|
|
Post by wapentake on Sept 9, 2024 8:44:10 GMT
The link for this is from the WEF so the wankers in Westminster will embrace it no doubt whilst being allowed official cars and vehicles of their own to get around in. Car sharing? I’m old enough to remember phone party lines where you had to share your phone line with another household and the conflict that often caused,even old enough to remember people queuing outside of phone boxes and banging on the windows “are you going to be much longer?” Car sharing can see that working well,the experiment starts in the Netherlands district called Merwede which if you remove the fourth and fifth letters becomes the French word Merde and we all know what that is and this idea is just that  link |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Sept 9, 2024 10:10:02 GMT
The link for this is from the WEF so the wankers in Westminster will embrace it no doubt whilst being allowed official cars and vehicles of their own to get around in. Car sharing? I’m old enough to remember phone party lines where you had to share your phone line with another household and the conflict that often caused,even old enough to remember people queuing outside of phone boxes and banging on the windows “are you going to be much longer?” Car sharing can see that working well,the experiment starts in the Netherlands district called Merwede which if you remove the fourth and fifth letters becomes the French word Merde and we all know what that is and this idea is just that linkI was thinking of something similar a while back, but it would not be a ban per se, but could happen naturally. It would likely happen once driverless cars are permitted on the roads. I mean level 5 where only the machine does the driving and the passengers can go to sleep on the back seat if they want.
It's to do with the economics of owning a car. Electric cars have very few moving parts, so like with jet engines over prop engines, the reliability increases and we could see they might run for half a million miles before wearing out. The other factors are the cost of ownership. For retail car costs there is a huge markup on everything. Ask a retail firm how much it is to change 4 tyres and it would be a lot more than if you had 100 000 cars and you put out a bid on that contract. Economy of scale can scale down costs. Now the key facts here are the average car spends most of its time unused and if you get a taxi you have to pay an adult wage on top. What changes is with driverless cars taxis would be about the same cost minus the driver's wages, so my reckoning is the cost of driving a car might fall say by 3/4 if you just booked driverless taxis for every trip you make. Disadvantages would be a slight delay between deciding to make a journey and the car turning up, but you can weigh that against the freedom to choose a different car for whatever journey you intend to make. Want to shift a lot, book an estate, want to impress a bird, then book a Ferrari etc.
Edit:
I just thought, when you rent a car you pay a lot for the problem the driver does not care too much about how he treats it so you have to photograph it for scuffs and dents. With driverless cars I expect accidents will entirely disappear except the odd mechanical failure. The machines will carry on learning more and more about driving until they are perfect. This driving perfection can also reduce wear and tear by smooth control of the car, no sudden braking or swerving etc to put undue strain on the mechanical side of things. Life expectancy should go right up and bring costs dramatically down. bodys workshops will be as rare as petrol pump attendants are now.
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Sept 9, 2024 11:05:17 GMT
The link for this is from the WEF so the wankers in Westminster will embrace it no doubt whilst being allowed official cars and vehicles of their own to get around in. Car sharing? I’m old enough to remember phone party lines where you had to share your phone line with another household and the conflict that often caused,even old enough to remember people queuing outside of phone boxes and banging on the windows “are you going to be much longer?” Car sharing can see that working well,the experiment starts in the Netherlands district called Merwede which if you remove the fourth and fifth letters becomes the French word Merde and we all know what that is and this idea is just that linkI was thinking of something similar a while back, but it would not be a ban per se, but could happen naturally. It would likely happen once driverless cars are permitted on the roads. I mean level 5 where only the machine does the driving and the passengers can go to sleep on the back seat if they want.
It's to do with the economics of owning a car. Electric cars have very few moving parts, so like with jet engines over prop engines, the reliability increases and we could see they might run for half a million miles before wearing out. The other factors are the cost of ownership. For retail car costs there is a huge markup on everything. Ask a retail firm how much it is to change 4 tyres and it would be a lot more than if you had 100 000 cars and you put out a bid on that contract. Economy of scale can scale down costs. Now the key facts here are the average car spends most of its time unused and if you get a taxi you have to pay an adult wage on top. What changes is with driverless cars taxis would be about the same cost minus the driver's wages, so my reckoning is the cost of driving a car might fall say by 3/4 if you just booked driverless taxis for every trip you make. Disadvantages would be a slight delay between deciding to make a journey and the car turning up, but you can weigh that against the freedom to choose a different car for whatever journey you intend to make. Want to shift a lot, book an estate, want to impress a bird, then book a Ferrari etc.
