So you are saying we do nothing, let things get really bad and see what comes along, while we continue on a path that is obviously unsustainable?

 

No.

 

I'm saying recognise what has been achieved both accidentally and deliberately and stop hammering on with futile arguments that achieve nothing:

 

Although total vehicle mileage has risen as the fleet has expanded, the mileage per average individual has greatly reduced, by around 39% in fact, a huge reduction from a peak of 12k per annum to 7.3 k average.

 

Everyone is complaining about the overall rise in traffic, but are seemingly unaware that the rise has itself brought about the reduction in individual mileages due to several reasons.

 

In effect multiple problems causing the level of traffic have been condensed to the single true one at the root of all the climate problems, too many people.

 

When I was born there were 2 billion people in the world, now there are 8 billion. That is what is unsustainable and until that problem is successfully tackled we won't achieve anything.

 

To put this in a local perspective, when I was born the UK population was 47 million who almost entirely walked, cycled and rode on public transport. They typically had a bath once a week and each household did a once weekly hand wash of clothing etc. Their electricity use was minimal, almost entirely just lighting with gas mainly just for cooking.

 

Now there's 68 million people in the UK with half of them driving around in cars, vans etc. Often kept warm with central heating, they frequently shower every day, sometimes more than once. They randomly run their washing machine a few times a week and their electricity and gas usages are huge.

 

Little wonder that we've swapped the past's plentiful water with now not enough, but plentiful pollution and a failing climate instead.

 

I've no idea what the successful answer will be, or even if there will be one, but one thing is certain.

 

Getting a few people riding a bike isn't it.

.

To put this in a local perspective, when I was born the UK population was 47 million who almost entirely walked, cycled and rode on public transport. They typically had a bath once a week and each household did a once weekly hand wash of clothing etc. Their electricity use was minimal, almost entirely just lighting with gas mainly just for cooking.

Showing my age now but I remember all this. I also remember Raymond Baxter on "Tomorrows world" (BBC TV program) saying we`d be working half the hours in the future as we did then, 1970`s. But the cynic in me then knew the boss`s would take all they could get and it wouldn't happen.

 

Joking aside though, the world population is a problem - those not in the consumerist western world, want to be, and so Mother Earth will be bled dry of materials unless something nasty happens to reduce our numbers or expectations.

 

Expectations will only be quashed by the price being unafordable, either in monetary or ecological terms.

 

Car prices are getting ever more expensive (fuel and vehicle costs to name but two) - there's hope for e-bikes then (providing potential users are not scared off by alarmist views on battery fires ).

[ATTACH type=full" alt="49988]49988[/ATTACH]

 

Joking aside though, the world population is a problem - those not in the consumerist western world, want to be, and so Mother Earth will be bled dry of materials unless something nasty happens to reduce our numbers or expectations.

 

Expectations will only be quashed by the price being unafordable, either in monetary or ecological terms.

 

Car prices are getting ever more expensive (fuel and vehicle costs to name but two) - there's hope for e-bikes then (providing potential users are not scared off by alarmist views on battery fires ).

love that picture

No.

 

I'm saying recognise what has been achieved both accidentally and deliberately and stop hammering on with futile arguments that achieve nothing:

 

Although total vehicle mileage has risen as the fleet has expanded, the mileage per average individual has greatly reduced, by around 39% in fact, a huge reduction from a peak of 12k per annum to 7.3 k average.

 

Everyone is complaining about the overall rise in traffic, but are seemingly unaware that the rise has itself brought about the reduction in individual mileages due to several reasons.

 

In effect multiple problems causing the level of traffic have been condensed to the single true one at the root of all the climate problems, too many people.

 

When I was born there were 2 billion people in the world, now there are 8 billion. That is what is unsustainable and until that problem is successfully tackled we won't achieve anything.

 

To put this in a local perspective, when I was born the UK population was 47 million who almost entirely walked, cycled and rode on public transport. They typically had a bath once a week and each household did a once weekly hand wash of clothing etc. Their electricity use was minimal, almost entirely just lighting with gas mainly just for cooking.

 

Now there's 68 million people in the UK with half of them driving around in cars, vans etc. Often kept warm with central heating, they frequently shower every day, sometimes more than once. They randomly run their washing machine a few times a week and their electricity and gas usages are huge.

 

Little wonder that we've swapped the past's plentiful water with now not enough, but plentiful pollution and a failing climate instead.

