Electric cars more likely to hit pedestrians than petrol vehicles

[Biospace]

At which point the only clear way through this, is to adopt bicycle use for shorter trips when it is appropriate to do so, and for future planning to have shops and services closer to residential areas. No only do we cease the bickering over particulates, we strengthen the countries mental and physical health, reduce the cost of living and may even assist in the start up of new small business.

All it requires is a mindset to cycle in normal cycles on bicycles which are built for practicality and not performance.
There is a current on this forum for those to proclaim the miles they have cycled in a month or the height that they have climbed or whatever.... may I suggest another - the value of the goods (or weight) that we have transported from the shops to their home..

..if we want to change how cycling is viewed I would suggest that instead of cycling out jnto the countryside, we cycle into town.... only stopping for cake and tea when we have finished the grocery shop.

..we also need to protect the right to work from home - where it is appropriate for those workers to do so. The question is electric vs fossil fuel, but rather to question the need for travel in the first instance.

^^ ‘Spot on’ !! So many good points and such a better focus for how we interact with transport.

I very much agree with all of this.

And the more people acquire, the less realistic and in touch with reality they (so often) become.

[gbnz]

But doesn't a "green" thread, do more to highlight the hypocritical nature of human existence, than any other?

I'm not a green person, merely being a tight so & so..only create a fraction of the pollution of most (Nb. Was bizarre, read an email today, stating that I only use perhaps 37% of the energy used, by the typical user in the social complex of flats I live in).

Though I do use a carrier bag, was bought perhaps 10-12 years back, has been repaired many times, may need replaced soon ) (Nb. The cost. Are they still £ 0.10 ). A roll of parcel tape to repair it, could cost £0.50 ? Buy a replacement ?

So how many contributing to this thread, have used a motor vehicle in the past 5yr's (Nb. Obviously I haven't, apparently they cost £'s). But some people who claim to be cyclists, have been known to drive a motor vehicle

[rareposter]

So the critics of EVs move on to a minor source of particulate pollution - tyres - and don't they go on-and-on-and-on about it.

It's not a minor source at all, it's way more serious than originally thought:
https://ecostandard.org/news_events/tyr ... in-the-eu/

There are loads more articles from (credible!) newspapers to scientific papers detailing the effects. Obviously tyre wear is not unique to EVs, it's from all vehicles although the way things are going with ever bigger / heavier vehicles, EVs are slightly worse.

EVs are the future of cars.
But cars are not - and cannot be allowed to be - the future of transport.

There'll always be a place for them, at least for the foreseeable future. But we need far fewer cars in general.

[Carlton green]

And the more people acquire, the less realistic and in touch with reality they (so often) become.

The thread seems to be going off at a tangent and my thoughts below don’t help its return.

It occurs to me that folk are seemingly happy to spend mega bucks on fancy cars that depreciate loads of dosh but are very unhappy to pay taxes to fund roads without potholes and public transport. Better roads would mean that they didn’t need an expensive SUV (because something smaller and lighter could then do the job), and using public transport could enable them to ride relatively cheaply whilst they read a paper, otherwise entertain themselves and worked over mobile internet. Riding on a bus might even remind people that they were part of a wider society … We shouldn’t be selling folk fancy and expensive cars, it’s a waste for them and its disadvantageous to society; we should be getting them to pay a little more tax to fund better roads and better public transport.

EVs are the future of cars.
But cars are not - and cannot be allowed to be - the future of transport.

There'll always be a place for them, at least for the foreseeable future. But we need far fewer cars in general.

^^ Plus one .

We need fewer cars in general, a change in attitudes to driving and much less need for people to have to drive.

[gbnz]

Several true points there. Motoring does have a stranglehold on how we do things and it should not be the case. Whilst I drive, and long have done so, I believe that public transport should be so good that driving ones own vehicle becomes the second rather than the first choice. Well, that and that active transport returns as a viable way of getting around; within the last hour I was talking to an old guy who’s Uncle used to ride over ten miles each way to work along a road which today I wouldn’t dare venture onto on a bike.

Amongst the best ways to reduce vehicle emissions is for their mileage to be reduced. Similarly a good way to reduce casualties on the road is for the roads to be less busy.

