stuart little
Established Member
Sounds about right! Why am I not surprised?
Electric vehicles
- Thread starter Woodchips2
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Terrytpot
Established Member
Nottingham City Council wisely constructed one of their Park and ride sites right next to the river Trent…lost count of how many times I drove past it and it was closed due to flooding.
Attachments
I lived in a similar terrace in Coventry, used to think it was bad on Match days now most in that street are HMOs on a 12 foot pitch so less than 1 space per house. Not saying it isn't a problem just that the figures don't give the full picture.
If those of us who don't need larger vehicles drove electric cars the size of a Smart car things would be easier. If I could hire a car like that with the option to swap it for those occasions when I need something different maybe a pick-up w/wo a trailer or 5 seat car to go on holiday etc. it would make life easier in these situations. Not solve the problem just a small step in the right direction. We need to get away from the typical 5 seat car taking 1 person to work norm but it would be nice to find the most convenient way of doing it.
At least it wasn't houses
woodieallen
Established Member
Reporting back....
In post 2978, I asked Johnb80 for evidence to support his statement that 'the majority of households had off-street parking'. Of course, the word 'majority'is meaningless since it is subjective and be used to distort the true facts. For example, 50.00000000001% is a majority but to many people 'majority' is thought to be a much greater percentage, I think, up in the 65% or more category. What we need are figures which he duly provided in post 2981 and 2983. I posited that these reports were perhaps created by those with an agenda ie pro-EV. So I did some digging.
Looking at his quote in 2983 first.
But just wait a tick. If 60% = 14.5 million then 100% (ie the households in England) must then be 24 million. Agreed ? Only the actual number of households in England was around 27.2 milllion (source ONS). So if that report can get that fundamental figure so wrong, it ceases to have any validity at all with regard to other figures that it comes up with.
And so that's a FAIL
If anyone is interested, I can detail the flaws in the second source that he quoted in post 2981 - the RAC Standing Still report. Let me know.
In post 2978, I asked Johnb80 for evidence to support his statement that 'the majority of households had off-street parking'. Of course, the word 'majority'is meaningless since it is subjective and be used to distort the true facts. For example, 50.00000000001% is a majority but to many people 'majority' is thought to be a much greater percentage, I think, up in the 65% or more category. What we need are figures which he duly provided in post 2981 and 2983. I posited that these reports were perhaps created by those with an agenda ie pro-EV. So I did some digging.
Looking at his quote in 2983 first.
This report was carried out in 2017/2018 and is the English Housing Survey. It is done by taking a sample of the households in England, then carrying out interviews and measurements etc and then multiplying by a factor to give an overall view as to the housing stock in England. At least it is supposed to. The sample size is relativel small at 13,395 but statisticians work their 'magic' (yes, we all know the adage...) and come up with 'Around 60% or 14.5 million homes had a parking space'.
But just wait a tick. If 60% = 14.5 million then 100% (ie the households in England) must then be 24 million. Agreed ? Only the actual number of households in England was around 27.2 milllion (source ONS). So if that report can get that fundamental figure so wrong, it ceases to have any validity at all with regard to other figures that it comes up with.
And so that's a FAIL
If anyone is interested, I can detail the flaws in the second source that he quoted in post 2981 - the RAC Standing Still report. Let me know.
selectortone
Still waking up not dead in the morning
Oil prices have been falling for the last two years despite everything OPEC and Putin have tried in order to maintain a target price of $100/barrel. Currently it's around $67/barrel (Brent crude $71). There is the argument that we have reached 'peak oil' and due to the push away from fossil fuels to cleaner energy demand for oil will continue to fall.
So, all you anti-EV types, you're benefiting from EVs too. Cheaper petrol and diesel at the pumps.
Last edited:
Horses for courses I guess, I have about the largest 4x4 on the road but it is full of tree surgery kit, if not antique furniture for restoration or failing that blokes and climbing kit. The issue I have with tiny vehicles is safety, I prefer having a couple of tonnes of metal around me for safety. The issue the government will come across is that there is and will continue to be massive resistance to efforts to change transportation.
suspect no one got sacked for that decision...
Last edited:
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
Until the government realise the tax take is diminishing so whack more tax on it.
selectortone
Still waking up not dead in the morning
Of course.
And until the BBC whip up the next false 'shortage at the pumps' round of hysteria.
Agent_zed
Established Member
https://theconversation.com/big-car...vehicle-size-impacts-others-in-a-crash-223343
some interesting points in the above.
'Children are eight times more likely to die when struck by an SUV compared to lighter and smaller cars.'
'For every fatal accident avoided by someone inside a large vehicle, there are at least 4.3 additional fatal accidents involving others'
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212012213000142
'Doubling vehicle weight ratio leads to tenfold increase in fatal accident probability.'
(I take the above statement to be that it could include the other car involved in the accident also.)
Although not in the above study it's also well know that suv type vehicles are ~50% more likely to roll in an accident and are generally less able to manoeuvre and stop as easily as smaller cars.
So depending on how you look at it, a small car can be significantly safer if you are being hit by it as a pedestrian (particularly children).
The best way to offset this of course would be to drive significantly slower in larger vehicles, but if you look at motorway traffic you'll mostly see the larger vehicles on the inside lane often at or exceeding the speedlimit.
So what is the solution for me carting my gear around? It won't fit in a small vehicle and I am not going to stop carrying it around. And as for driving significantly slower that isn't going to happen either, I don't rush and when driving the 4x4 my default mode is cruise rather than drive rapidly, which feels more natural in a lower slung car such as a 2 seater.
It might be a tad difficult to get all that in a smart car but it's a bit of a miss conception that heavy vehicles are safer.
The tech exists, and it's quite good to detect pedestrians (and other vehicles) and apply breaks before an impact. Current pedestrian impact legislation gives no credit for it, if fitting it reduced some of the impact requirements personally I think we would see lower injuries without trying to make people drive at 20mph.
It really does depend on the impact. Side impact you are usually safer, rear a little but frontal not so much.
Agent_zed
Established Member
Trailer?
I wasn't necessarily suggesting reducing to 20mph, more a case that if people for a start drove within the speed limits and road conditions safety would siginificantly improve and then on top of that if you drive a large vehicle, drive a bit slower (5-10%) than smaller vehicles overall safety would be better for everyone. It's not the weirdest concept, commercial vehicles already have to drive slower on most roads. There is a reason HGV's aren't doing 70mph on the inside lane. Maybe we could get people who tow to stay within the speed limit for towing too.
I have a trailer and unlike the youngsters who pass driving tests now, I don't need an additional licence to tow it thankfully . It reduces my mpg by a significant percentage, it's less secure than a car to leave unoccupied, in an accident it is likely to cause additional damage to someone, it makes driving more difficult - its unbraked. Not viable for long distance - highlands, islands, alps etc.
agree - many people tow without due care - unfamiliarity being a big issue
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
That's no longer necessary since 16/12/21. I didn't think it was a bad law despite my having grandfather rights to tow a trailer, drive 7.5T truck.
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
Did you renew at 70, or haven't you hit that milestone yet?
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
I'm not sure knowing the exact number has any real bearing. If you dig around there are more studies which show there are more homes in the UK that have off road parking than not. In fairness that's a majority even if the number that do not is still significant (which it is). I know from reading some of the studies that there are wide regional variations and expect that these correlate with the types of homes (terraced, flats etc) in the area.
My perception is that the availability of public charging has improved over the last year but it has a long way to go before I'd want to go for an EV if I did not have home charging facilities. Hopefully as we continue to transition (and the technology advances) this will be addressed.
Similar threads