 

I've no idea what the successful answer will be, or even if there will be one, but one thing is certain.

 

Getting a few people riding a bike isn't it.

.

 

 

Now you're just making excuses to do nothing, just blame it on the number of people there are and then you don't have to do anything, leave it all as it is.

 

Getting people cycling is not going to solve everything, but it is a no brainer to encourage more people to cycle, for such a wide range of reasons. Even ignoring the environmental benefits, the saving to the NHS would be huge if we were not so sedentary. Also, there are significant economic benefits. For a start, we could save a huge amount by not spending £27 Bn on new roads. If you go to any town centre in the NL, you will struggle to find a closed down shop unit. Also, reducing noise from traffic makes towns much more pleasant places to live. Then, reducing speed limits to 20 mph would make our urban roads much safer, far fewer people would die but you don't want that either as it makes driving less "fun".

 

Once again we have run into your cognitive dissonance and have come to the end of the road.

Now you're just making excuses to do nothing, just blame it on the number of people there are and then you don't have to do anything, leave it all as it is.

 

Getting people cycling is not going to solve everything, but it is a no brainer to encourage more people to cycle, for such a wide range of reasons. Even ignoring the environmental benefits, the saving to the NHS would be huge if we were not so sedentary. Also, there are significant economic benefits. For a start, we could save a huge amount by not spending £27 Bn on new roads. If you go to any town centre in the NL, you will struggle to find a closed down shop unit. Also, reducing noise from traffic makes towns much more pleasant places to live. Then, reducing speed limits to 20 mph would make our urban roads much safer, far fewer people would die but you don't want that either as it makes driving less "fun".

 

Once again we have run into your cognitive dissonance and have come to the end of the road.

 

Once again no, I have not said do nothing. Of course encourage cycling, but be realistic, which you are very far from being. We are never going to get this country cycling in remotely the way the Dutch do it, so drop the fanaticism. The Dutch started strongly in 1972 from 40% still cycling. We started the campaign weakly in the early 1990s from almost no-one still cycling and our country already firmly lost to the car culture.

 

We've made some gain but are now almost at the limits as the cycling takeup slows down. As I've shown before it's only the relatively young who have taken it up and most who have been forced out of cars in London have gone to public transport rather than cycling.

 

So getting people cycling is a dead mans shoes process of waiting for the next generation. But even that has been made far more difficult since so many of the young have never cycled due to parental fears not allowing their children to have bikes. Never a cyclist makes it far more difficult for getting cycling adopted as they get older. This again is in stark contrast with the Netherlands where all can cycle early, doing it even on pedelecs which we ban for the under 14s here.

 

The outcome of all this is the pathetically slow uptake of cycling here, something which you will continue to see over the years as you gradually come to realise the wisdom of my words.

 

It's a bit like the campaigns to get people to eat more heathily. A few do, but the majority take advantage of the ever growing number of junk food delivery services. One step forward, two steps backwards.

.

Despite the efficiency of bikes, most of us are still suck in transport poverty:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/09/entrenched-car-culture-leaves-millions-of-britons-in-transport-poverty

 

Quoting the article:

 

"about three-quarters of drivers think they will always own a car, while just under half, 47%, believe they have no alternative."

 

= 28% might consider alternatives such as cycling, as economic conditions worsen and electric cars remain relatively expensive? Unless there are "How yo ride a bike" night school classes offered, I expect most will simply buy dangerous escooters. Making throttles legal would disrupt escooter adoption somewhat I think.

For the conspiracy theorists here...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2023/jan/10/why-do-traffic-reduction-schemes-attract-so-many-conspiracy-theories

For the conspiracy theorists here...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2023/jan/10/why-do-traffic-reduction-schemes-attract-so-many-conspiracy-theories

 

Peterson and all who think like him are obviously crackpots. The Oxford scheme is simply a variant on London's congestion charge and it could be just as successful if implemented strongly enough.

 

The only criticisms I have of the scheme is that they are making two many exceptions and being too generous with Free Passes, both of which undermine the intention to restrict motor traffic.

 

Oxford shouldn't worry about the critics and should bring in the scheme with maximum effect. London has shown twice with both the Fares Fair and Congestion Charge schemes that once up and working with their advantages realised, almost all the opposition melts away. I'm confident it will be the same with Ultra Low Emission Zone ( ULEZ ), at present strongly opposed before it's up and running.