[/quote]

Doesn't motoring have a stranglehold on how you do things, because that's what you chose? You state

1. I believe in public transport, but
2. I choose to drive
3. I wouldn't dare to venture onto that road on a bike (Nb. Do you drive it, or take your beloved public transport, which in probability, you don't use ?)
4. Best ways to reduce vehicle emissions is for their mileage to be reduced..........states one who chooses to drive and thus, increase his mileage and thus the emissions he creates
5. A good way to reduce casualties on the road is for the roads to be less busy......states one who chooses to drive and this ensure the roads are busier than they have to be

You haven't got an OAP bus pass have you, for your beloved ideal of public transport

[gbnz]

We need fewer cars in general, a change in attitudes to driving and much less need for people to have to drive.

Says one who chooses to drive, hasn't changed his attitude to driving and thus ensures that he's one of the majority, who chooses to have a need to drive .

Am not green, fully accept that most will generate vast quantities of pollution for what they want to do. But al least be honest and state I like to pollute and create busier roads, in probability generating more traffic incidents, because I love the ideal of public transport (Nb. But don't use it myself, much prefer the car)

Oh, I can't stand public transport, much prefer the bike or trains, which tend to carry higher socio economic groupings. Much preferable

[rareposter]

Says one who chooses to drive, hasn't changed his attitude to driving and thus ensures that he's one of the majority, who chooses to have a need to drive .

I think personal attacks on an individual "choosing" to drive (as you put it) is a pretty low ball to be honest, it's not helpful to the debate at all.

You (or I) have no idea why Carlton green "chooses" to drive but a few suggestions:
- maybe Cg "has" to drive because there is no / limited public transport at the time required?
- maybe it's a time thing, whereby a car is the quickest and most reliable way?
- maybe the area has been built in such a way that a car is the only viable choice?
- maybe the car is shared across the family?

There are hundreds of reasons and picking on an individual because they own a car is not the right way to go about this conversation. Many people (including many cyclists) own cars because the entire country has been designed, built, developed and evolved along that way over the last 40+ years. It's not hypocritical to own and use a car. In fact it's perfectly possible to own and use a car but to use it infrequently, or for trips where nothing else really caters for that demand. It's a societal issue, not a personal one.

Yes, we should all be aiming to drive less. But it's fairly pointless telling someone not to drive if they need to get 80 miles away on a Sunday evening and the last public transport options stopped on Saturday night.

[Carlton green]

Several true points there. Motoring does have a stranglehold on how we do things and it should not be the case. Whilst I drive, and long have done so, I believe that public transport should be so good that driving ones own vehicle becomes the second rather than the first choice. Well, that and that active transport returns as a viable way of getting around; within the last hour I was talking to an old guy who’s Uncle used to ride over ten miles each way to work along a road which today I wouldn’t dare venture onto on a bike.

Amongst the best ways to reduce vehicle emissions is for their mileage to be reduced. Similarly a good way to reduce casualties on the road is for the roads to be less busy.

Doesn't motoring have a stranglehold on how you do things, because that's what you chose? You state

1. I believe in public transport, but
2. I choose to drive
3. I wouldn't dare to venture onto that road on a bike (Nb. Do you drive it, or take your beloved public transport)
4. Best ways to reduce vehicle emissions is for their mileage to be reduced..........states one who chooses to drive and thus, increase his milage and the emissions he creates
5. A good way to reduce casualties on the road is for the roads to be less busy......states one who chooses to drive and this ensure the roads are busier than they have to be

You haven't got an OAP bus pass have you, for your beloved ideal of public transport

approach?

That’s a bit caustic, but never mind.

Where I live there’s never been much public transport and there’s now less than there used to be. When I lived in a city then I used public transport for many of my journeys, even there it wasn’t perfect but it was a workable option. My last journey in a car (in my own small car) was carrying heavy equipment - a round trip of near thirty miles - and to a place where I couldn’t have got a bus to. I cycle locally and try to be an ambassador for cycling, showing others some of what you can do.

