# What do we do if cars become environmentally friendly?



## downfader (9 Aug 2011)

A serious thought. Much of the cycling campaigning/promotion I see in comment, letters to papers and from cycle groups etc is done so on the basis of environmentalism. To me this ignores a future proposition - that if eco-motoring takes off and a solution is found, and to me there is a strong desire now to a) keep the car and b) remove the reliance on oil, that it will be harder to promote cycling.

So to me this says we have to focus far more on the health benefits of cycling. The traffic congestion benefits. The parking benefits. 

So do you think eco-cars would represent the same-old same-old of car use we have experienced in the past 20 years, or do you think cycling can transcend that?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Aug 2011)

For as long as we are on the planet, and pending any major fuel cell technology breakthroughs, and putting aside woeful range and the absence of speed of said vehicles, I suspect any 'eco-cars' available will simply outsource their pollution via the national grid to a fossil fuel burning power station. so not very eco at all really. so not really a problem the current generation of cycle campaigners/promoters will have to face.

would be a great problem to have though.


----------



## Dan B (9 Aug 2011)

What the PP said about outsourcing, but the major and immediate problem in our cities (at least, in London Zone 1&2 - I shouldn't really generalise outside my own experience) is congestion not pollution. I think most drivers would recognise that - although many apparently don't recognise their own part in it.


----------



## JonnyBlade (9 Aug 2011)

downfader said:


> A serious thought. Much of the cycling campaigning/promotion I see in comment, letters to papers and from cycle groups etc is done so on the basis of environmentalism. To me this ignores a future proposition - that if eco-motoring takes off and a solution is found, and to me there is a strong desire now to a) keep the car and b) remove the reliance on oil, that it will be harder to promote cycling.
> 
> So to me this says we have to focus far more on the health benefits of cycling. The traffic congestion benefits. The parking benefits.
> 
> So do you think eco-cars would represent the same-old same-old of car use we have experienced in the past 20 years, or do you think cycling can transcend that?



Overtake them


----------



## al78 (9 Aug 2011)

GregCollins said:


> For as long as we are on the planet, and pending any major fuel cell technology breakthroughs, and putting aside woeful range and the absence of speed of said vehicles, I suspect any 'eco-cars' available will simply outsource their pollution via the national grid to a fossil fuel burning power station. so not very eco at all really. so not really a problem the current generation of cycle campaigners/promoters will have to face.
> 
> would be a great problem to have though.



It is much easier to control pollution when it is concentrated at a handful of power stations, instead of spread out over millions of individual vehicles.

It is also easier to phase out the dirty power stations and replace them with clean technologies than it is to find a clean replacement for petrol for an ICE.


----------



## GrasB (9 Aug 2011)

As al78 said. At this point even if power production is outsourced to fossil fuelled power plants your CO2 per kWh at the wheels is much lower from my understanding. My problem for electric cars is mainly range, my Alfa I can do 650 miles (I'd guess over 750 if you're willing to play fuel gauge bingo) on a tank at a 130km/h cruise. I'm also kinda worried about the load hauling ability of electric vehicles, something that again my Alfa can cope with really well.


----------



## downfader (9 Aug 2011)

GrasB said:


> As al78 said. At this point even if power production is outsourced to fossil fuelled power plants your CO2 per kWh at the wheels is much lower from my understanding. My problem for electric cars is mainly range, my Alfa I can do 650 miles (I'd guess over 750 if you're willing to play fuel gauge bingo) on a tank at a 130km/h cruise. I'm also kinda worried about the load hauling ability of electric vehicles, something that again my Alfa can cope with really well.




It looks like they might be using carbon nanotubes in some way for battery experiments. If it works out it could be many times more powerful and efficient than standard battery technologies. If they combine that with hydrogen fuel cell at the powerstation end it could lead to very effective eco-cars that rival petrochemical.

Its probably some way off, but will things like this prevent the "click" in the minds of people to see the benefit of a healthy activity? 

Will employers take over and ration the available parking to their staff, I wonder? (Something my employer tried to do but it "spilt out" on to the streets around the premises.)


----------



## byegad (10 Aug 2011)

If cars were eco friendly then I for one would welcome them with open arms. 

I'd still ride my bikes. 

