Will petrol / diesel motors more than 20 years old eventually be banned?

[MarkG]

On 11/02/2019 at 06:17, Orsino said:

When you fly you rent a plane seat. You don't have to buy a plane.

If I had to fly ten miles to work every day, I'd definitely want to look at buying my own plane.

And, given that you're supposedly going to have far less autonomous taxis than we currently have cars, how do you plan to get everyone to and from work during the rush hour?

You need enough of them to handle peak demand, and that means most of them will be idle most of the day. Because there simply isn't enough off-peak demand to keep them working,

In fact, it's even worse than that, because currently most cars start from residential areas and go to business areas, then go back from business areas to residential areas at the end of the day. In the glorious no-private-car future, the cars will all have to drive out to the residential areas, then to the business areas, then back to the residential areas to pick up the next lot of passengers to take to the business areas. Half the time during rush hour, those cars are going to be driving empty, merely causing increased congestion.

The whole scam falls apart if you spend even two minutes thinking about how it's actually going to have to work.

Edited Thursday at 04:02 by MarkG

[winkie]

On 02/02/2019 at 09:55, Orsino said:

They won't be banned; they'll just be priced off most roads, especially in cities. The T-charge in London will be £12 per day from April (on top of the congestion charge). 

There's an excellent report at rethinkx.com that shows how car ownership will have largely vanished in cities in the not-too-distant future. Worth a read.

Pricing people out is the latest way of controlling behaviours........ wealthy people are rich enough to buy their bad behaviour, special flowers can because they can afford it......

Where you work is now dependent on where you can afford to live and how much it costs to get to work, factoring the time taken out of your day for travelling.......in future the work will have to go to the people not the people to the work unless are prepared to pay the worker a premium to work where want them to be.

[Riedquat]

1 hour ago, winkie said:

Where you work is now dependent on where you can afford to live and how much it costs to get to work, factoring the time taken out of your day for travelling.......in future the work will have to go to the people not the people to the work unless are prepared to pay the worker a premium to work where want them to be.

Wouldn't work having to go back to where the people are be a good thing? More local jobs, less travelling overall (with all the associated energy use and required infrastructure). People being priced out is definitely a bad thing but that would at least be a silver lining to the cloud.

[Orsino]

2 hours ago, winkie said:

Pricing people out is the latest way of controlling behaviours........ wealthy people are rich enough to buy their bad behaviour, special flowers can because they can afford it......

I'm all in favour of this. It doesn't have to be a prohibitive amount of money. A 5p charge for a plastic bag has had an enormous impact on the amount of plastic waste we produce as a society. 

I also think it's fairer that people pay the full societal costs of their actions. I would absolutely extend this to businesses, who often expect society to clean up after them. I bet fast-food companies would change their behaviour pretty quick if they were fined for every bit of their packaging left strewn on the High Street.

In addition, pricing is far more flexible and targeted than cumbersome laws or blanket bans. It's likely that Scottish farmers are not going to give up their diesel vehicles any time soon. Nor should they. Someone driving a diesel 4x4 in London are entirely different matter and should be priced accordingly. 

I also like to consider the airplane analogy. Those prepared to spend thousands on 1st Class are subsidizing the rest of us in Economy. 

[Aidan Ap Word]

Can we start rewarding people for actively making the right choice instead of beating people with a stick (or trying to) for making the "wrong" choice.

That said: taxing old vehicles off the road might make sense - if it is proven that they are indeed the bad choice.

Disclosure: I think it is measurably proven that newer vehicles are a better plan.

[Orsino]

6 hours ago, MarkG said:

And, given that you're supposedly going to have far less autonomous taxis than we currently have cars, how do you plan to get everyone to and from work during the rush hour?

You need enough of them to handle peak demand, and that means most of them will be idle most of the day. Because there simply isn't enough off-peak demand to keep them working,

In fact, it's even worse than that, because currently most cars start from residential areas and go to business areas, then go back from business areas to residential areas at the end of the day. In the glorious no-private-car future, the cars will all have to drive out to the residential areas, then to the business areas, then back to the residential areas to pick up the next lot of passengers to take to the business areas. Half the time during rush hour, those cars are going to be driving empty, merely causing increased congestion.

On the first point, I'd argue that if you do not own the vehicle you'd be more willing to share it. A vehicle fleet would be keen to promote this for economic reasons too. What you'd get is effectively a hybrid of public and private transport, with the benefits of both. Uber already operate a Pool service and it works fine.

Regarding off-peak, it's best to regard an electric car as primarily a battery on wheels. When not ferrying people around, it can be plugged in where it's needed to meet and regulate energy demand. It would earn income from doing this. Again, something a vehicle fleet would be keen to do.

