Cycling UK Forum

That's the crux of the problem – as a society, we've grown used to seeing property as an investment and accustomed to the idea that our houses must appreciate in value faster than inflation.

Bmblbzzz wrote: ↑31 Jul 2023, 8:17pm That's the crux of the problem – as a society, we've grown used to seeing property as an investment and accustomed to the idea that our houses must appreciate in value faster than inflation.

Quite. Houses should not be primarily investment vehicles, houses should be primarily homes. As a general principle houses should not be exempt from capitals gains tax but in practice some fair allowance should be made for (costly and receipted) renovations, extensions and improvements, etc. Some will claim capital losses and in a downturn that might be the case so (to avoid calls on the Treasury) tax deductible losses will need to be capped at zero; in exchange for that zero cap property owners should have an annualised capital gains allowance that’s a capped percentage of property value in line with some Treasury approved inflation figure.

Whilst difficult to change there’s a better - if still imperfect - balance to be struck; treating home owners / buyers in a clearly preferential way (over conventional investors) is clearly unfair and it disturbs that balance - we desperately need equality.

Carlton green wrote: ↑31 Jul 2023, 4:08pm 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.

Totally. It has gone very badly wrong, to the extent decades of post-war social advances which had come to be taken for granted are now in reverse. Short termism is already biting the UK hard, it will only become more of a problem until the pendulum begins to move once again in the direction of equality and fairness.

The Tories developed a series of policies through the 80s which originated from emergency financial measures only for them to be continued by the Blair government and beyond. We're now veering dangerously close to the bankruptcy of the 1970s, except it appears not to matter so much today because with the US owing so many tens of trillions, it is now more manageable.

Thing is, fairness is very much in the eye of the beholder surely?
Is this fair? 1000 metre sprint in the velodrome. Chris Hoy (even in retirement) would be many times faster than me. Do we give me a 750 metre head start so we finish at the same time or do we let us start together and I get hammered? To the socialist way of thinking the former is correct, to me the latter.
Anyway, what the hell has this got to do with driving a EV?

mattsccm wrote: ↑2 Aug 2023, 8:16am ...
Anyway, what the hell has this got to do with driving a EV?

Every thread about EVs seems to suffer relentless diversion and whataboutery. It's a pity.

Jonathan

mattsccm wrote: ↑2 Aug 2023, 8:16am Thing is, fairness is very much in the eye of the beholder surely?
Is this fair? 1000 metre sprint in the velodrome. Chris Hoy (even in retirement) would be many times faster than me. Do we give me a 750 metre head start so we finish at the same time or do we let us start together and I get hammered? To the socialist way of thinking the former is correct, to me the latter.
Anyway, what the hell has this got to do with driving a EV?

To understand the relevance to driving a EV you’d have to read back about four or five days and see how the thread has developed.

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder, but actually some folk know that they have an unearned advantage and don’t give a dam about other folk.

Whatever EV’s, like ICV’s, are increasingly toys of the wealthy and a permission to continue both pollution and business as usual in one form or another.

Jdsk wrote: ↑2 Aug 2023, 8:29am

mattsccm wrote: ↑2 Aug 2023, 8:16am ...
Anyway, what the hell has this got to do with driving a EV?

Every thread about EVs seems to suffer relentless diversion and whataboutery. It's a pity.

Jonathan

Ah, but context is important too. It’s also usually possible to return threads towards their core topic and for the thread to be enriched by overlapping content, well that’s my experience.

Who would drive an EV? Well shortly anyone who drives at all because even before 2030 we won’t be able to buy anything else.
See the Daily Telegraph and The Times front pages here and read the articles: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-66379087

Perfection is the enemy of good …

Carlton green wrote: ↑2 Aug 2023, 8:39am

Jdsk wrote: ↑2 Aug 2023, 8:29am

mattsccm wrote: ↑2 Aug 2023, 8:16am ...
Anyway, what the hell has this got to do with driving a EV?

Every thread about EVs seems to suffer relentless diversion and whataboutery. It's a pity.

Jonathan

Ah, but context is important too. It’s also usually possible to return threads towards their core topic and for the thread to be enriched by overlapping content, well that’s my experience.

Who would drive an EV? Well shortly anyone who drives at all because even before 2030 we won’t be able to buy anything else.
See the Daily Telegraph and The Times front pages here and read the articles: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-66379087

Perfection is the enemy of good …

the 2030 deadline is for sales of new internal combustion engined vehicles right?

mig wrote: ↑2 Aug 2023, 11:23am

Carlton green wrote: ↑2 Aug 2023, 8:39am

Jdsk wrote: ↑2 Aug 2023, 8:29am
Every thread about EVs seems to suffer relentless diversion and whataboutery. It's a pity.

Jonathan

Ah, but context is important too. It’s also usually possible to return threads towards their core topic and for the thread to be enriched by overlapping content, well that’s my experience.

Who would drive an EV? Well shortly anyone who drives at all because even before 2030 we won’t be able to buy anything else.
See the Daily Telegraph and The Times front pages here and read the articles: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-66379087

Perfection is the enemy of good …

the 2030 deadline is for sales of new internal combustion engined vehicles right?