Why? For health, fun and the fact that you see so much more from a bike than in a car. In towns, as has been mentioned above, the problem is not just pollution, but congestion, and you can fit a lot of bikes into the space taken up by a few cars.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (10 Aug 2011)

downfader said:


> Much of the cycling campaigning/promotion I see in comment, letters to papers and from cycle groups etc is done so on the basis of environmentalism.


If this is true (I don't know whether it is or not), then isn't that perhaps a problem with cycling campaigning? I don't think environmental sustainability impinges much on most people's decision-making regarding their own use of energy. As far as general energy use is concerned, perceived cost is a lot more important than environmental considerations. 

For those people who do cycle, I suspect the primary motivations are around enjoyment of the activity itself, and personal health benefits. I know the main thing that keeps me cycling to work is the fact that I am now rather slim and fit compared to most blokes of my age, even though I can eat for England. I do like the fact that I'm saving on CO2 emissions, but that alone wouldn't be enough to keep me doing it.

I also think that the majority of current cycle commuters are the kind of people who feel good about not being part of the general herd. (I think the "club" cyclists may be different in that respect - more about being part of an identifiable group.) I also think this relates to environmental motives - we are probably, by our very nature, more likely to act on environmental concerns, even though our efforts are only a drop in the ocean, because that makes us different from most people. The rest of the community really don't think about that at all.

So, I really would question the wisdom of basing any cycling campaign on environmental sustainability. It would be much better to base it on personal benefits, and on creating an impression that cycling is somehow fashionable (which it isn't at the moment).


----------



## BSRU (10 Aug 2011)

Can a car designed for five adults but occupied by just one person ever be classed as environmentally friendly?


----------



## Davidc (10 Aug 2011)

The car, whatever its power source, is unsustainable as city and urban transport. There simply isn't enough space.

Similarly the car will go on killing our citizens at a rate of thousands a year, whatever the power source.

Cars will go on supporting a lack of fitness, an excess of body weight, and a loss of social interaction between people, no matter how eco friendly their propulsion.

When I see a picture of a city or town taken before the mass appearance of cars (in most cases that means pre 1920 ish in England) I wonder how we allowed these metal boxes and their infrastructure to destroy our urban environment. That's independent of the power source.

My view has been the same since I started to understand these things, before I was a teenager. I know I'm in a minority in not finding cars interesting, not finding them an object of desire, and only having one because someone did away with the railways I'd rather have used if they were still there.

Carbon emissions and particulates are only a part of the reason the motor car is second only to the nuclear bomb in the list of things I'd like to un-invent.


----------



## BSRU (10 Aug 2011)

We should always remember the car was originally seen as an god send in order to deal with the environmental disaster being caused by the tonnes of horse sh!t and dead horses clogging up the streets.


----------



## Davidc (10 Aug 2011)

BSRU said:


> We should always remember the car was originally seen as an god send in order to deal with the environmental disaster being caused by the tonnes of horse sh!t and dead horses clogging up the streets.



From what I've read the horses in big cities were required to have bags attached to catch their poo. There was then a trade in the stuff for use as manure. Dead horses had too high a cash value to be left lying around though.

I'm not against using motor vehicles for local load carrying, or for public transport. What clogs up the cities and has caused the severely damaging changes to the way we use them is the private car and the Car Is King philosophy that has come with it

I'm in favour of towns and cities having car parking priced to deter use, no on-street parking, massive taxes on private parking spaces, and a tow away and crush policy for illegally parked cars. Don't think it'll be a vote winner though, neither would a road toll scheme designed to deter car use. It's motorised private passenger transport that needs to go.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (10 Aug 2011)

downfader said:


> A serious thought. Much of the cycling campaigning/promotion I see in comment, letters to papers and from cycle groups etc is done so on the basis of environmentalism. To me this ignores a future proposition - that if eco-motoring takes off and a solution is found, and to me there is a strong desire now to a) keep the car and b) remove the reliance on oil, that it will be harder to promote cycling.
> 
> So to me this says we have to focus far more on the health benefits of cycling. The traffic congestion benefits. The parking benefits.
> 
> So do you think eco-cars would represent the same-old same-old of car use we have experienced in the past 20 years, or do you think cycling can transcend that?



If cars become eco-friendly then it simply means that cycling campaigners will have one less string to their bow.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Aug 2011)

al78 said:


> *It is much easier to control pollution *when it is concentrated at a handful of power stations, instead of spread out over millions of individual vehicles.
> 
> *It is also easier to phase out the dirty power stations and replace them* with clean technologies than it is to find a clean replacement for petrol for an ICE.



