Are EVs the way forward?

[Sasquatch]

You won't be doing the NC500 then?

Search results for query: NC500

www.t6forum.com

Lots of Forum members use their vehicles for what you might describe as "frivolous" reasons.
If you seriously think that we'd be in any different situation even if we'd made only essential journeys over the last decade I've got a bridge to sell you.

I never used the word 'essential'. That's from you,so you can keep the bridge.

There is a sensible middle ground than no one seems to want to even discuss, much less actually visit. If people did the government wouldn't have the reason or ammunition to turn the screw on us.

Doing a tour once a year is completely different to driving 300 metres to the school gate twice a day all year round.

But have it your way. Enjoy your road pricing when it comes along, and don't complain when ULEZ comes to your neighbourhood. And sooner or later both will, and I'll be there to say "I told you so."

Enjoy!

 

[Bav]

I've not been brainwashed. I'm not an evangelist. Including my motorbike I own three times as many ICE vehicles as I do an electric one - a strange ownership profile for someone that's been brainwashed on the subject.

And I'm neither meek nor unquestioning. Rather I'm a realist. ULEZ is already here and complaining, questioning, call it what you will, won't make it go away. It doesnt matter how much I question it or how much I disapprove, it sint going away.

Road pricing is the next thing, and wailing and gnashing our teeth won't stop that either. Just because I van see it coming makes me neither brainwashed notpr unquestioning - rather it makes me prescient.

I'm not pleased or happy about either, but moaning on internet forums does nothing to change the future. One is here and growing and as sure as eggs is eggs the other will be coming. We as a user group do have the power to alter that future, but we won't because too many of use are frivolous in the use of our vehicles. They're the ones who've been brainwashed and they're too lazy to question it.

You're accepting it will happen and you're happy to parrot the playbook e.g. "to save the NHS". How does that work? Where’s the evidence that shows the NHS are under existential threat from people driving too far and the evidence this threat will be alleviated by driving less?

 

[The Flying Scotsman]

Yep, it's coming for everyone.

And we as a user group are to blame. No one else. It isn't there to penalise anything pedestrians are doing.

As for China burning orphans and stuff, I don't care. As aforementioned, I'm not an evangelist. I'm just a guy with an EV (and. T6.1, a Volvo, and a ZZR1400) who realises most of the excuses people trot out are nonsense. I have no views either way about what the rest of the world are up to with coal or oil, and I myself have three vehicles thst merrily burn the stuff.

But I will say this. China do lots of highly unpleasant things, and just because China do them is no justification or excuse for the UK to do it. If that's the best excuse we can come up with for carrying on as we are then we've already lost the argument.

That’s missing the point.
China being naughty isn’t the point.
The yanks are just as bad.
Then there’s the scores of 3rd world countries that are busy flattening rain forests and building their economies up burning coal.
The point is we can’t stop them doing it and telling them too isn’t going to work especially after we’ve been at it for over a century.
Unless all countries stop pollution then all the best efforts by our tiny country are totally wasted.
Not exactly inspiring to make the huge financial commitment required by us all. When this thread has made it clear EVs are not for us all.
Definitely would be handy having an extra wee car that I could charge off my solar panels to run about the town but realistically that’s all I would use it for.
And I’ve got a drive a solar panels on my house.

 

[DaveD]

Enjoy your road pricing when it comes along, and don't complain when ULEZ comes to your neighbourhood. And sooner or later both will, and I'll be there to say "I told you so."

I'm not sure that there'll be a ULEZ where I live, it's a bit out of the way, although congestion is an issue, so we might need a congestion zone, I got held up by a lot of pedestrians the other morning on my way to get a newspaper, I know, a bit frivolous;

 

[Sasquatch]

You're accepting it will happen and you're happy to parrot the playbook e.g. "to save the NHS". How does that work? Where’s the evidence that shows the NHS are under existential threat from people driving too far and the evidence this threat will be alleviated by driving less?

I never said "save the NHS."

l never suggested the NHS was facing any kind of existential crisis either.

We do seem to have a serious issue here with people putting words in the mouths of others, and failure to provide an accurate narration is why we as a user group are doomed to lose the argument with the government.

But back to the questiob. I think you'd find it difficult to argue that, for example, that reducing (not eliminating by any means) car use and encouraging active travel would not improve health. That reduces the load on the NHS as healthier people suffer less illness.

Also fewer road miles means less pollution. Again, beneficial for health, which reduces the load on the NHS.

Fewer road miles is liable to reduce the incidence of death and injury, which is again less work for the NHS (and other services) to do. On an average day 5 are killed, 82 receive life changing serious injuries, and tens of thousands suffer minor injuries on our roads. There's a lot of scope there to reduce demand on the NHS, police, trumpton, and the like.