Edit:
I just thought, when you rent a car you pay a lot for the problem the driver does not care too much about how he treats it so you have to photograph it for scuffs and dents. With driverless cars I expect accidents will entirely disappear except the odd mechanical failure. The machines will carry on learning more and more about driving until they are perfect. This driving perfection can also reduce wear and tear by smooth control of the car, no sudden braking or swerving etc to put undue strain on the mechanical side of things. Life expectancy should go right up and bring costs dramatically down. bodys workshops will be as rare as petrol pump attendants are now.
Just can’t see it BVL the plebs have had enough crap already and if the elite keep their vehicle which they will it will all end in tears |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Sept 9, 2024 11:23:52 GMT
I was thinking of something similar a while back, but it would not be a ban per se, but could happen naturally. It would likely happen once driverless cars are permitted on the roads. I mean level 5 where only the machine does the driving and the passengers can go to sleep on the back seat if they want.
It's to do with the economics of owning a car. Electric cars have very few moving parts, so like with jet engines over prop engines, the reliability increases and we could see they might run for half a million miles before wearing out. The other factors are the cost of ownership. For retail car costs there is a huge markup on everything. Ask a retail firm how much it is to change 4 tyres and it would be a lot more than if you had 100 000 cars and you put out a bid on that contract. Economy of scale can scale down costs. Now the key facts here are the average car spends most of its time unused and if you get a taxi you have to pay an adult wage on top. What changes is with driverless cars taxis would be about the same cost minus the driver's wages, so my reckoning is the cost of driving a car might fall say by 3/4 if you just booked driverless taxis for every trip you make. Disadvantages would be a slight delay between deciding to make a journey and the car turning up, but you can weigh that against the freedom to choose a different car for whatever journey you intend to make. Want to shift a lot, book an estate, want to impress a bird, then book a Ferrari etc.
Edit:
I just thought, when you rent a car you pay a lot for the problem the driver does not care too much about how he treats it so you have to photograph it for scuffs and dents. With driverless cars I expect accidents will entirely disappear except the odd mechanical failure. The machines will carry on learning more and more about driving until they are perfect. This driving perfection can also reduce wear and tear by smooth control of the car, no sudden braking or swerving etc to put undue strain on the mechanical side of things. Life expectancy should go right up and bring costs dramatically down. bodys workshops will be as rare as petrol pump attendants are now.
Just can’t see it BVL the plebs have had enough crap already and if the elite keep their vehicle which they will it will all end in tears I think it would be excellent if you could just press a button on your phone and get any vehicle turning up within minutes at an average cost of only 25% of what you pay to own it outright and drive it. The thing is it relies on a mature and civilised society to operate such a scheme. Take a look around say the streets of Bristol and see what they have done to a once respectable architecturally interesting city of ours. There is shit everywhere. If they can't keep the streets clean, they certainly can't be trusted keeping a new hundred grand car clean. They would probably piss in it. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Sept 9, 2024 11:35:48 GMT
The link for this is from the WEF so the wankers in Westminster will embrace it no doubt whilst being allowed official cars and vehicles of their own to get around in. Car sharing? I’m old enough to remember phone party lines where you had to share your phone line with another household and the conflict that often caused,even old enough to remember people queuing outside of phone boxes and banging on the windows “are you going to be much longer?” Car sharing can see that working well,the experiment starts in the Netherlands district called Merwede which if you remove the fourth and fifth letters becomes the French word Merde and we all know what that is and this idea is just that linkWhat a croc of authoritarian left wing bloody rubbish. Christ almighty this is something straight out of 1984. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 9, 2024 12:32:53 GMT
This is all part of the net zero , 15 minute villages bollocks . It’s all about reducing car ownership to zero.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Sept 9, 2024 13:31:44 GMT
I agree with the above. They are absolute wankers. All we get in this country regarding global warming is diktat on what we are not allowed to do. Comparing our efforts to communist China, over there you get carrots rather than sticks, so the population think green tech is cool. The price of new cars has dropped and where you needed to beg for a permit before, with a green car you get one automatically, so like all the changes are welcome. You just have to face the fact Westminster politicians are more fascist than those countries who they accuse of being fascist. I don't believe you get 20mph zones in Russia either. A Chinese skate board would go faster than 20mph, lol.