How so, in both cases?


----------



## CotterPin (10 Aug 2011)

Even if all the cars on the road began running on fairy dust there would still be a number of social and environmental issues to keep cycle campaigners and others occupied. Someone has already mentioned congestion. We would still have our communities divided by motor vehicles running through the middle of them (although they may be quieter); there would still be a demand to build more roads cutting swathes through the countryside. There is also the issue of road danger. Would there be a reduction in crashes? Also occupants of motor vehicles tend to be divorced from the society around them.
The campaign in my view is to reduce a reliance upon any form of motorised transport and create civilised streets where people can walk, cycle, play, chat - in short to make our streets more social spaces and not the sterilised and soulless places they currently are


----------



## dellzeqq (10 Aug 2011)

Davidc said:


> The car, whatever its power source, is unsustainable as city and urban transport. There simply isn't enough space.
> 
> Similarly the car will go on killing our citizens at a rate of thousands a year, whatever the power source.


that's about it.........not, mind you that we don't have an interest in individual cars being less polluting.


----------



## jonesy (10 Aug 2011)

Others have said it all really, assuming "environmentally friendly" cars means zero emission over the entire life cycle, there are still plenty of other reasons for controlling and reducing their use. Indeed, CO2 emissions are not, and never have been, a particularly strong argument for modal shift from car to bicycle, because the majority of emissions from cars is produced from trips that are signficantly longer than those typically made by bicycle, so modal shift has limited potential to reduce them. Let's focus on quality of life, safety, creating a street environment to suit people not machines, equitable and efficient use of limited road space etc.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Aug 2011)

jonesy said:


> Others have said it all really, assuming "environmentally friendly" cars means zero emission over the entire life cycle, there are still plenty of other reasons for controlling and reducing their use. Indeed, CO2 emissions are not, and never have been, a particularly strong argument for modal shift from car to bicycle, because the majority of emissions from cars is produced from trips that are signficantly longer than those typically made by bicycle, so modal shift has limited potential to reduce them.* Let's focus on quality of life, safety, creating a street environment to suit people not machines, equitable and efficient use of limited road space etc.*



Ah, you mean behaving in a civilised manner? Chortle. (This week of all weeks) ;-)


----------



## al78 (10 Aug 2011)

GregCollins said:


> How so, in both cases?



Pollution concentrated at one source means focusing efforts at one place, not thousands of places.

Technologies for clean electricity generation exist now and are used, energy dense liguid alternatives to oil for motor transport do not.


----------



## colly (11 Aug 2011)

I sometimes wonder what the percentage of GDP of developed nations is spent on 'cars' and the infrastructure that goes to support them.

Take into account, the amount of people engaged in the motor industry directly, the construction and maintenance of the roads, bridges, servicing and repairs, garages, fuel depots, insurance, tyres, steel making, transport of all the stuff to do with motor cars, people engaged in government to legislate for it all. Even down to road signs/ furniture and white lines on the roads. 

Even if motor vehicles were really 100% non polluting their omnipresence clogging up the place would still be an issue. 
I sometimes sit at a set of lights in my van waiting for 'my' turn to go and think of all the other cars, vans and trucks backed up away from the lights in every direction, of all the sets of lights all over the city, in every city in the country, in every country across the world. All waiting to go nowhere. It's kind of depressing. 

Depressing because as we have organised things at present there is no real alternative. Another way of running things would take a generation, probably more than one generation to bring about. Resistance to that would be immense and people being people would just stick their heads in the sand and carry on carrying on.

I can't see cars and car culture ending any time soon. 

The motor vehicle is a wonderful device giving freedom to millions and opening up opportunities otherwise denied but their very success may also their be their/our downfall.

Edit: 
Just to add: Am I any different to all the other millions? No not really. I need a vehicle to transport my work. I couldn't do it with out one even though I use it as little as possible I do still use it for 'amusement' as it were.

We're doomed, doomed I tell you.


----------



## BSRU (11 Aug 2011)

Davidc said:


> I'm in favour of towns and cities having car parking priced to deter use, no on-street parking, massive taxes on private parking spaces, and a tow away and crush policy for illegally parked cars. Don't think it'll be a vote winner though, neither would a road toll scheme designed to deter car use. It's motorised private passenger transport that needs to go.



