Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Britain to ban sale of all diesel and petrol cars and vans from 2040

Was looking at electric motorbikes a few months ago and the zero seems ideal for my uses but the cheapest model is ten grand which is way too much. Needs to be half that new and half that again second hand.

For me electric can't come fast enough; the only advantage my petrol bike has is the awesome noise it makes when I go under the motorway flyover on my way home which admittedly I will miss a lot :(
 
I'm a big proponent of cycling but it doesn't work for everyone due to disability and age even if the streets were way safer than they are now.

Indeed. Lots of disabled people are heavily dependent on their adapted cars, or on taxis.

Personally I look forward to switching to an electric motorbike when I'm 72...
 
This announcement is such a massive load of bollocks.

The government won't and probably couldn't do anything to unilaterally either ban fossil fuel cars or incentivise electric ones. I don't believe the British government is actually capable of meaningful long term initiative on this or indeed anything like it. The only two entities that are capable are the motor industry itself, and the EU if it survives, albeit in a way that's inherently in bed with the motor industry. And if that sounds like praise for free markets and/or the EU, then think again.

All the government is really doing is getting on the back of an emergent/existing trend (see first both Volvo and the French state) without actually having to do anything at all except reflect the market's new state as a prohibition at the end of it all if circumstances allow them to do so. Really cynical bollocks.

Given that reluctance for centralised assertion, I have my doubts about what automotive will look like by 2040. Cars from 1994 aren't exactly alien relics, are they? So whilst progress will probably be made both in tech and in adoption, I just can't see it being universal without a concentrated effort being made to improve national infrastructure a la 'broadband for everyone', only more expensive.
 
This announcement is such a massive load of bollocks.

The government won't and probably couldn't do anything to unilaterally either ban fossil fuel cars or incentivise electric ones. I don't believe the British government is actually capable of meaningful long term initiative on this or indeed anything like it. The only two entities that are capable are the motor industry itself, and the EU if it survives, albeit in a way that's inherently in bed with the motor industry. And if that sounds like praise for free markets and/or the EU, then think again.

All the government is really doing is getting on the back of an emergent/existing trend (see first both Volvo and the French state) without actually having to do anything at all except reflect the market's new state as a prohibition at the end of it all if circumstances allow them to do so. Really cynical bollocks.

Given that reluctance for centralised assertion, I have my doubts about what automotive will look like by 2040. Cars from 1994 aren't exactly alien relics, are they? So whilst progress will probably be made both in tech and in adoption, I just can't see it being universal without a concentrated effort being made to improve national infrastructure a la 'broadband for everyone', only more expensive.
Liked because you have put some thought into it, but I don't fully understand your point.

At that point in the future they aren't saying every car or van on the road will be electric, they are just saying that new sales will be electric.

There will be a shift between now and then, and after 2040 there will be much greater change.
 
Liked because you have put some thought into it, but I don't fully understand your point.

At that point in the future they aren't saying every car or van on the road will be electric, they are just saying that new sales will be electric.

There will be a shift between now and then, and after 2040 there will be much greater change.
The government would like you to believe that they are making an effort to disrupt the big bad car industry in order to preserve health and the environment. Well, are they balls.

The 'only new cars' bit is nearly irrelevant. In practice cars have a short enough life that a ban on new hydrocarbon cars requires not just a manufacturing industry but an infrastructure and a usage model that has fully transitioned to that way of operating.
 
Ah yes but hybrid trains so they're good trains after all.

Hybrid in this case means partly powered by diesel and partly powered by the intense vacuum induced by a total absence of political fucks given.

If we don't get another actual bus on rails it'll be astonishing.
 
Also, let us note for posterity the reasoning of, "no intrusive wires and masts", which sounds like it would be rejected from the list of deliberately weak Thick of It politicisms for being just too pathetic to be believable.
 

Great stuff, I agree with DotCommunist the Zero SR looks like the best all around and I think I've just decided that instead of a petrol bike which I was thinking of buying soon, I'm going to keep saving for an electric one. After reading that article, I really really want.

The PES2 Street Sport is some proper space-age shit though: Then there’s the helmet, which is linked to cameras on the bike to provide a heads-up display with all kinds of information and the potential for hazard warnings and more.

Gods damn.
 
This announcement is such a massive load of bollocks.

The government won't and probably couldn't do anything to unilaterally either ban fossil fuel cars or incentivise electric ones. I don't believe the British government is actually capable of meaningful long term initiative on this or indeed anything like it. The only two entities that are capable are the motor industry itself, and the EU if it survives, albeit in a way that's inherently in bed with the motor industry. And if that sounds like praise for free markets and/or the EU, then think again.