Approach? I don’t claim to be either perfect or heroic, and I don’t try to match what others can do I just try to be as good a citizen as I feel I can be. As a project I’ve just bought a folding bike with the idea of trying hybrid transport for some journeys; the idea being to use a bus - though there aren’t many here - for the main part of a journey and a bike for the remainder. The idea might not work, but if it does then hopefully it will both help me and provide a positive example to other people too - a good citizen.

I realise that you cycle what would be considered significant distances and often do so on major roads. Those are unusual choices and feats that very few can match, I salute your determination and fearlessness. My own choice, and it hasn’t changed over the decades, is not to put my life at a distinct risk by riding on particular roads and to undertake those journeys which lie within what I’m confident of doing.

…. within the last hour I was talking to an old guy who’s Uncle used to ride over ten miles each way to work along a road which today I wouldn’t dare venture onto on a bike.

To quote myself above. I’d love to see the roads as safer places. The road in question now has much more traffic on it than it did decades ago and people now drive along it in large SUV’s rather than (small) Morris Minors, and then there’s the articulated lorrys picking their way along a too narrow and winding road. Along with many other cyclists I’m forced - at least intimidated - off of too many roads by high volumes of oversized motorised vehicles. My own car is small, I drive relatively slowly and am ever mindful of cyclists.

[cycle tramp]

So how many contributing to this thread, have used a motor vehicle in the past 5yr's (Nb. Obviously I haven't, apparently they cost £'s). But some people who claim to be cyclists, have been known to drive a motor vehicle

Oh, in interests of full disclosure that would definitely be me. I think before covid I was putting some nine thousand miles on the clock... After covid it fell to just over two thousand... as working from home became more accepted. Its one of the reasons why I found thingy-whatist-mogg so damned annoying.
We as a society should be letting people work from home, it saves on roadwear and as noone appears to be making the landmass of Great Britain any larger, we can use the empty offices as housing. Not being on the road means that more people are protected from road collisions, and the emergency services are under less pressure.

Anyway.. yes the car is still being used - about 12-15 trips a month, compared with 35-40 or so trips by bike.

[mattheus]

There is a current on this forum [I'd say it's more prevalent in many other parts of the internet - M] for those to proclaim the miles they have cycled in a month or the height that they have climbed or whatever.... may I suggest another - the value of the goods (or weight) that we have transported from the shops to their home..

What a lovely idea

[rjb]

There's a thought provoking video here which shows how the collision prevention saves a pedestrian from serious injury when he falls off the pavement into the path of a Tesla. Unfortunately the car then collides with an incoming vehicle.
https://youtu.be/QNgtceetrUo?si=71EpJkvbbwF55XeS

A lot of comments seem to suggest that it was the driver who diverted, not the 'autopilot'

[Tangled Metal]

Holier than thou attitudes / claims do nothing to change minds. However since COVID our family dropped our mileage from 20k plus a year on the main vehicle and a ferw thousands on the second to 6500 miles on one vehicle and only one vehicle. The train took the strain instead. My partner for a significant part of that time worked almost completely from home and when she had to go to work on site she commuterd by train. I used the train with Brompton and occasionally car every work day.

Then for the last year plus I have been at a new job and have on average over that time went to site once every 2 or 3 weeks or less. My work site days meant train and Brompton. I reckon our annual vehicle mileage is going to be less than 6500 now.

My work is looking like a return to working from site, I now have to do 3 days a week on site. This is likely to become 4 and probably 4.5 days. I am against this because my train route often cancels trains. It is unreliable and if it gets worse it might force me to commute by vehicle not by train and bike. The company moved to a lot of WFH due to COVID. Then the company did research into productivity and found out that it was higher with WFH. This company research adds weight to the idea that it is retrorgressive to switch back to full time on site. I have always said that the issue with commuting is the switch from working near where you live to working away from where you live. I think if WFH is not possible then it is better to live near your work if you can or live where commuting by train / other public transport is possible.

I am lucky in that I live in a beautiful small village in the country with a branch line train station. It goes one way to Manchester where my partner has her office and the other way leads to my work site. I lived further along that liine before I moved and then got this new job. It used to be dead on reliable with very few cancelled trains.