Swindon council tried that and reversed it very quickly, turns out people just drive to the out of town shopping centres or other towns/cities meaning local traders, business rates payers, suffered.


----------



## Dan B (11 Aug 2011)

And yet it works for London: demand for car parking car outstrips availability, even at silly prices, and the traffic wardens are all paid piecerate. People would mostly still rather get the tube or bus into town than go to an out-of-town centre.
I'm tempted to suggest that the problem there is nobody really wants to go to Swindon in the first place, but I suspect the real issue is that once you have a car which you need to use for the first 80% of the journey (getting to the town centre) you really want to do the whole journey in it instead of dumping it in a car park and making the final couple of miles by bike/public transport. In London you're less likely to be starting out by car in the first place


----------



## downfader (11 Aug 2011)

colly said:


> I sometimes wonder what the percentage of GDP of developed nations is spent on 'cars' and the infrastructure that goes to support them.
> 
> Take into account, the amount of people engaged in the motor industry directly, the construction and maintenance of the roads, bridges, servicing and repairs, garages, fuel depots, insurance, tyres, steel making, transport of all the stuff to do with motor cars, people engaged in government to legislate for it all. Even down to road signs/ furniture and white lines on the roads.
> 
> ...




I think what the motor vehicle has brought has been the ability for the small haulier and the small trader to definately carry goods and services a considerable distance. Before they were limited to the rail network, or horse or cycle use which may not have been as ideal.

I still rely on cars, despite not a driver. Most trips I can do on a bicycle, but shopping still eludes me and I will hitch a lift with relatives for bulky or numerous items. Have been tempted to invest in a trailer or build one and see how shopping goes with that... but lazyness and other interests have put pay to that.


----------



## asterix (11 Aug 2011)

Last night, at about 23 o'clock CET I passed 4 cars on the side of the A20 (France). The first, a black one was smashed in at the front, a silver car had flipped over the crash barrier and was on its roof, the other 2, white or silver were both facing the wrong way. Someone was wandering around aimlessly whilst someone else was walking up the road for some reason wearing a high vis jacket. No sign of the emergency services at that point.

About 3 km later there was another group of cars in trouble, including one towing a trailer. Almost certainly a collision of some kind.

Slightly earlier I had been passed by cars, including a black merc, doing up to 60 mph more than I was (say 140 mph). After the scenes not a single car passed me for at least another 30 km, probably because they closed the road.

Cars are the most extreme example of humans being allowed to operate dangerous machinery when really a large proportion of them simply shouldn't be.


----------



## colly (11 Aug 2011)

asterix said:


> Cars are the most extreme example of humans being allowed to operate dangerous machinery when really a large proportion of them simply shouldn't be.



Agree totally !!	Bicycles are not so extreme but dear God have you seen all those lycra louts whizzing about???

BAN THEM ALL I say.


----------



## Davidc (11 Aug 2011)

BSRU said:


> Swindon council tried that and reversed it very quickly, turns out people just drive to the out of town shopping centres or other towns/cities meaning local traders, business rates payers, suffered.



As I said in my post, it needs very high taxes per space in the car parks. Out of town stores would have to put on busses if the tax per space were to be high enough.

I know it's not a vote winner so won't happen, but it would be possible to achieve it. Think of the value of all that space as trading floor!

The problem is the private car. If we could move back away from it all the 'difficulties' would evaporate as efficient alternatives took over.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Aug 2011)

1500903 said:


> Where does the power station get the hydrogen from?


Sea water I believe.


----------



## Dan B (15 Aug 2011)

1500905 said:


> But what do they use to get the hydrogen from the sea water?



A very small hammer


----------



## downfader (15 Aug 2011)

1500905 said:


> But what do they use to get the hydrogen from the sea water?




The construct of the fuel cell splits the H from the O. It then goes through a separate process through a "filter" to make the H electron travel a "long way around" that generates electricty. There was a couple of articles on this in New Scientist, The Guardian's enviro blog iirc and wikipedia. 

Geothermal is a valid alternative to fuel cell powerstations given the oil drilling technology we now have. If proper investment is made we could have Geothermal up and running on a substantial scale in 5 years.


----------



## downfader (15 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> A very small hammer




You, good Sir, are a GENIUS!