Rush 'hour' on the London Underground is actually a 15-20 minute window that moves in from the outskirts as everyone aims to be at their desk at 9am. Apart from the blunt instrument of peak and off-peak train tickets, there's very little financial incentive for the individual commuter to modify their journey. They pay extra only in terms of time, hassle and discomfort. A fleet of autonomous vehicles would make a significant impact on the efficiency of rush hour simply by financially incentivising people to leave 30 minutes earlier or later - and as you're not driving, that incentive might be in the form of free entertainment en route. In fact, the in-vehicle content is probably how these companies will make most of their money. I've even seen it suggested that brands would offer the transport for free in exchange for a captive audience. 

[Orsino]

4 minutes ago, Aidan Ap Word said:

Can we start rewarding people for actively making the right choice instead of beating people with a stick (or trying to) for making the "wrong" choice.

You mean like Help to Buy? 😊

[Aidan Ap Word]

1 minute ago, Orsino said:

You mean like Help to Buy? 😊

Help to Buy is rewarding the house builder for building more houses - so if your value judgment is that this is what society needs then HTB was a successful incentive scheme.

That it was sold (using blatant lies and devious Machiavellian scheming) as helping the first time buyer (etc) was just a fact of the mechanics they needed to use in order to get the adoption high enough to effect "positive" change for the brown-envelope issuing house builder old boys club.

The value judgement about what is the right thing to do is patently wrong ... but buying people's behaviour in order to achieve a government target (misguided and evil) ... it worked didn't it?

It's two separate things:

i) deciding what behaviour to engender - remembering that vote-buying is the "positive" outcome for incumbent gubbermint

ii) finding some way of buying this "positive" behaviour

 

 

[Orsino]

Good behaviour is perhaps harder to agree on. Some might say that my joke suggestion of Help to Buy is rewarding good behaviour (I'd disagree). I suppose the government contribution to charitable donations might be less contentious. Tax-free ISAs encourage people to save. To bring this back to transport, the government operates a subsidised cycle scheme to encourage people to cycle to work. Certain forms of public transport are subsidised to encourage people to use buses rather than cars etc.

It's not that we don't get rewarded for good behaviour (over and above the rewards of good health or financial security). It's that we very quickly begin to take that reward for granted and get very upset when it's removed, so it's of limited use to politicians looking to win over the electorate.

Edited Thursday at 11:23 by Orsino

[Riedquat]

54 minutes ago, Aidan Ap Word said:

Can we start rewarding people for actively making the right choice instead of beating people with a stick (or trying to) for making the "wrong" choice.

That said: taxing old vehicles off the road might make sense - if it is proven that they are indeed the bad choice.

Disclosure: I think it is measurably proven that newer vehicles are a better plan.

Taxing old vehicles off the road (depends what you mean by "old") just annoys the people with them without achieving a great deal because the majority of vehicles don't have that long a lifespan anyway. Just done a quick Google, the average age of a car in the UK is just over 8 years, although it's increasing because they don't turn into heaps of rust after the first shower these days.

If you're going to use taxes to change peoples' behaviour it's better directed at influencing what choice of new car they make.

[Aidan Ap Word]

39 minutes ago, Orsino said:

Good behaviour is perhaps harder to agree on. Some might say that my joke suggestion of Help to Buy is rewarding good behaviour (I'd disagree). I suppose the government contribution to charitable donations might be less contentious. Tax-free ISAs encourage people to save. To bring this back to transport, the government operates a subsidised cycle scheme to encourage people to cycle to work. Certain forms of public transport are subsidised to encourage people to use buses rather than cars etc.

It's not that we don't get rewarded for good behaviour (over and above the rewards of good health or financial security). It's that we very quickly begin to take that reward for granted and get very upset when it's removed, so it's of limited use to politicians looking to win over the electorate.

Take it for granted - indeed. Good point, encouraging good behaviour thus has an inherent time limit to it's effectiveness ... and it becomes sticky when ti comes time to stop that behaviour, too.

That said: taxes are sticky too (governments can't turn them off because they rely on them for their income).

Either way government is between a rock and a hard place - sticks are abused (and abusive); carrots quickly become addictive.

Hard to make an argument for the effectiveness of Big Government (at least in terms of taxes and incentives) over the long term.

28 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Taxing old vehicles off the road (depends what you mean by "old") just annoys the people with them without achieving a great deal because the majority of vehicles don't have that long a lifespan anyway. Just done a quick Google, the average age of a car in the UK is just over 8 years, although it's increasing because they don't turn into heaps of rust after the first shower these days.

If you're going to use taxes to change peoples' behaviour it's better directed at influencing what choice of new car they make.

Good point - esp. influencing choice - as we have used govt price incentives ... but those often turn out to be little more than a bung to the manufacturers ... and we got very used to them and then there is Uproar (maybe from a small group only) in terms of scaling them down.

Yikes, more rock-and-a-hard place.

[winkie]

2 hours ago, Orsino said:

I'm all in favour of this. It doesn't have to be a prohibitive amount of money. A 5p charge for a plastic bag has had an enormous impact on the amount of plastic waste we produce as a society. 