We have to stop voting for these shits. Never vote for a dodgy candidate even if you support the party.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Sept 10, 2024 0:57:32 GMT
This is all part of the net zero , 15 minute villages bollocks . It’s all about reducing car ownership to zero. Unless you're one of the privileged, an MP or a minister, or an unelected commissioner who the aforementioned report to. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Sept 10, 2024 7:42:13 GMT
The world has been moving in this direction for some time.
Of my immediate neighbours only one "owns" their own car, the rest lease their vehicle, and some of them change them almost monthly.
In principle the ideas laid out in the link in the OP are not a bad idea, but as with everything the devil will be in the details.
The real sticking point will be the convenience of immediate availability.
Year on year it becomes clear that net zero is not just some "ideological liberal first-world faux-problem", it is essential to the ongoing social and economic* survival of our species.
And while I agree with those that say that major first-world economies can not achieve net zero on their own, that countries like the BRIC nations and much of Africa will have to do their bit as well, the truth is that they won't even consider doing it until some of the major first-word economies do so.
* Based on losses due to Climate Change so far this century even holding warming at current levels will likely cause $1,000 Trillion plus in economic damage over the next 50 years or so, much of it due to spiralling inflation due to economic disruption and uncertainty.
The most advanced economies are likely to be most affected, and the poorest in those economies will certainly be the most affected.
The UK accounts for 2.3% of total global economic output.
That equates to to a net loss to the UK economy of $23,500,000,000,000
The UK's total economic output for 2023 was $ 2,740,000,000,000.
That would mean that roughly, over the next 50 years, Climate Change will wipe out 11.65% of total UK economic output.
Does anyone think that as a nation we can survive that?
All The Best
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 10, 2024 8:36:56 GMT
The world has been moving in this direction for some time. Of my immediate neighbours only one "owns" their own car, the rest lease their vehicle, and some of them change them almost monthly. In principle the ideas laid out in the link in the OP are not a bad idea, but as with everything the devil will be in the details. The real sticking point will be the convenience of immediate availability. Year on year it becomes clear that net zero is not just some "ideological liberal first-world faux-problem", it is essential to the ongoing social and economic* survival of our species. And while I agree with those that say that major first-world economies can not achieve net zero on their own, that countries like the BRIC nations and much of Africa will have to do their bit as well, the truth is that they won't even consider doing it until some of the major first-word economies do so. * Based on losses due to Climate Change so far this century even holding warming at current levels will likely cause $1,000 Trillion plus in economic damage over the next 50 years or so, much of it due to spiralling inflation due to economic disruption and uncertainty. The most advanced economies are likely to be most affected, and the poorest in those economies will certainly be the most affected. The UK accounts for 2.3% of total global economic output. That equates to to a net loss to the UK economy of $23,500,000,000,000 The UK's total economic output for 2023 was $ 2,740,000,000,000. That would mean that roughly, over the next 50 years, Climate Change will wipe out 11.65% of total UK economic output. Does anyone think that as a nation we can survive that? All The Best Net Zero is indeed an ideological ploy to achieve a certain outcome. That outcome is to facilitate the ability of those who consider themselves the elite to live as they see fit whilst restricting all others to the limited resources available. In the worst case scenario it is a dystopian society of workers with controlled birthrates serving the whims of the profligate high society that rule through absolute power. I think the best scenario I can think of is still pretty bad. Our economy is only suffering because of the restrictions being placed upon it by 'ourselves'. |
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Sept 10, 2024 9:11:34 GMT
Something similar is happening in Cambridge, the communists in charge, the council, have it on their agenda to get rid of cars in the City centre by closing public car parks, charging ect. The council is run by the University, and private car parks will still operate, to be used by the Uni and business i presume.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Sept 10, 2024 10:22:42 GMT
