Have you noticed....

[aet1]

I have no particular banner to wave on this, other than to say that I am a fervent supporter of doing what we can to mitigate the damage that we as a race have done to our planet.

But I would like to make a couple of observations:

On "cars should be smaller": cars are larger these days primarily as a result of increased safety demands.

On "electric cars": time will tell us fairly soon, but as an engineer I'm of the opinion that in the UK at least, there is not a snowballs chance of the critical infrastructure coping with the demand, especially when most of our electricity will be trying to squeeze enough heat from fresh air to keep us warm. And don't get me started on the environmental damage caused during their manufacture.....

On "buses": around here the average bus has a similar average occupancy to the cars. I totally agree that this is cause and effect, but it is the case nonetheless.

Lastly, my "SUV" (an acronym for a term written by someone with a passing acquaintance of the English language) weighs 2.5 tons; the only regular passenger has four legs, big teeth and drools; it carries lots of very heavy, delicate and expensive equipment; regularly does 300 to 400 miles a day and for example is right now 2 miles from the nearest public road, let alone public transport. Again, I agree that this is no

t the norm.......just saying that I wouldn't want to be in an SUV that only weighed a ton when it was hit by a bus........

Did you, and have you checked on how safe your car really is, it seems from the tests like the EU one I posted about yesterday that they are not as safer as many think. I don't think of like to be in a 2.5 Tom SUV hit by a bus either.

 

[aet1]

Sorry don't agree with this statement. In my opinion cars are larger as people have more money (or did) or at least access to more money via loans etc than they used to so car companies make cars that are bigger as they can charge a premium for them.

The idea that I could have had a brand new car when i was 20 was ludicrous, but now most young people drive nicer cars than I have. The difference though is I own my car but they buy on finance.

My neighbours have 2 audi's, one is a Q8. I'm 99.9% sure they are on finance which is how they can afford them. In the past when you had to buy it outright they would not have had such huge luxury cars as like most people they wouldn't have been able to afford them.

Very few people need a 4x4 (in your case it is appropriate) but they still buy them as it is a status symbol. If safety was priority they wouldn't buy them as they regularly score badly on ncap and are 50% more likely to roll in an accident.

I have a totally mad neighbour (must be he mows his lawn every 2 days summer and winter) he and wife have 2 salon and a van thing used to take dogs to shows 4 or 5 times a year. He now also has a works van for his part time job as a handyman in a caravan park. He claims to open the cars outright and the two new salons are changed every 2 years. His wife drives 8 miles a day, he uses his works van to get to work but does drive on his own 350 miles every two weeks to see family using the largest saloon. Police pensions must be pretty good.

 

[aet1]

If the various governments were really serious about EVs, they'd make the price something that most peoplecould afford, most people would then buy them, and a large part of the energy / pollution problem would be solved.
Instead they offer subsidies at purchase of an EV, but not enough, so only relatively rich people ( like my neighbour , who is waiting for his and will be keeping his polluting VW caravel as well ) can afford them even with the subsidy.

It's the same with the grants to update insulation and boilers. It would be great to have a hearing system that fits not run on fossil fuels, but there is no way I could afford one even with the grant. Surely it's the same less wealthy people who have to buy cheap houses who need the grant more.

 

[Agent_zed]

It's the same with the grants to update insulation and boilers. It would be great to have a hearing system that fits not run on fossil fuels, but there is no way I could afford one even with the grant. Surely it's the same less wealthy people who have to buy cheap houses who need the grant more.

That's why all new buildings should have to be built with solar thermal or PV. Entire housing estate next to me just being built 300 houses and I can only see 1 with solar panels that they had retro fitted. If the building companies put them on when they built it they would be a fraction of the cost of retro fitting.

I don't understand why the new lidl that was built in our town doesn't have solar either. For shops and offices it is the most logical as the electric is always going to be needed to run servers, fridges/freezers, tills, lighting, ovens etc. It must surely be cost effective to have put them on?!