Yes that’s right, although hybrids will be allowed to 2035.

The looming issue, it appears from the articles, is that ahead of that date manufacturers will be forced to either make significant percentages of battery cars instead of petrol cars or face punitive fines. You can only buy new what the manufacturers make so ahead of 2030 expect not to be able to buy a new petrol car - supply will likely be either short or nonexistent.

Heard Grant Shapps on R4 World at One earlier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant_Shapps

He was being interviewed, and he said ............. and I quote ............... "zero carbon cars" ..................
I laughed out loud!

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but EV cars require more carbon to manufacture than a "conventional" ICE car. Other than that, they still need brakes and tyres and plastic and paint etc etc etc etc.
He should have said, "zero emissions" of course, but even that's debatable as they need charging with electricity, and they need lithium extracted from the earth, so there's lots of emissions just to make them.

It's impossible to have a "zero carbon" car.

Mick F wrote: ↑2 Aug 2023, 2:51pm ...
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but EV cars require more carbon to manufacture than a "conventional" ICE car. Other than that, they still need brakes and tyres and plastic and paint etc etc etc etc.
...

Do you mean that more carbon dioxide is produced in their manufacture?

There's extensive recent discussion of this and use of the Climobil calculator in the BEVs thread.

Jonathan

I would. European electric car for £16K, https://youtu.be/K9GMBOYJhyg

Jdsk wrote: ↑2 Aug 2023, 8:29am Every thread about EVs seems to suffer relentless diversion and whataboutery. It's a pity.

Whereas every other thread keeps completely on topic

Mick F wrote: ↑2 Aug 2023, 2:51pm Heard Grant Shapps on R4 World at One earlier... he said ............. and I quote ............... "zero carbon cars" ..................
I laughed out loud!

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but EV cars require more carbon to manufacture than a "conventional" ICE car. Other than that, they still need brakes and tyres and plastic and paint etc etc etc etc.
He should have said, "zero emissions" of course, but even that's debatable as they need charging with electricity, and they need lithium extracted from the earth, so there's lots of emissions just to make them.

It's impossible to have a "zero carbon" car.

Well done for pointing out the elephant in the room which some studiously ignore. On the BEV thread plenty of untruths have been uncovered. It's been clearly demonstrated that many BEVs have larger carbon footprints, at present, than more efficient cars with engines.

"Zero Emissions Vehicle" is no more than a blatant lie, no matter how it is inferred. Emissions are created from start to finish, and beyond. In particular, particulate emissions at the point of use are estimated to be approaching (90%+) those of a ICEv.

When battery mining and manufacture, when EV manufacture and energy to make them work is powered mostly (85% or over, say) by low carbon energy sources (preferably renewables), then they will be able to be regarded as reasonably low impact from a climate perspective.

However, the environmentally toxic factors shouldn't be ignored just because The Climate has, according to govts, been sated. Printed circuit boards are a toxic nightmare, yet cars are using more and more of them, often unnecessarily https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... nt-climate

As time goes by, the carbon footprint of EVs will reduce. They're smoother, quieter, faster, easier to make more comfortable and don't chew through fuel in a traffic jam. I just don't see how they are in any way an answer to our problems, given they are growing heavier, more powerful and without hint of any limit on battery size. And Governments are suggesting they can be used without guilt.

The EU ruled on the max power of vacuum cleaners and light bulbs, so why not motor cars given they are so many times more harmful?

Carlton green wrote: ↑2 Aug 2023, 8:39am

Jdsk wrote: ↑2 Aug 2023, 8:29am

mattsccm wrote: ↑2 Aug 2023, 8:16am ...
Anyway, what the hell has this got to do with driving a EV?

Every thread about EVs seems to suffer relentless diversion and whataboutery. It's a pity.

Jonathan

Who would drive an EV? Well shortly anyone who drives at all because even before 2030 we won’t be able to buy anything else.

I suspect that the 2030 deadline will be rolled back, simply due to the lack of infrastructure.
Whilst recharging any electric car in a private driveway is a relatively simple matter, for anyone who parks on the street its going to be an interesting experience. The Government has simply stated that street lamps will be used as re-charging points- which if you think about it just doesn't stack up. Where I live we've got one street light for every fifteen to twenty five houses - and there's alot of rural areas which don't even have street lights of off street parking.
Even if you were to use lamp posts as charging points, the pavement will become a tripping hazard for anyone attempting to walk on them, due to the number of power cables.
You could put alot more charging points at the edge of the road, but any upright posts between the pavement and road becomes a hazard for any road user - plus it would require a massive amount of Government investment.
And this is before we consider power cuts. When a row of street lamp fails, its usually caused by an issue to the national grid which feeds the street lamps. Inspection and repair time is measured in months. If this doesn't change then people may be without a charging point for their car for months.
We also have to consider that in some modern developments where demand for parking outstrips the supply, there may even be too many cars for too few charging points.