----------



## jonesy (15 Aug 2011)

downfader said:


> The construct of the fuel cell splits the H from the O. It then goes through a separate process through a "filter" to make the H electron travel a "long way around" that generates electricty. There was a couple of articles on this in New Scientist, The Guardian's enviro blog iirc and wikipedia.
> 
> Geothermal is a valid alternative to fuel cell powerstations given the oil drilling technology we now have. If proper investment is made we could have Geothermal up and running on a substantial scale in 5 years.



I think you've missed the point of Adrian's question, which isn't about how the process of electrolysis works, it is where does the *energy *come from to power the electrolysis?


----------



## jonesy (15 Aug 2011)

1500910 said:


> Do you have any links for this? I only ask because my understanding is that a fuel cell works by combining hydrogen (or sometimes a hydrocarbon) with oxygen to produce electricity, water, and waste heat.



You are quite right, but a fuel cell is basically the reverse of electrolysis, and if suitably designed the same kit can work in both directions, like a rechargeable battery. But, as per my previous post, the fact that hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis from water isn't the point, the problem is it requires energy to split a water molecule, and that energy has to come from somewhere. Otherwise we've got a perpetual motion machine...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Aug 2011)

jonesy said:


> You are quite right, but a fuel cell is basically the reverse of electrolysis, and if suitably designed the same kit can work in both directions, like a rechargeable battery. But, as per my previous post, the fact that hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis from water isn't the point, the problem is it requires energy to split a water molecule, and that energy has to come from somewhere. Otherwise we've got a perpetual motion machine...



why can't we just hook a dynamo up to a motor and let one drive the other!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (16 Aug 2011)

This may also be of interest to those discussing the extraction of Hydrogen from Sea Water


----------



## subaqua (16 Aug 2011)

GregCollins said:


> For as long as we are on the planet, and pending any major fuel cell technology breakthroughs, and putting aside woeful range and the absence of speed of said vehicles, I suspect any 'eco-cars' available will simply outsource their pollution via the national grid to a fossil fuel burning power station. so not very eco at all really. so not really a problem the current generation of cycle campaigners/promoters will have to face.
> 
> would be a great problem to have though.




and don't forget the ecological footprint of extracting all the raw materials requred to make the batteries, proccessing said materials etc. 

the same could be said of bicycle manufacture too though but a much lesser extent of course.


----------



## blockend (16 Aug 2011)

If vehicles could be made to run on fresh air and were built of self-healing, infinitely recyclable, organic structures, you'd still have the problem of half ton objects travelling fast enough to kill and maim human beings.


----------



## Archie_tect (17 Aug 2011)

The hydrogen production plant in the attached article uses an array of approximately 100 mirrors tracking the sun [presumably using electric motors] and cost 7 million euros in 2008, to produce only 3kg of hydrogen, using 30 lites of water, an hour [using zinc and nickel as catalysts to split the water atoms]. The process depends on the sun so cloudy maritime weather could cause havoc. Technology may have advanced in the 3 years since but volume hydrogen production is going to be difficult. Equatorial coastlines would be the best place to site global, commercial plants. Mind you loading, unloading and transporting liquid hydrogen in bulk around the world would a bit dangerous!



Hydrogen production


----------



## Bad Company (17 Aug 2011)

As most of you know I love cars.

Having said that for country dwellers car ownership is more or less essential. We have 2 busses a day through my village and the last train left in 1963 courtesy of Dr Beeching. I can't see how increasing taxes on car ownership as proposed earlier would work. For me we need cheap parking at for instance railway stations and reasonable rail fares. That we people are encouraged to take the train. As it is when Mrs BC and I go to London shopping it is easier and cheaper to drive than use the train. Surely it should be the other way around?


----------



## Bad Company (18 Aug 2011)

1500920 said:


> Hence the need to make motoring more expensive.



It makes sense to make trains cheaper and station car parks more affordable. Making cars more expensive will really hurt rural communities. I don't think 'townies' understand how vital cars are in the countryside.


----------



## subaqua (18 Aug 2011)

Bad Company said:


> It makes sense to make trains cheaper and station car parks more affordable. Making cars more expensive will really hurt rural communities. I don't think 'townies' understand how vital cars are in the countryside.




don't let my current location fool you. 

