot of extra weight and equipment to drag around for the 0.01% of the time you think you need 4wd, increasing fuel consumption and often tyre wear also.

[mattsccm]

For some strange reason this thread popped into my mind the other day and got me thinking. Governments need to legislate for common parts. I see the day when we can drie our EV into a unit, a computer identifies the car and swaps the battery by auto load. No need to leave the car. As cassette type battery is remived and a new one is inserted. Stocking would be easy, they would all be the same.
Some hope.

[Carlton green]

How would we define unnecessary ? - and how would we "structure" society in order to eliminate the unnecessary travel?

Encourage homeworking. My daughter has been working from home since the start of lockdown. She can do her job perfectly well without having to go into the office, but has now been told she must be in the office for 40% of her time. No real reason for this, she doesn’t work with any of her office co-workers, her team is spread around the country, so contact is by phone and email.

I did the same in the 3 years before I retired. I used to go into the office once every 2 months. Luckily, my organisation was a bit more forward thinking.

Shop local - shops and services should be within walking or cycling distance, so you don’t have to travel to get to them.

Not all jobs, not even the majority can be worked from home - "shops and services" how does that work without staff being present?
Not to mention train drivers, garage mechanics, bus drivers, refuse collectors, warehouse workers, supermarket shelf stackers, etc
I have always found it irritating when work is assumed to be in an office.

Indeed not all jobs can be worked from home but many can or could be. Of course my original statement (repeated below) didn’t talk about jobs but rather travel and the two are different; people travel much further to work, etc., than they used to so restrictions and restructuring could have a very big impact. A lot of folk in my rural community drive many miles each day to the region’s Towns and Cities, a polluting choice that (in most circumstances) wouldn’t really be open to the bulk of them if instead they bussed, walked or cycled to worked. Choosing to live very many miles from your place of work is typically a lifestyle choice.

(Ref: “ If we were serious about being green we’d structure society such that unnecessary travel - which seems to be the majority of it - stopped happening. ”)

[ANTONISH]

Choosing to live very many miles from your place of work is typically a lifestyle choice.

(Ref: “ If we were serious about being green we’d structure society such that unnecessary travel - which seems to be the majority of it - stopped happening. ”)

Very often people originally had to move away from their work location in order to find affordable housing - it isn't as simple as a lifestyle choice.
Restructuring society? How would you do that in practice?

[Jdsk]

It's a great question. But I think that the quoting isn't right.

Jonathan

[Carlton green]

It's a great question. But I think that the quoting isn't right.

Jonathan

Yes, it is a great question and an issue that I’ve addressed many times on this forum.

Yes, the formatting is wrong but I can’t correct that for Antonish.

I gave a clear indication of how the small Town that I live in has become a dormitory Town, property isn’t particularly cheap here and there is little to no local employment for those folk who move here. Like most places we’ve a lot of new house going up.

Historically places where people lived were close to places where people worked, we need to return to that model. House prices reflect what people can afford and if the local employer doesn’t pay enough then either house prices will drop or the employer will have no staff.

Choosing to live very many miles from your place of work is typically a lifestyle choice.

^ Quote from my post above.

There is a difference between a typical lifestyle choice and a choice under duress, here I see much lifestyle choice and little choice under duress … YMMV.

[Bmblbzzz]

That outlines the problem but leaves the same question: how would you restructure society in practice?

Particularly bearing in mind that people frequently change jobs, many people frequently move home (and this will become more common as younger generations are more and more reliant on scarce rented property rather than owning), and that people usually live with others (partners, adult children, etc) whose jobs may be in totally different places. People living at some distance from where they work isn't always or even usually a simple matter of choice. And even in the 19th century there were such things as 'workmen's trains', implying that at least some factory labourers and similar lived too far from their work (or worked too far from home) to walk or cycle.

It isn't duress but it isn't simply lifestyle choice. It's a combination of factors, many long-standing, and that makes it difficult to undertake any restructuring without major upheavals (even if we had a society that was prepared to undertake deliberate restructuring).

[Carlton green]

That outlines the problem but leaves the same question: how would you restructure society in practice?

Particularly bearing in mind that people frequently change jobs, many people frequently move home (and this will become more common as younger generations are more and more reliant on scarce rented property rather than owning), and that people usually live with others (partners, adult children, etc) whose jobs may be in totally different places. People living at some distance from where they work isn't always or even usually a simple matter of choice. And even in the 19th century there were such things as 'workmen's trains', implying that at least some factory labourers and similar lived too far from their work (or worked too far from home) to walk or cycle.

It isn't duress but it isn't simply lifestyle choice. It's a combination of factors, many long-standing, and that makes it difficult to undertake any restructuring without major upheavals (even if we had a society that was prepared to undertake deliberate restructuring).

Yes, it is multifaceted and I’ve certainly been in the position of having to travel many miles to stay in a decent job (alternative employment locally wasn’t available to me and my Mrs had a good job locally). People’s circumstances do vary but building new homes many miles away from where there is any employment is inevitably going to increase commuter mileage.