 

As you've said we have to do something and I'm all for doing the proven and effective things, rather than banging our heads against the wall year after year with the ineffective persuasion campaigns.

 

All people are small "c" conservatives who resist change so they have to forced into it. All our major urban centres will have to have motor traffic restriction schemes eventually, so the sooner we implement them before further traffic growth, the better.

.

For the conspiracy theorists here...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2023/jan/10/why-do-traffic-reduction-schemes-attract-so-many-conspiracy-theories

I'm no expert, but it might be because the first thing the councils do is set up cameras and barriers when they decide to make 15 minute cities/20 minute neighbourhoods, not build new medical services, local shops and parks - just saying.

1984 is George Orwell's terrifying vision of a totalitarian future in which everything and everyone is slave to a tyrannical regime.

 

https://www.wob.com/en-gb/books/george-orwell/1984/9780141036144?cq_src=google_ads&cq_cmp=19884734874&cq_con=&cq_med=pla&cq_plac=&cq_net=x&gclid=Cj0KCQjw1_SkBhDwARIsANbGpFv-vMbyKUy2NWIETx8vHd9Of7jAF0IQPZ3mqLWoeNYDgNten9Nz3KIaAk_JEALw_wcB#GOR001414416

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming

 

the dwp has been using its providers to send ppl on this crap for the last 20 years because it is all about control and doing what you are told or else.

 

[MEDIA=flickr]2jda6pq[/MEDIA]

 

10 ppl £1000 each via dwp prap system and if ur that stupid and you cant do that.

 

[MEDIA=flickr]2jFR88q[/MEDIA]

 

 

 

the dwp has been using its providers to send ppl on this crap for the last 20 years because it is all about control and doing what you are told or else.

 

 

 

 

government should spend the money on funding paid apprenticeship instead of those useless courses.

5 week course on how to sleep? Wow...

It is Online via Zoom. You just fire up your laptop and go to sleep?

Note that the *only* "dangerously high" readings were obtained in London underground where only *electric* trains run.

The underground is full of all sorts of crap. It's been around since the 19th century. Wouldn't want to spend much time in it. The trains are electric now, but the contacts are open and they spark and arc all over the place, filling the air with ozone, iron oxide particles and carbon dust. I remember when I used to ride on it to work blowing my nose, the tissue would be black.

 

However, this guy is only looking at particulates, not all the other forms of pollution from vehicles such as NOx etc. Plus, he does limited measurements at limited locations/times of day within a limited time frame. No account of weather conditions etc. So you can't draw the conclusions that he does - it's not scientifically rigorous.

goatees pollute more than beards

Note that the *only* "dangerously high" readings were obtained in London underground where only *electric* trains run.

 

One of the worst aspects of the web is the way it's polluted with idiots like this, giving wholly misleading information to promote a personal agenda, in this case his anti e-car agenda.

 

The nature of the pollution in the London Underground system is entirely different from that above ground so is not comparable. It's exacerbated by the system's old design who never provided for adequate air conditioning and filtration. Underground it's the brake dust particulates that dominate, above ground those are insignificant compared to the exhaust gas pollutants.

 

And he is wrong to claim that the only dangerously high levels were in the Underground system. London has long had many dangerously high zones of traffic pollution, even in my own fringe borough adjacent to the Surrey countryside there are zones that have resulted in EU fines for breaching danger levels. Those and others like them are precisely why we are getting the ULEZ zone controls.

 

The problem isn't imaginary, the data shows that several thousands in London die prematurely each year from air pollution and London is the only place I know of there are coroners findings, on the evidence, of childrens deaths definitely due to traffic air pollution. Killing children to satisfy the cravings of fanatical petrolheads is never going to be acceptable.

 

And of course the idiocy of the petrolheads campaigning is that they imagine they can stop the adoption of electric vehicles in place of i.c. ones. That is long lost battle:

 

There are now over 1.2 million plug in electric cars in the UK, numbers growing exponentially.

 

At the end of 2016 just 0.4% of all new vehicles registered were electric, by 2022 this had risen to 16.6% of new car registrations. A further 6.3% of all new cars registered were plug-in hybrids, making the total market share for new cars registered in 2022 with a plug-in 22.9%.