And with less demand on NHS those resources can be used elsewhere, which I'm sure would be welcomed by my Mum's feller who had to wait 5 months for cancer treatment (unsurprisingly he didn't wait, he went elsewhere.) The NHS has better things it could be doing.

None of this is radical.

I can see that sitting on the fence is a pretty uncomfortable place for me to be!
I lpdont think EVs will safe the world, but then I never claimed they would.

 

[Sasquatch]

That’s missing the point.
China being naughty isn’t the point.

Then why was China mentioned?

I point out that I don't care what China get up to in response to it being raised, and now China's behaviour is missing the point so it's Ameica. Will we be citing the Maritians next?

Im not and never have suggested the E cars are going to save the world. My position is nothing more than theyre here and they aren't going away, and for the average Joe are perfectly acceptable for daily use.

Saving the bunnies, fish, ants, or planet at large is beyond the scope of my ability to either be interested or care. If you want to have a moan at someone in that regard then it's that Keith Starmer bloke or Greenpeace you need to write to. My interest and involvement extends as far as E cars utility as a vehicle, and no further.

Edit - please forgive me these multiple posts, still figuring out how to quote multiple bits in the same post.

 

[Stay Frosty]

Just keep adding the reply button in the bottom right, address that irrational outburst then add the next rabid anti EV comment and address that one with some fact checked logic...
Ironically I seem to manage the multiple reply trick just by hurling my phone when I finally realise the thread is simply going around in circles.

 

[Sasquatch]

Logged onto a proper pooter, think I can do it here. But time for some others to get their two penneth in rather than me monopolise things.

 

[Skyliner33]

Edit - please forgive me these multiple posts, still figuring out how to quote multiple bits in the same post.

 

[t0mb0]

Just keep adding the reply button in the bottom right, address that irrational outburst then add the next rabid anti EV comment and address that one with some fact checked logic...
Ironically I seem to manage the multiple reply trick just by hurling my phone when I finally realise the thread is simply going around in circles.

Agree, @Sasquatch deserves some kind of medal here. The fundamental issue, which is also common on twitter, is that it's far more time consuming to come up with a reasoned argument than it is to simply put words into someone else's mouth or otherwise fundamentally misconstrue their argument and just barrel on regardless. Thankfully this kind of thing is quite rare on the T6forum - probably because we focus on vans fairly successfully. I suggest we keep it that way and give up playing whack-a-mole.

 

[Bav]

I never said "save the NHS."

l never suggested the NHS was facing any kind of existential crisis either.

We do seem to have a serious issue here with people putting words in the mouths of others, and failure to provide an accurate narration is why we as a user group are doomed to lose the argument with the government.

Bit back to the questiob. I think you'd find it difficult to argue that, for example, that reducing (not eliminating by any means) car use and encouraging active travel would not improve health. That reduces the load on the NHS as healthier people suffer less illness.

Also fewer road miles means less pollution. Again, beneficial for health, which reduces the load on the NHS.

Fewer road miles is liable to reduce the incidence of death and injury, which is again less work for the NHS (and other services) to do. On an average day 5 are killed, 82 receive life changing serious injuries, and tens of thousands suffer minor injuries on our roads. There's a lot of scope there to reduce demand on the NHS, police, trumpton, and the like.

And with less demand on NHS those resources can be used elsewhere, which I'm sure would be welcomed by my Mum's feller who had to wait 5 months for cancer treatment (unsurprisingly he didn't wait, he went elsewhere.) The NHS has better things it could be doing.

None of this is radical.

I can see that sitting on the fence is a pretty uncomfortable place for me to be!
I lpdont think EVs will safe the world, but then I never claimed they would.

Let's be clear, I'm not advocating for driving where walking would be more appropriate (though if your half-mile school run involved a busy, single-track road, with lots of farm traffic and speeding 4x4 drivers, several blind bends, no verges and a 20 to 30% incline, you might not consider walking with children as being "more appropriate"). I'm railing against the prospect of (and the blind acceptance by others of) the curtailment of the freedom to drive where you want, when you want, because you want, all because some climate crisis fruitcakes demand you play along with their view that people should just "drive less". My response to those fruitcakes is not repeatable in polite company.

As for personal fitness, the freedom to drive and personal fitness are not mutually exclusive. If that's how you believe the NHS will be helped by reducing miles driven, then you are falsely conflating two separate issues. Someone who has an unhealthy lifestyle who only drives in their local area is still someone with an unhealthy lifestyle.