Then they changed from the two operator strategy and chose the least reliable operator to take over all the trains. This company has got worse and worse. Now it cancels at least one train per day and often several trains cancelled. I get the first train of the day to work and it is reliable. Coming home I often see two trains cancelled. It is ok if it is my intended train and the one before but I am not that lucky when I leave there are two trains with about 30 minutes separation, other hours they are once per hour. So I have a half hour wait at times. Other times both those trains are cancelled and I have potenitally an hour and half once even two hours wait at the station.

There are no bus options. There are maybe one bus out every 2 hours. Then you have to get off that bus to catch another then a third to get to my town of work.. Coming home it is the same but there is likely to be a last bus after I would need to catch it so I get stranded about 20 minutes drive by car away from home. Not a nice Brompton bike ride for that every work day.

If I can not work from home, if I can not rely on or use the train (two or three periods of no trains at all in the last year of a week or long, in one case a couple of months) then I have no choice but to use a personal vehicle and the extra pollution that entails. I need to work to survive I need to get to work site to work due to the idiotic decision of senior management (suspicion it is to save face and prevent a tribunal payout if there is that rumoured group action goes ahead) so I might need to use a car for that.

BTW I have solar panels, low car use, bike use and as low impact lifestyle as I can. For example three of us use the water level of one person according to our utility provider's own calculations. We use delivery for food (limited food sources in the village and we could not afford to buy just from the village. The nearest supermarket is 20 plus bike ride but even that is not efficient and also too expensive due to it being a premium supermarket brand. So we use a delivery van as the least impact option we can achieve due to our circumstances.

Of course some would criticise us for even those steps. That is the holier than thou attitude where if you are using a car at all you are part of the evil polluter cartel or whatever. The thing is we have possibly almost halved or reduced by a third our impact on the planet since Covid changed our mindset. I think that is something that if everyone could do we would be in a better place. I do not feel wrecking your life or going to extreme is needed to make a worthwhile change.

[Biospace]

And the more people acquire, the less realistic and in touch with reality they (so often) become.

The thread seems to be going off at a tangent and my thoughts below don’t help its return.

It occurs to me that folk are seemingly happy to spend mega bucks on fancy cars that depreciate loads of dosh but are very unhappy to pay taxes to fund roads without potholes and public transport. Better roads would mean that they didn’t need an expensive SUV (because something smaller and lighter could then do the job), and using public transport could enable them to ride relatively cheaply whilst they read a paper, otherwise entertain themselves and worked over mobile internet. Riding on a bus might even remind people that they were part of a wider society … We shouldn’t be selling folk fancy and expensive cars, it’s a waste for them and its disadvantageous to society; we should be getting them to pay a little more tax to fund better roads and better public transport.

Yes, and let's not in any way add any credence whatsoever to the myth you need a heavy, large vehicle to negotiate roads in poor states of repair given it's so very much not the case.

It's those susceptible to fashion who've had problems with their Audis and similar with shallow tyres and stiff suspension who so often move to a SUV in the belief they'll be protected from potholes and kerbs, yet look at some of the more fashionable SUVs and their tyres are going the same way.

More mass means more of a thump for the vehicle wheel and occupant alike, we need more sensible tyres and suspension once again. Since German cars historically had 'fast' engines, people assumed their unyielding suspension was also somehow indicative of prowess, when the reality was that they simply didn't understand suspension.

French cars designed for their damaged, ancient post-war roads are the perfect example of how light weight is generally better for poor roads.

[Biospace]

Says one who chooses to drive, hasn't changed his attitude to driving and thus ensures that he's one of the majority, who chooses to have a need to drive

Are you aware of the relative carbon footprints for, say, a 20 mile trip by bicycle and one by more economical car?

[gbnz]

Says one who chooses to drive, hasn't changed his attitude to driving and thus ensures that he's one of the majority, who chooses to have a need to drive

Are you aware of the relative carbon footprints for, say, a 20 mile trip by bicycle and one by more economical car?

No.

But would be interested to know if I generate more pollution by walking or cycling that 20 mile trip, than by driving it in an economical car ?

Whilst I am not a green motorist, in probability like most green motorists, I would ignore any evidence and continue to walk & cycle that 20 mile trip, because like most people, environmental damage is irrelevant to myself, in relation to my chosen means of transport