I grew up in rural North Wales, a local bus service was one bus a day in and one a day out. people used cars when they got cheap and affordable. before that they didn't use them and walked or cycled where they needed to be. 

my dad grew up in rural cheshire where there was no bus service locally, the closest bus being 5 miles from the village he grew up in, that took him to the "big town" he used to cycle everywhere. didn't pass his test till he was in his thirties !! 

the problem is that WE ALL GOT LAZY. wifey is a prime example , as the youngest starts school next year and she could cycle him to breakfast club and then cycle to her job but she keeps coming up with lame excuses why she can't. ( breaking them down is good fun and she is slowly coming to the idea)


----------



## Bad Company (18 Aug 2011)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Tell that to the kids today and they won't belive you!   


Seriously if you live in Leytonstone I imagine you can get on very well without a car unless you want one. I lived there for a while in my childhood.

Mrs BC and I now live in a village on the Essex \ Suffolk border. We LIKE our cars very much AND they are an essential form of transport. I did consider an electric car as a run around but the range is still very poor.


----------



## Bad Company (19 Aug 2011)

1500924 said:


> It doesn't have to be the way it is now. Cars don't have to be vital anywhere.




And the alternative is ?????


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Aug 2011)

1500913 said:


> I was trying to check because that sounded like the plan to me



I was actually hoping someone would remind me of the physics as to why this wouldn't work.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Aug 2011)

Bad Company said:


> And the alternative is ?????



When petrol is £5.00 or £50.00 a litre you'll find one.


----------



## Bad Company (19 Aug 2011)

GregCollins said:


> When petrol is £5.00 or £50.00 a litre you'll find one.



Yes but surely for rural communities surely that can only be a car fueled by something other than petrol?

Busses are too expensive and inefficient in the countryside. The odd one I see in the country lanes are invariably empty or carrying 1 or 2 passengers.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Aug 2011)

Bad Company said:


> Yes but surely for rural communities surely that can only be a car fueled by something other than petrol?
> 
> Busses are too expensive and inefficient in the countryside. The odd one I see in the country lanes are invariably empty or carrying 1 or 2 passengers.



yet oddly in the 20's, 30's and 40's rural buses, and railways, were the lifeblood of their communities. I wonder what happened. Oh yes; the countryside got all gentrified and everyone bought a car.


----------



## subaqua (19 Aug 2011)

1500930 said:


> That is how things are but it doesn't mean that that have to remain that way.



 

remote scottish communities have/had the "postbus" .

larger size buses are not the answer to the probl;em. smaller minibus types are. public/community transport systems rather than the me me me attitude that has developed in the UK. 

even in a largish town (taunton) the bus service on a saturday is terrible. 

I recently came back from a trip to Newquay( hills are great there) i drove down there and used public transport or my bike as much as possible. sunday and saturday services are dire and lots needs to be done to encourage people out of cars onto better public transport. Sadly the current ( and previous for that matter) incumbents have done little to encourage better and more integrated public transport.


----------



## Bad Company (19 Aug 2011)

subaqua said:


> I recently came back from a trip to Newquay( hills are great there) *i drove down there*



Why?


----------



## Bad Company (19 Aug 2011)

1500930 said:


> That is how things are but it doesn't mean that that have to remain that way.



It does until somebody comes up with a viable alternative. I am not holding my breath.


----------



## subaqua (19 Aug 2011)

GregCollins said:


> yet oddly in the 20's, 30's and 40's rural buses, and railways, were the lifeblood of their communities. I wonder what happened. Oh yes; the countryside got all gentrified and everyone bought a car.




Richard fecking Beeching http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Beeching,_Baron_Beeching is what happened. 

wierdly , some of the most remote lines are enjoying a revival the truro - falmouth and the looe valley lines are busier each year.

the west somerset railway ( a heritage line) now carries more passengers than it did at its peak as a branch line!! sadly the 2 buses an hour linking into the main town are dire and the last few times have been heavily oversubscribed as it is on the holiday route to minehead from taunton station.


----------



## Bad Company (19 Aug 2011)

subaqua said:


> Richard fecking Beeching http://en.wikipedia...._Baron_Beeching is what happened.




Well at least we can agree on that one. We had a fantastic rail network until Dr Beeching thought tearing it all up would be a good idea. 

I wonder if it would be viable to reinstate more of the old branch lines? Expensive but it could be a good long term plan.