I also think it's fairer that people pay the full societal costs of their actions. I would absolutely extend this to businesses, who often expect society to clean up after them. I bet fast-food companies would change their behaviour pretty quick if they were fined for every bit of their packaging left strewn on the High Street.

In addition, pricing is far more flexible and targeted than cumbersome laws or blanket bans. It's likely that Scottish farmers are not going to give up their diesel vehicles any time soon. Nor should they. Someone driving a diesel 4x4 in London are entirely different matter and should be priced accordingly. 

I also like to consider the airplane analogy. Those prepared to spend thousands on 1st Class are subsidizing the rest of us in Economy. 

Rubbish (plastic rubbish and excess packaging).....In my view shops should not be offering single use plastic bags to buy at any cost.....they should be selling environmentally friendly bags for 10p or whatever it costs to produce.....perhaps it might nudge people into actually remembering to bring a reusable bag next time.

The wealthiest people do the most damage to the planet.......they consume the most.....are they more entitled to create more damage just because they can afford it? No of course they are not.....

Don't you think that every individual has the same rights to the world resources? the world is a home for us all, it is just those with the most that want ever more without thought for the consequences of their actions (that they think they can buy)that are ruining it for the rest, here and now but also those yet to be born.

It will only be customers and consumers that will force changes on to manufacturers, suppliers and corporations to do things differently....putting the environment near the top of priorities instead of a irritating after thought.......money talks.

There is a new shop near to me where you can now buy produce by weight or volume, bringing own storage containers.....both food and cleaning products.....a start.

[Orsino]

2 hours ago, winkie said:

It will only be customers and consumers that will force changes on to manufacturers, suppliers and corporations to do things differently....putting the environment near the top of priorities instead of a irritating after thought.......money talks.

I completely agree with you on a ban on plastic bags, but I bet that this would never be achieved through customer pressure alone. The government needs to mandate it, and I think they often find it easier to introduce a charge than ban something outright.

A proposed ban can quickly create a vocal opposition. The media will find some extreme exception that would be adversely affected by the ban. Vested interests can say it's an assault on freedom of choice, or class warfare etc. I'll never forget this draw-dropping example!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/jun/09/smoking.politics

 

The health secretary, John Reid, angered health campaigners and anti-smoking groups when he said yesterday that smoking is one of the few pleasures left for the poor on sink estates and in working men's clubs.

Mr Reid said that the middle classes were obsessed with giving instruction to people from lower socio-economic backgrounds and that smoking was not one of the worst problems facing poorer people.

"I just do not think the worst problem on our sink estates by any means is smoking, but it is an obsession of the learned middle class," he said. "What enjoyment does a 21-year-old single mother of three living in a council sink estate get? The only enjoyment sometimes they have is to have a cigarette."

[winkie]

4 minutes ago, Orsino said:

I completely agree with you on a ban on plastic bags, but I bet that this would never be achieved through customer pressure alone. The government needs to mandate it, and I think they often find it easier to introduce a charge than ban something outright.

A proposed ban can quickly create a vocal opposition. The media will find some extreme exception that would be adversely affected by the ban. Vested interests can say it's an assault on freedom of choice, or class warfare etc. I'll never forget this draw-dropping example!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/jun/09/smoking.politics

 

The health secretary, John Reid, angered health campaigners and anti-smoking groups when he said yesterday that smoking is one of the few pleasures left for the poor on sink estates and in working men's clubs.

Mr Reid said that the middle classes were obsessed with giving instruction to people from lower socio-economic backgrounds and that smoking was not one of the worst problems facing poorer people.

"I just do not think the worst problem on our sink estates by any means is smoking, but it is an obsession of the learned middle class," he said. "What enjoyment does a 21-year-old single mother of three living in a council sink estate get? The only enjoyment sometimes they have is to have a cigarette."

With regard to plastic the only ones to fear are the plastic bag manufactures......there doesn't have to be a ban, all it needs is a big major supermarket to promote the fact that they no longer provide single use non biodegradable bags for customer use at the tills.....and will in future provide a eco alternative.

Another point is who is benefiting from all these 5ps the supermarkets charge....if it is other charities do they know the money is made from people using non rot plastic made from oil that finds its way into the sea, put into ground fill for hundreds of years or when burned to destroy, causes air pollution?.....that they are benefiting from bad behaviors.

Tobacco companies make money from the addicted and people that need quick fixes, so does gaming, alcohol and betting firms, lots of money being made from illegal drugs and sex on the streets, (often sold to the wealthy users who can afford it) forms a large part of street knife crime and delinquency.....the huge numbers of plastic bags (wrapping, packaging, trays, bubble wrap,film etc) being used affect all of society now and into the future and there are better alternatives available now, don't buy them or have a bag that can be reused many times out of for example, cloth that rots quite easily.

Everything we have or use has a good side and a bad side....all good can be turned into bad and anything bad can be turned into good.....its how you use it.