The world has been moving in this direction for some time. Of my immediate neighbours only one "owns" their own car, the rest lease their vehicle, and some of them change them almost monthly. In principle the ideas laid out in the link in the OP are not a bad idea, but as with everything the devil will be in the details. The real sticking point will be the convenience of immediate availability. Year on year it becomes clear that net zero is not just some "ideological liberal first-world faux-problem", it is essential to the ongoing social and economic* survival of our species. And while I agree with those that say that major first-world economies can not achieve net zero on their own, that countries like the BRIC nations and much of Africa will have to do their bit as well, the truth is that they won't even consider doing it until some of the major first-word economies do so. * Based on losses due to Climate Change so far this century even holding warming at current levels will likely cause $1,000 Trillion plus in economic damage over the next 50 years or so, much of it due to spiralling inflation due to economic disruption and uncertainty. The most advanced economies are likely to be most affected, and the poorest in those economies will certainly be the most affected. The UK accounts for 2.3% of total global economic output. That equates to to a net loss to the UK economy of $23,500,000,000,000 The UK's total economic output for 2023 was $ 2,740,000,000,000. That would mean that roughly, over the next 50 years, Climate Change will wipe out 11.65% of total UK economic output. Does anyone think that as a nation we can survive that? All The Best In the worst case scenario it is a dystopian society of workers with controlled birthrates serving the whims of the profligate high society that rule through absolute power. I think the best scenario I can think of is still pretty bad. Our economy is only suffering because of the restrictions being placed upon it by 'ourselves'. That is called Capitalism. Climate Change IS happening. Man IS, at least, partly to blame. It WILL have a massive socio-economic impact on all of us, but mostly on the poor, as in NOT the top 5% of wealth-owners. So we have a choice: 1) Try to meet Net-Zero, and many people will have to suffer, BUT most of the world will still be habitable. 2) Pretend Net-Zero is just ideological posturing and do nothing, and many more will still have to suffer, AND the world will end up largely uninhabitable. Unless you are in the top 5% of wealth-owners you ARE going to get fucked, the only question is what kind of world do you want left afterwards. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Sept 10, 2024 10:37:32 GMT
Net Zero is indeed an ideological ploy to achieve a certain outcome. That outcome is to facilitate the ability of those who consider themselves the elite to live as they see fit whilst restricting all others to the limited resources available. In the worst case scenario it is a dystopian society of workers with controlled birthrates serving the whims of the profligate high society that rule through absolute power. I think the best scenario I can think of is still pretty bad. Our economy is only suffering because of the restrictions being placed upon it by 'ourselves'. That is called Capitalism. Climate Change IS happening. Man IS, at least, partly to blame. It WILL have a massive socio-economic impact on all of us, but mostly on the poor, as in NOT the top 5% of wealth-owners. So we have a choice: 1) Try to meet Net-Zero, and many people will have to suffer, BUT most of the world will still be habitable. 2) Pretend Net-Zero is just ideological posturing and do nothing, and many more will still have to suffer, AND the world will end up largely uninhabitable.Unless you are in the top 5% of wealth-owners you ARE going to get fucked, the only question is what kind of world do you want left afterwards. All The Best No it won’t,another one with all the hubris of the human race. The earth since its inception has had all sorts of crap thrown at it and much worse than anything the climate worshippers think up. If the human race ceases to exist life will go on,another species will emerge as top of the food chain and the earth will go on circling the sun we will have been a mere blip in its existence and finally a very longtime in to the future it will be consumed by a dying sun. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Sept 10, 2024 10:40:34 GMT
That is called Capitalism. Climate Change IS happening. Man IS, at least, partly to blame. It WILL have a massive socio-economic impact on all of us, but mostly on the poor, as in NOT the top 5% of wealth-owners. So we have a choice: 1) Try to meet Net-Zero, and many people will have to suffer, BUT most of the world will still be habitable. 2) Pretend Net-Zero is just ideological posturing and do nothing, and many more will still have to suffer, AND the world will end up largely uninhabitable.Unless you are in the top 5% of wealth-owners you ARE going to get fucked, the only question is what kind of world do you want left afterwards. All The Best No it won’t,another one with all the hubris of the human race. The earth since its inception has had all sorts of crap thrown at it and much worse than anything the climate worshippers think up. If the human race ceases to exist life will go on,another species will emerge as top of the food chain and the earth will go on circling the sun we will have been a mere blip in its existence and finally a very longtime in to the future it will be consumed by a dying sun. Well, clearly when I said "uninhabitable" I meant for humans, as they are the ones that build societies and economies. I'd have thought someone who was trying to pretend to be clever would at least managed to have worked that out. Guess I was wrong. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Sept 10, 2024 11:12:48 GMT
Net zero is the way Humans will achieve type 1 level of civilisation . We will not achieve it by using ‘ fossil fuels ‘. Climate change has made the need more urgent but it’s pointless unless the whole world does it together. As they are not going to do it together,we should try to reach net zero but over a longer time span . Build the infrastructure first ..and be honest with the public . If part of the plan is to deprive the public of private transport then admit it . en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale |
|