Historically some jobs have had a requirement (condition of employment) that you live within a certain distance of your place of work and we need to go back to that or similar. Historically your choice of employment (and staff) was limited to the journey that you could commute by either public transport or active travel and we need to go back to that too.

As I understand it the creation of the public transport networks of London was driven by getting people from the suburbs into ‘The City’ for work and back home again in the evening. One large ‘new Town’ where I lived for some time deliberately had residential property of all types sites close to industrial sites and the two were linked by both active travel routes and public transport routes (buses).

Yes such change will be challenging, some people will have to move home and employers will have to retrain people for roles rather than cherry pick. Some people won’t be able to live in picturesque locations and instead will be forced to make the best of Town and City living, which when you’re committed to providing local parks and amenities can actually be pretty good. Companies will also have to site themselves where there is both land and labour available, and limit themselves accordingly. Some organisations will need to provide tied accommodation, as they did in the past, and - as in the past too - that has all types of challenges for both employee and employer.

Owner occupation of property can be a blessing and it can be a curse. There is certainly a shortage of properties to rent and we need to be looking towards the likes of Germany to see how that might be better managed. I’d like to see both property ownership not being the the target and an abundance of inexpensive rental properties. Take away capitals gains allowances on personal property (houses) and support (when properly managed) not for profit housing providers. Given good tenants earned security of tenancy and give good tenants the facility to pay advanced rent running into years and decades. Well earning tenants could invest in their skills and education rather than in mortgages and well earning couples might not both need to be working as hard and could have additional time for family and societal care.

I don’t think that the changes will all be easy - though most won’t be difficult - but they are clearly possible and practical too.

[Cowsham]

I got a dear John letter about 20 years ago simply because I expressed concern over the distance while at the interview and asked questions about city congestion, parking etc. They told me during the interview they'd probably pick the other more local guy who'd got through to interview stage.

I was a bit disappointed I didn't get the job cos it was well paid but it was for my own good. I didn't know it at the time that I had dodged a bullet ( pardon the pun relative to here in NI ).

The firm which had been established for over 100 years was taken over by a bigger multinational about a year later who due to company synergies closed the branch.

[Bmblbzzz]

Owner occupation of property can be a blessing and it can be a curse. There is certainly a shortage of properties to rent and we need to be looking towards the likes of Germany to see how that might be better managed. I’d like to see both property ownership not being the the target and an abundance of inexpensive rental properties. Take away capitals gains allowances on personal property (houses) and support (when properly managed) not for profit housing providers. Given good tenants earned security of tenancy and give good tenants the facility to pay advanced rent running into years and decades. Well earning tenants could invest in their skills and education rather than in mortgages and well earning couples might not both need to be working as hard and could have additional time for family and societal care.

I don’t think that the changes will all be easy - though most won’t be difficult - but they are clearly possible and practical too.

I think of all the changes you've mentioned (all of which are interesting), this would be the most difficult. It would require a total reframing of our relationship with not only property but wealth.

[Carlton green]

Owner occupation of property can be a blessing and it can be a curse. There is certainly a shortage of properties to rent and we need to be looking towards the likes of Germany to see how that might be better managed. I’d like to see both property ownership not being the the target and an abundance of inexpensive rental properties. Take away capitals gains allowances on personal property (houses) and support (when properly managed) not for profit housing providers. Given good tenants earned security of tenancy and give good tenants the facility to pay advanced rent running into years and decades. Well earning tenants could invest in their skills and education rather than in mortgages and well earning couples might not both need to be working as hard and could have additional time for family and societal care.

I don’t think that the changes will all be easy - though most won’t be difficult - but they are clearly possible and practical too.

I think of all the changes you've mentioned (all of which are interesting), this would be the most difficult. It would require a total reframing of our relationship with not only property but wealth.

Well, it depends how far the model is taken and I hadn’t meant to suggest an exclusive model. In Germany it was the case that half the population didn’t own their own property but rather rented and some very nice places were available to rent (a friend of mine did just that and stayed in the same place for years).

Property can be a pain in the buttock and folk buy big houses as tax free investments that are next to guaranteed to increase in value. We’re nearly all sucked into that trap whereas without such a silly housing market we’d have time and money to invest in more productive things. Investments are investments and understandably the accrual of wealth has merits, but it doesn’t - or rather shouldn’t - need to be bricks and mortar. Indeed trapping people into bricks and mortar commitments stops them from moving to places where they’d be more economically active … Let people invest in industries, in their workplace, in their education, in their physical and mental health, in their families and in the communities in which they live.

I’m not saying that property ownership is a bad thing but rather that there’s a balance and that that balance has gone wrong. I’d like to see a really strong not for profit rental sector - which shouldn’t just mean ‘social housing’ - and I’d like to see the removal of capital gains allowances on first homes. It ain’t rocket science.