Re air pollution - it's a very self-absorbed, urban-centric view to wish to curtail the freedoms of others just because they might rock-up in your neighbourhood. I've no wish to drive in god-awful cities, but if I did, no doubt they'd get their pound of flesh via emissions, congestion and parking charges, etc.

Re fewer driven miles = less road deaths/injuries, that's obvious, but the logical conclusion of that a argument is that zero driven miles is best... except that totally disregards all the significant societal benefits and progress that has been (and still is) enabled by personal transport.

As they stand, EVs are not for me, but I don't have anything against EVs if they suit others. I do, however, vehemently object to an EV-only future being foisted upon the public by those who spend their life in the UK city with a public transport system that is incomparable to anywhere else in the country.

 

[The Flying Scotsman]

Let's be clear, I'm not advocating for driving where walking would be more appropriate (though if your half-mile school run involved a busy, single-track road, with lots of farm traffic and speeding 4x4 drivers, several blind bends, no verges and a 20 to 30% incline, you might not consider walking with children as being "more appropriate"). I'm railing against the prospect of (and the blind acceptance by others of) the curtailment of the freedom to drive where you want, when you want, because you want, all because some climate crisis fruitcakes demand you play along with their view that people should just "drive less". My response to those fruitcakes is not be repeatable in polite company.

As for personal fitness, the freedom to drive and personal fitness are not mutually exclusive. If that's how you believe the NHS will be helped by reducing miles driven, then you are falsely conflating two separate issues. Someone who has an unhealthy lifestyle who only drives in their local area is still someone with an unhealthy lifestyle.

Re air pollution - it's a very self-absorbed, urban-centric view to wish to curtail the freedoms of others just because they might rock-up in your neighbourhood. I've no wish to drive in god-awful cities, but if I did, no doubt they'd get their pound of flesh via emissions, congestion and parking charges, etc.

Re fewer driven miles = less road deaths/injuries, that's obvious, but the logical conclusion of that a argument is that zero driven miles is best... except that totally disregards all the significant societal benefits and progress that has been (and still is) enabled by personal transport.

As they stand, EVs are not for me, but I don't have anything against EVs if they suit others. I do, however, vehemently object to an EV-only future being foisted upon the public by those who spend their life in the UK city with a public transport system that is incomparable to anywhere else in the country.

Not another “irrational outburst” Bav?
You need to stick to the “ fact checked logic” that I seemed to of completely missed in the rest of the thread ?
Well I’m glad someone can see the point
We’re being forced to spend big bucks on something that’s nothing like ready to be a replacement for ICE powered cars.
All for a reason that will unfortunately just not achieve what it was designed for.
Having a positive impact on climate change.

 

[Bav]

Not another “irrational outburst” Bav?

Was that dig aimed at me? Who knew?

 

[Lubrown]

I never drive a journey I can reasonably walk or cycle.

Same here.
Meanwhile my heighboirs used to drive their daughter 0.6 of a mile for piano lessons. Two journeys (drop off and pick up). It literally took them longer to turn the car round and park both ends than it does to walk… I know as we once set out at the same time (me walking the dog).
Lots of folk so this type of stuff and these are the ones that need an EV. Or, better still, to just use their legs.

 

[Lubrown]

There is a sensible middle ground than no one seems to want to even discuss, much less actually visit. If people did the government wouldn't have the reason or ammunition to turn the screw on us.

Doing a tour once a year is completely different to driving 300 metres to the school gate twice a day all year round.

Spot on

 

[The Flying Scotsman]

Agree, @Sasquatch deserves some kind of medal here.

You wouldn’t be saying that in 10 years time if you’ve no driveway.
Be the bus for the ruffians that can’t afford a driveway abusing the “privilege” of being able to drive.

 

[t0mb0]

You wouldn’t be saying that in 10 years time if you’ve no driveway.
Be the bus for the ruffians that can’t afford a driveway abusing the “privilege” of being able to drive.

Fear not, you can charge up on my driveway and I ask only a doffed cap in return.

 

[The Flying Scotsman]

Fear not, you can charge up on my driveway and I ask only a doffed cap in return.

Thats very gentlemanly of you fine sir.
What even for “people like me” ?

 

[roadtripper]

Fear not, you can charge up on my driveway and I ask only a doffed cap in return.

So in about 10 years time when half of us have a Buzz we'll have the Forum Charging Network where we can each borrow each others chargers as we road trip to the opposite end of the country...

There's also probably going to be a point soon where advancing battery and solar tech means the ICE Campers are fully off grid and never need to plug into the grid and the EV Campers have to find a campsite with a 7kw destination charger at each pitch to plug into the grid, which is kind of ironic in many dimensions...

 

[Sackmycook]

as we road trip to the opposite end of the county...

Amended that for you.....