Ruadh495

Mine wouldn't even get close. My 11Ahr got me about 35 miles when the battery was new. Now after 2 years of abuse, wearing studded tyres and in freezing weather I don't think it would get 20* I'd go with d8veh's suggestion, use a light unpowered bike. Unless there are places you can top up en-route? How long does your battery take to charge? *Yes, I need a new battery but I can get by on my commute by charging at work and it's only got to last another 2 weeks.

Is there any way for customers (as opposed to manufacturers) to get involved in this? My concern would be the effect of anti-circumvention measures on the cost of spares for existing bikes.

Probably my view is coloured by not living in a city (I rarely have trouble parking, for example), but I tend to see the inefficiencies resulting from shared vehicles simply not being where they are needed (whatever system is used to control them) as greater than the inefficiencies of owned vehicles. If we start to see these systems as only for urban short hops, then they compete directly with cycling, which is a better thing to encourage. The same problem occurs with Boris bikes and similar, where they all end up a popular drop-off spots and have to be returned to popular start points in a van. That doesn't mean they are not useful, but if you use a bike every day it's likely more efficient to have your own.

But probably not for taxi use, since EVs need (with current technology) to spend more time parked on charge than they do in motion.

True, and there certainly are savings there. Not sure how the environmental impact of a parked car compares with that of a moving one. It's got to be a fair bit less, but still not negligible. We can't apply the costs of construction and disposal though, since the taxis will be doing 12X the mileage (24X if they are 50% empty) and so will wear out 12X (or 24X) as quickly, so there are still the same number of vehicles to be constructed and disposed of. I know it's not as simple as that (what proportion of vehicles disposed of are actually worn beyond repair?), but that's the potential. Frequency of "Write-off" accidents should also be a factor of mileage. I'd like to think it would be lower for the Ubers, since they should be better drivers, but...

But those journeys aren't "saved", that's the problem. All those 12 individuals still used a car to travel the distance they were traveling. So not a case of one car doing the work of 12 (that's called a "bus"), but one car making 12 journeys, plus the bits in between. That is assuming Uber rides aren't usually shared, which could introduce some additional efficiency.

Interesting. How much land do you have? I'd guess you have to be quite isolated to get away with putting up wind generators? Do you run your oil generator on biofuels (ie chip fat)? Wood or oil for heating, or does it run your heat too. Waste heat off the generator perhaps? I'm planning something similar, so very much genuine questions.

All good points (though the cost of manufacture/disposal one is perhaps more an argument against scrappage), but are they enough to overcome that 40% of mileage done "empty"? That nearly doubles the "cost" of every taxi mile. Of course that inefficiency is likely to decrease with increasing usage, but it increases again with declining population density (as we move out of the city centre). Outside city centre shopping areas, movement patterns tend to be less favourable. You get large numbers of people arriving at certain points at certain times, but few leaving at that time (ie workplaces at 8.30am). Another factor which would increase the inefficiency would be additional operators. To be efficient all the taxis and potential fares have to share the same online platform, so a monopoly is required. Such a monopoly should be state controlled. So TfL should be looking to license the technology from Uber, apply it to the black cabs and rescind all other taxi licenses. I have no doubt that the Uber system can greatly increase the efficiency of taxi services, but I remain to be convinced of the potential for automated "Ubers" to replace the private car. The technology with most potential there remains the bicycle, combined with public transport (particularly rail) for longer distances. Though if the bicycle were going to replace the car it would have done so by now... Maybe e-bikes will tip the balance?

Cheaper and more efficient than ordinary taxis, certainly, but the Uber system still doesn't address the problem of the vehicles travelling without a fare. That's at least 40% of their mileage (according to the source given) which is completely wasted. Private cars do very few miles that don't effectively transport the driver somewhere; taking the car to it's MOT and back is about the only equivalent I can think of. The "flawed logic" lies in treating Uber (and conventional taxis) as part of the public transport system, and so regarding a taxi journey as a car journey avoided. It's not; it's a car journey plus the extra distance the vehicle traveled since dropping it's last fare / leaving it's base. Replacing personal cars with Uber or similar could save some space currently used for parking, but it will increase overall car mileage. This might not impact emissions much, if we assume the Ubers are more efficient than most private cars (they do tend to be hybrids) and also will be running warm most of the time, but it will increase congestion.

Reduced number of cars certainly. But number/duration of car journeys? The Uber must have run empty to reach the pick up point, unless it dropped one fare and picked up another at the same point which is likely to be unusual. Anyone know what percentage of an Uber car's mileage is done empty? This is a problem with all taxis. They are very useful, but can't be considered a more environmentally friendly alternative to the private car. I have the same reservation about the hire-as-required autonomous car model. Parked cars will be replaced by cars running empty, a considerably greater environmental burden. The hire-as-require / Uber system also imposes a one size fits all model on car ownership (as do car clubs), while real people have very different requirements from their cars. Rental helps here (hire a bigger car when you need it), but you have to travel to the rental site (or the car has to come to you), another inefficiency.

Nice idea, but it would only work for a borrowing a vehicle which is also insured by it's owner. It's a response to the abolition of the "any driver" policy, not a way of tailoring insurance to actual usage on a car which you own. The reason: continuous insurance. It's actually illegal to own a vehicle with current VED but without current insurance, even if the vehicle is not on a public road. You would have to declare SORN every hour, then retax the vehicle every time you wanted to use it...

Strange noise has departed as suddenly as it came, so it seems d8veh was right; just an odd motor noise.

When I ride my unassisted MTB, I'm often "caught out" by the way the front digs in and the rear spins out. My e-bike, which is front motor, (2WD) seems much better behaved on slippery surfaces, even though it's on road tyres. It's like comparing a rear wheel drive car with a four wheel drive. Of course, once you get to more extreme "off-roading" you want to be lifting the front wheel over obstacles, so you want the motor at the back... Don't rule out front motor if you have reasons not to mess with the drive train (I wanted to retain a full chaincase). I have the battery over the front wheel, which improves traction. A front motor fat bike could be fun for really soft surfaces as well. Might build one of those next. EBC kits appear really good. Mine is just starting to show signs of age at 11,000 miles.

That depends on your definition of "cheap". They are still a lot more up front than second-hand ICE cars. I can see me owning one in the future, though. Leafs can't tow, so we'd still "need" a bigger car as well.

I considered what I really needed a car for and I probably don't, but it is really useful for things I want to do. So I ended up buying a bigger one, an old diesel 4X4 (Boo, Hiss) and using it less. I intended to run it on Biodiesel, but I can't find a source at the moment. It's really good at the jobs that bikes are rubbish at, like towing caravans and carrying heavy stuff. It's bad around town or commuting, but that's what bikes are for. Plus I can get my ebike in the back. Makes a good bike shed / canoe rack. Now I've just got to get my wife to stop using the other car, which she doesn't "need" but finds very convenient, especially with two children. She doesn't cycle (must get her to try an ebike) and won't drive the big car which she doesn't think she can park. Actually that probably works quite well environmentally, the large car is only used when it's "needed". Though the smaller one isn't much cleaner, ideally that would be an electric, but I can't afford one. Both children cycle, but even I don't think they'd be safe on the road. I've tried riding with them using cycle infrastructure and it's a nightmare. Go, stop, wait cross the road, go again, cross the busy road again... So we drive most places. Public transport doesn't even figure when you need four tickets.