----------



## Richard Mann (19 Aug 2011)

GregCollins said:


> yet oddly in the 20's, 30's and 40's rural buses, and railways, were the lifeblood of their communities. I wonder what happened. Oh yes; the countryside got all gentrified and everyone bought a car.



Nah. Farm mechanisation and rural depopulation came first.


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Aug 2011)

BSRU said:


> Swindon council tried that and reversed it very quickly, turns out people just drive to the out of town shopping centres or other towns/cities meaning local traders, business rates payers, suffered.


you're talking about two different things - the parking in out-of-town stores (granted planning permission by Swindon, in the style of a man cutting his own throat) didn't get taxed. Put a £1000 a space annual tax on *all* car spaces and you'd make a bit of a difference to our shopping and commuting patterns


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Aug 2011)

Bad Company said:


> And the alternative is ?????


I've lived eight miles from the nearest town and never felt the need of a car. And, lets not forget, over 20% of rural households have no access to cars


----------



## Bad Company (19 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> I've lived eight miles from the nearest town and never felt the need of a car. And, lets not forget, over 20% of rural households have no access to cars



Dell you are hardly typical are you. Most rural families need at least 1 car.

Where did you get the info about


> 20% of rural households have no access to cars


 ? I'm not disputing it but I am surprised.


----------



## subaqua (19 Aug 2011)

Bad Company said:


> Well at least we can agree on that one. We had a fantastic rail network until Dr Beeching thought tearing it all up would be a good idea.
> 
> I wonder if it would be viable to reinstate more of the old branch lines? Expensive but it could be a good long term plan.




too many have been built over or turned over to walking/cycling trails. the camel; trail in cornwall is one. the old sunshine coast line from newquay through Goonhavern to chacewater etc has been built over at Goonhavern. the line to lappa valley has dissapeared as i was going to ride it with the kids , still shown on OS maps as disused railway line but its through fields. 

Beeching was a carcentric and thankfully the Govt saw sense before part 2 was implemented. Secret life of the motorway was a rather good telly programme. 

not all of beechings cuts were bad , some of them were needed but lots that shouldn't have been cut was.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (31 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> This may also be of interest to those discussing the extraction of Hydrogen from Sea Water


This one looks promising: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110830151229.htm


----------



## Bad Company (2 Sep 2011)

It's a shame that the range is still such an issue with electric cars, the manufacturers don't seem to be able to get it beyond 100 miles.

I can't understand why battery life has been improved in mobile phones, torches & watches etc., but not cars.


----------



## twobiker (2 Sep 2011)

Bad Company said:


> It's a shame that the range is still such an issue with electric cars, the manufacturers don't seem to be able to get it beyond 100 miles.
> 
> I can't understand why battery life has been improved in mobile phones, torches & watches etc., but not cars.


It is not in the manufacturers interest to bring in electric cars yet, that is why, they are to much into the oil, 30yrs ago you could buy cars that were as good on fuel as some of todays cars, by now cars should all exceed 80mls per gallon, but they just get bigger and more complicated.


----------



## jonesy (2 Sep 2011)

Bad Company said:


> It's a shame that the range is still such an issue with electric cars, the manufacturers don't seem to be able to get it beyond 100 miles.
> 
> I can't understand why battery life has been improved in mobile phones, torches & watches etc., but not cars.



That isn't the case- battery technology has improved vastly in cars as well. That's why electric vehicles are now becoming commercially available that weren't a few years ago. e.g these:

http://www.renault-ze.com/en-gb/gamme-voitures-electriques-renault-z.e.-1932.html

I agree it remains the case that range for an EV is still far less than for a petrol or diesel car, but don't underestimate the complexity of the problem. Phones and watches need vastly less power than a vehicle, and developments like high output LEDs have greatly reduced the power consumption of torches, making existing battery technology last longer.


----------



## Nick Salt (10 Sep 2011)

Davidc said:


> As I said in my post, it needs very high taxes per space in the car parks. Out of town stores would have to put on busses if the tax per space were to be high enough.



Now that, sir is a VERY good idea!


----------



## Mad Doug Biker (10 Sep 2011)

GregCollins said:


> How so, in both cases?