All the government is really doing is getting on the back of an emergent/existing trend (see first both Volvo and the French state) without actually having to do anything at all except reflect the market's new state as a prohibition at the end of it all if circumstances allow them to do so. Really cynical bollocks.

Given that reluctance for centralised assertion, I have my doubts about what automotive will look like by 2040. Cars from 1994 aren't exactly alien relics, are they? So whilst progress will probably be made both in tech and in adoption, I just can't see it being universal without a concentrated effort being made to improve national infrastructure a la 'broadband for everyone', only more expensive.

Yup quite right.

The only thing I would say is computers from 1994 do look like alien relics so, I'm perhaps more optimistic over what can be achieved over the next 20 years if the focus is is the right area.
 
Yup quite right.

The only thing I would say is computers from 1994 do look like alien relics so, I'm perhaps more optimistic over what can be achieved over the next 20 years if the focus is is the right area.
Someone BTL in the Graun said, not entirely accurately IMO but not completely off either, that advances in electronics have been thanks to physics and very slow advances in battery technology have been thanks to chemistry.
 
It strikes me as unusually long-term planning for any govt, the kind of thing that is just an estimate really.



For the able-bodied, maybe. I'm a big proponent of cycling but it doesn't work for everyone due to disability and age even if the streets were way safer than they are now.

Although of course lots and lots of people with physical disabilities cycle using adapted bikes, and survey shows a majority who do cycle find it easier than walking. I'm sure you are aware of this but often find this kind of statement is made in a blanket way as if nobody with physical disabilities can ride when many/most can.
 
Although of course lots and lots of people with physical disabilities cycle using adapted bikes, and survey shows a majority who do cycle find it easier than walking. I'm sure you are aware of this but often find this kind of statement is made in a blanket way as if nobody with physical disabilities can ride when many/most can.

That's a survey of disabled cyclists, not disabled people in general. It's not really relevant.

We're talking about using bikes as a mode of transport, not for the occasional easy ride in a park on a good day. Most people with physical disabilities cannot do that - unless you keep changing the definition of "physically disabled" until it suits your agenda. The Olympians, for example, tend to use adapted sports cycles that aren't viable on any road.

Some can manage, of course, but note that I said that some people can't ride bikes due to disability - I never said no disabled people can ride bikes. You're arguing with something I didn't say.

And you're telling a disabled former cyclist what it's like to be a disabled cyclist. Would you like to mansplain periods to me next?
 
That's a survey of disabled cyclists, not disabled people in general. It's not really relevant.

We're talking about using bikes as a mode of transport, not for the occasional easy ride in a park on a good day. Most people with physical disabilities cannot do that - unless you keep changing the definition of "physically disabled" until it suits your agenda. The Olympians, for example, tend to use adapted sports cycles that aren't viable on any road.

Some can manage, of course, but note that I said that some people can't ride bikes due to disability - I never said no disabled people can ride bikes. You're arguing with something I didn't say.

And you're telling a disabled former cyclist what it's like to be a disabled cyclist. Would you like to mansplain periods to me next?

fucking hell, please read what I wrote. I was quite clear the survey was disabled cyclists and not all disabled people and I also said "I'm sure you are aware of this" clearly indicating that I did not think you were saying no disabled people could ride bikes, but it's an attitude I come across frequently.

ftr I work with local disabled cyclist groups and know quite a few people who commute and do normal utility/transport cycling using adapted bicycles and trikes. They get pissed off being told cycling stuff is of no use/benefit to them as disabled people.
 
fucking hell, please read what I wrote. I was quite clear the survey was disabled cyclists and not all disabled people and I also said "I'm sure you are aware of this" clearly indicating that I did not think you were saying no disabled people could ride bikes, but it's an attitude I come across frequently.

ftr I work with local disabled cyclist groups and know quite a few people who commute and do normal utility/transport cycling using adapted bicycles and trikes. They get pissed off being told cycling stuff is of no use/benefit to them as disabled people.

But those are very specific people. It's like me saying that because I know some disabled people who are completely homebound then most are.

If you seriously think that most physically disabled people can commute by bike then you're using a definition of disabled that doesn't have any meaningful application.

If it was obvious I wasn't saying every single disabled person can never ride a bike then I'm not sure why you decided to argue with me.
 
more silent cars = more road deaths

That's what I was thinking . If I live that long I'll be half deaf , poorer vision and not be able to jump out of the way of quick things .

Really looking forward to my old age now . Thank you , you fucking hippy twats .
 
Back
Top Bottom