 

[Spectric]

So much of our problems are created by us, so to sort them out needs us to change our lifestyles and watching some of these house restoration programs gives us a clue. Old semi derelict house is purchased for restoration, in it's history a family lived there and raised four kids but the new owner needs to extend because it is not large enough for him and his two kids so he wants to double the footprint. Then he wants the ability to be able to poo in any of the bedrooms so on suites all round and now you have increased water consumption, energy consumption and all for what, just so people can rattle around a large house or so they can pose for the neighbours and play keep up with the jones .

If the building companies put them on when they built it they would be a fraction of the cost of retro fitting.

But would there be any gain to the shareholders, these property developers are only in it for profit and so much easier to just do bare minimum and let the new owners fit solar if they want. It needs the building regs updated to force these issues so the property developer has to fit this new technology and they will have to accept less sheds on a given area so as the walls can be thicker and better insulated plus it would help peoples mental health if they were not treated like battery hens and had at least enough room for a garden and a reasonable sized shed.

 

[Scruples]

I have no particular banner to wave on this, other than to say that I am a fervent supporter of doing what we can to mitigate the damage that we as a race have done to our planet.

But I would like to make a couple of observations:

On "cars should be smaller": cars are larger these days primarily as a result of increased safety demands.

On "electric cars": time will tell us fairly soon, but as an engineer I'm of the opinion that in the UK at least, there is not a snowballs chance of the critical infrastructure coping with the demand, especially when most of our electricity will be trying to squeeze enough heat from fresh air to keep us warm. And don't get me started on the environmental damage caused during their manufacture.....

On "buses": around here the average bus has a similar average occupancy to the cars. I totally agree that this is cause and effect, but it is the case nonetheless.

Lastly, my "SUV" (an acronym for a term written by someone with a passing acquaintance of the English language) weighs 2.5 tons; the only regular passenger has four legs, big teeth and drools; it carries lots of very heavy, delicate and expensive equipment; regularly does 300 to 400 miles a day and for example is right now 2 miles from the nearest public road, let alone public transport. Again, I agree that this is not the norm.......just saying that I wouldn't want to be in an SUV that only weighed a ton when it was hit by a bus........

And there was I thinking that some people liked bigger cars because they'd struggle to get into smaller ones, and bigger cars made them feel, somehow, smaller.

 

[John Brown]

So much of our problems are created by us, so to sort them out needs us to change our lifestyles and watching some of these house restoration programs gives us a clue. Old semi derelict house is purchased for restoration, in it's history a family lived there and raised four kids but the new owner needs to extend because it is not large enough for him and his two kids so he wants to double the footprint. Then he wants the ability to be able to poo in any of the bedrooms so on suites all round and now you have increased water consumption, energy consumption and all for what, just so people can rattle around a large house or so they can pose for the neighbours and play keep up with the jones .


But would there be any gain to the shareholders, these property developers are only in it for profit and so much easier to just do bare minimum and let the new owners fit solar if they want. It needs the building regs updated to force these issues so the property developer has to fit this new technology and they will have to accept less sheds on a given area so as the walls can be thicker and better insulated plus it would help peoples mental health if they were not treated like battery hens and had at least enough room for a garden and a reasonable sized shed.

Trying to get my head round how more bathrooms/toilets equals more water consumption. Apart from the initial filling of the cisterns, bowls and new pipework, obviously, I'd have thought the frequency of usage would drive the water consumption.
I do agree, however, that much better insulation, amongst other things, should have been mandatory for decades on new builds.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

An acquaintance years ago suggested that people with two bathrooms should pay more for their water. I asked him how many sockets he had in his kitchen. Sixteen, he said. I've only twelve - do you think I should pay 25% less than you for my electricity? That's ridiculous, he said.

 

[XTiffy]

I think that those who have posted on Insulation and Solar have nor read the latest Bldg. Regs. It demands 150mm cavity with 100mm insulation. You also have to satisfy SAP tests for energy use, which includes PV etc. Then when you have sealed that box up you have the new part "O" which you need to prove that the rooms do not overheat (solar gains). Then there is part "S", electric charging points. This with my maths, gives the powers to be seven more letters that they can use to invent solutions to problems that don't exist.
On the subject of car safety, the only solution would be to manufacture cars from glass!
The covid panic would suggest that anyone who believes official statistics or those produced by a interested parties (Unions?) on any subject (police numbers etc.) is being naive or has a drum to beat.