Because you can control how the power is produced and utilised if it all in one or a handful of places

There was a proposal a while back to switch all Electric power on the railways to Nuclear for the same reason - it could all be produced from very specific places.



downfader said:


> I still rely on cars, despite not a driver. Most trips I can do on a bicycle, but shopping still eludes me and I will hitch a lift with relatives for bulky or numerous items. Have been tempted to invest in a trailer or build one and see how shopping goes with that... but lazyness and other interests have put pay to that.



Get an 8freight or similar then! 



Archie_tect said:


> Mind you loading, unloading and transporting liquid hydrogen in bulk around the world would a bit dangerous!



Airships are the way forward.... no, wait...


----------



## oldfatfool (10 Sep 2011)

I only really cycle on the roads on a weekend, the rest of the week I use a greenway. 

I just don't feel safe in congested early morning/ lunchtime traffic. That's not a comment on my riding ability or confidence, its just that no matter how much high viz I wear or how loud I have the airzound there is always a dick head that will nearly wipe me out, usually turning across me, or squeeze me into the kerb. 

The only way to get people out of cars would be to invest in a proper cycling infrastructure, which of course you wouldn't need if there where no cars on the road 

Unfortunately whatever the government spouts they do not want to halt/ curb car use, if they did there would be one hell of a budget deffecit.


----------



## MacB (10 Sep 2011)

oldfatfool said:


> I only really cycle on the roads on a weekend, the rest of the week I use a greenway.
> 
> I just don't feel safe in congested early morning/ lunchtime traffic. That's not a comment on my riding ability or confidence, its just that no matter how much high viz I wear or how loud I have the airzound there is always a dick head that will nearly wipe me out, usually turning across me, or squeeze me into the kerb.
> 
> ...



I think it's a lot more nuanced than that, many people will cite traffic, and lack of cyclepaths, as a reason for not cycling. It doesn't mean that they'd cycle if those hurdles were removed. I'm afraid that the only way to get people out of cars is to price, or legislate, them out. As long as a car is afforable, and vastly more convenient than other options, you've got no chance. Even when it isn't more convenient, or quicker, you've still got no chance. 

Still our car insurance jumped 40% this year for no apparent reason, so things are heading the right way if for the wrong reasons.


----------



## oldfatfool (10 Sep 2011)

MacB said:


> I think it's a lot more nuanced than that, many people will cite traffic, and lack of cyclepaths, as a reason for not cycling. It doesn't mean that they'd cycle if those hurdles were removed. I'm afraid that the only way to get people out of cars is to price, or legislate, them out. As long as a car is afforable, and vastly more convenient than other options, you've got no chance. Even when it isn't more convenient, or quicker, you've still got no chance.



Very true, bikes would have to come in water tight little bubbles with aircon for when the sun shines.



MacB said:


> Still our car insurance jumped 40% this year for no apparent reason, so things are heading the right way if for the wrong reasons.



The only problem is by the time people are priced out of cars the countries reliance on the revenue would mean we wouldn't be able to buy a bike due to the tax that would be levied on them to compensate


----------



## cycleruk (10 Sep 2011)

downfader said:


> A serious thought. Much of the cycling campaigning/promotion I see in comment, letters to papers and from cycle groups etc* is done so on the basis of environmentalism*. To me this ignores a future proposition - that if eco-motoring takes off and a solution is found, and to me there is a strong desire now to a) keep the car and b) remove the reliance on oil, that it will be harder to promote cycling.
> 
> So to me this says we have to focus far more on the health benefits of cycling. The traffic congestion benefits. The parking benefits.
> 
> So do you think eco-cars would represent the same-old same-old of car use we have experienced in the past 20 years, or do you think cycling can transcend that?




regard less of weather they burn fuel or not, bikes use less materials then cars so there for use less of the earths resources, no competition as far as i am concerned. I will continue to spend £300 on a new bike compared to 20 plus thousand pounds for a so called "eco" car!.


----------



## cyberknight (12 Sep 2011)

subaqua said:


> and don't forget the ecological footprint of extracting all the raw materials requred to make the batteries, proccessing said materials etc.



Our company makes a very popular hybrid and it has been shown the actual cost and pollution made by getting the raw materials , constructing the battery and shipping outweighs the environmental saving you make by using the car .


----------



## Vigilies (12 Sep 2011)

Wouldn't bother too much, there will still be huge queues of "personal transport devices" or whatever.


----------



## biggs682 (12 Sep 2011)

cant see it happening to quick or cheeply


----------