 

By the end of this year a quarter of our car sales will be plug-in, and that expanding exponentially. There's similar rapid growth in the adoption of electric vans. All over this country electric buses are being adopted, nowhere more spectacularly than here in London where we now only buy zero emission buses, battery electric for most routes and hydrogen fuel cell for the few longer routes. We now have major truck manufacturers like Volvo and Renault offering ranges of e-trucks from 7.5 tonnes to 40 tonne capable tractor units for Artics

 

Nor are we alone, some are far ahead of us. Over six years ago Norway's new car registrations exceeded 50% electric and their entire national car fleet is now 86.8% electric, spelling out the imminent death of i.c. cars there.

 

In Denmark they are far advanced in using e-car owners batteries to support the grid, V to G being something being planned for many countries, including the UK, as part of tackling climate change.

 

Those who think all this can be stopped by online protests are out of their tiny minds.

.

He says the ELITech TemTop LKC1000S+ claims to measure "HCHO (Formaldehyde) mg/m³, TVOC (Total Volatile Organic Compounds) mg/m³ as well as PM2.5, PM10, AQI",

Not just particulates.

Maybe some London based members can get one and measure *rigourously* for themselves on the A41 Finchley rd on a dry sunny day with plenty traffic?

By the way..

One YT commenter revealed his supercharged 4.2L Range Rover was somehow compliant. Could it be because a certain public official drives around in that *particular* model? Hehe

https://www.temtop.co.uk/products/lkc-1000s-2nd

Edited July 1, 20232 yr by MikelBikel

He says the ELITech TemTop LKC1000S+ claims to measure "HCHO (Formaldehyde) mg/m³, TVOC (Total Volatile Organic Compounds) mg/m³ as well as PM2.5, PM10, AQI",

Not just particulates.

 

I didn't claim it was just particulates in the underground, just that it is over whelmingly brake particulates. That is the opposite of the position on the roads, where brake particulates as a proportion of pollution are low, and decreasing with every additional e-vehicle, since they use motor braking for much of their deceleration.

 

I don't need to get one of those testers and check for myself. My brain alone is more than up to the job, unlike that of the anti e-car twerps like him. Just like the dinosaurs of the past, these present tribute acts will soon be extinct.

.

He says the ELITech TemTop LKC1000S+ claims to measure "HCHO (Formaldehyde) mg/m³, TVOC (Total Volatile Organic Compounds) mg/m³ as well as PM2.5, PM10, AQI",

Not just particulates.

Maybe some London based members can get one and measure *rigourously* for themselves on the A41 Finchley rd on a dry sunny day with plenty traffic?

By the way..

One YT commenter revealed his supercharged 4.2L Range Rover was somehow compliant. Could it be because a certain public official drives around in that *particular* model? Hehe

https://www.temtop.co.uk/products/lkc-1000s-2nd

 

 

But not NOx. I's not just a case of once on a dry sunny day, it's all day, all year round and then looking over the data properly. This has been done and it shows the air in London is bad and something needs to be done about it to prevent premature deaths and other conditions such as Alzheimer's.

Loads of data out there in the public domain. You can see how the pollution is worst along main roads and how bad it is even in the extended ULEZ:

 

https://data.london.gov.uk/air-quality/

Bicycles, ebikes, cars, electric cars are not green, it's a question of which uses less materials / manufacturing and is better for the environment.

I would rather cycle behind an electric car but it does not mean it is green as damage is done to the environment in its manufacturing process.

It's just that we don't smell, hear the damage, we forgot about all the damage done with battery production and how this affects people's lives

Cars have their place in our lives and people buy what car they can afford.

I have this type of discussion with my friends and the issue I have is the over promotion of the positives of the green agenda but no mention of the negatives.

By limiting traffic in one area then increases traffic in another area, limiting parking in a city / town centre moves the shopping to big out of town complexes.

We do what we can to help make the world a better place, can we all improve, probably, can we all afford to do more, no.

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/uk-firms-range-rover-resto-mod-gets-ulez-compliant-v8

Just need deep pockets full of green, vroom!

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/uk-firms-range-rover-resto-mod-gets-ulez-compliant-v8

Just need deep pockets full of green, vroom!

 

They've wasted their time creating it, the £125,000 it costs is over 27 years of the daily ULEZ charge. Anyone with that kind of money to waste will drive a much better car of their choice and pay the charge, should they still insist on an i.c. one. But that won't be for long before they wake up to how superior an electric car is overall for most people.

.