 

[bansobaby]

I think that those who have posted on Insulation and Solar have nor read the latest Bldg. Regs. It demands 150mm cavity with 100mm insulation. You also have to satisfy SAP tests for energy use, which includes PV etc. Then when you have sealed that box up you have the new part "O" which you need to prove that the rooms do not overheat (solar gains). Then there is part "S", electric charging points. This with my maths, gives the powers to be seven more letters that they can use to invent solutions to problems that don't exist.
On the subject of car safety, the only solution would be to manufacture cars from glass!
The covid panic would suggest that anyone who believes official statistics or those produced by a interested parties (Unions?) on any subject (police numbers etc.) is being naive or has a drum to beat.

The building regulations for insulation are still woefully short at 100mm.
Also, I would suggest that you have a wander round one of the big house basher sites when its nice and deserted. They use third party building regulation inspectors, not the local council ones.
Quite often they know when the inspector is coming.........
They usually have one of the houses in a block "available for inspection" at that point in time.......
I 'expect' the inspector receives a decent bottle of fizzy water at Christmas........
I wouldn't house an animal in some of the things I have seen built recently.

The construction industry, particularly house bashing, has far too much political clout for any government to ever dream of upsetting them by regulating them properly.

 

[bansobaby]

Did you, and have you checked on how safe your car really is, it seems from the tests like the EU one I posted about yesterday that they are not as safer as many think. I don't think of like to be in a 2.5 Tom SUV hit by a bus either.

I agree, I wouldn't really want to be in any vehicle that was hit by a bus and I'm sure the stats you quoted on safety ratings are correct.

The safety aspect was not top of my list when buying the vehicle that I use for work. It most certainly is a consideration when looking at vehicles for the family, with the exception of my motorcycles.......I'm not sure there even is a safety rating system for motorcycles, quite understandably!!

 

[XTiffy]

bansobaby,
I would be first to agree that the private Bldg. inspector is a joke where big building companies are concerned but I also have known instances of Local Authority inspectors being "encouraged" or in one case I know of deceived. The building inspector checks are quite basic and don't reveal much.
The reality is that these rules are dreampt up without regard to what will happen in real life. I believe that MOT testing stations are subject to clandestine checks. That should happen to the building trade too.

 

[Jacob]

If the various governments were really serious about EVs, they'd make the price something that most peoplecould afford, .......

They aren't really an issue yet, until there is enough green energy generated to power them. They are a bit pointless, the motor trade just trying to get ahead of the game with a bit of green washing thrown in.
Given zero carbon then the private car may well be history and public transport the big issue

 

[Pabs]

@Cozzer ....eversince I turned 40

 

[Cozzer]

@Cozzer ....eversince I turned 40

Pardon?

 

[Adam W.]

Apparently 70% of new cars now are leased.

Wow, is that so.

 

[Noel]

Wow, is that so.

It's near 85%, usual HP etc but PCP has become very popular in recent years. Quite concerning.

 

[Spectric]

With the issues found on new cars after a certain age then leasing makes sense, it could be more cost effective than keeping an older car and paying for the high repair cost. The days of buying an old diesel and putting over a100K miles on it are gone. My local garage has had a run of VW EGR valve assemblies on cars all around six years old and not a cheap job but if leasing for a few years and changing then you never see these problems or have to pay these bills.

 

[Adam W.]

It's near 85%, usual HP etc but PCP has become very popular in recent years. Quite concerning.

And most are probably leased by people who can't afford it.

 

[GweithdyDU]

Like most things it comes down to quality and not quantity, having less but more able coppers that are not tied to a desk, painting rainbows on their cars or playing social workers would deliver more results than just pure numbers.

They often play 'Social workers' mental health practitioners, drug-support worker and so-on because those services have been cut to the bone in recent years (not just under this current lot). Just becasue the services have been removed, it doesn't mean the need for them has disappeared but instead the need manifests itself on the street or in the home at 11pm. Hence the police carry out those roles as nobody else is doing so. Coming from a point of professional knowledge and experience.