60 mph motorway limits

[Bryn666]

There should be the ability for specialists to swap batteries out when they wear out, but I agree its totally not practical to charge them indoors in people's homes! With lampposts you have hit on the source of the electric supply for EV charging, there may need to be double the charge points to lampposts though.

Why should the public electricity supply be used to subsidise driving? Are you going to pay a surcharge for using the council's network, assuming the streetlights are the council's network and not fed through DNO apparatus?

Why should the public highway be obstructed by wires strewn from private vehicles? How is this compliant with the Equalities Act towards visually impaired pedestrians, or those with mobility issues that can't step over a wire? How are you going to protect these assets from vandalism? How are you going to ensure that the supply is used for charging EVs only?

It is not as simple as plugging a wire into a lamppost. You would need to rewire the entire circuit due to all the power being drawn from chargers, so this will cost millions. And you expect people without EVs, like myself, to subsidise this do you?

Once you go down the "Why should x be used to subsidise y?" road things get rather tricky. I could equally say why should we subsidise street lighting - people should either stay at home after dark or provide their own light source from a torch etc. Why should I subsidise education, when I don't have children etc etc.

The fact is we do these things because they're recognised as a public good. Most people need or at least expect to be able to drive to get to work, to visit people and places etc. You can argue that they shouldn't but the fact is they do. Even authoritarian governments don't usually do highly unpopular things unnecessarily, if they want to stay in power. So it's highly unlikely that the majority of people are going to stop driving. Yes, public transport can and should be improved but private transport isn't just going to go away.

So if people are going to keep driving, the question is how to reduce the health and environmental cost ie a public good. Hence the widely recognised need for the electrification of road transport.

Parking a car is not a public good. If you want to run a car, that is a decision you have made. You choose to live somewhere without appropriate car storage, that's your problem. It is akin to buying a 1 bedroom house and then complaining you're overcrowded because you have 5 kids.

Street lighting in urban areas has proven societal benefits.

Parked cars do not.

[booshank]

Why should the public electricity supply be used to subsidise driving? Are you going to pay a surcharge for using the council's network, assuming the streetlights are the council's network and not fed through DNO apparatus?

Why should the public highway be obstructed by wires strewn from private vehicles? How is this compliant with the Equalities Act towards visually impaired pedestrians, or those with mobility issues that can't step over a wire? How are you going to protect these assets from vandalism? How are you going to ensure that the supply is used for charging EVs only?

It is not as simple as plugging a wire into a lamppost. You would need to rewire the entire circuit due to all the power being drawn from chargers, so this will cost millions. And you expect people without EVs, like myself, to subsidise this do you?

Once you go down the "Why should x be used to subsidise y?" road things get rather tricky. I could equally say why should we subsidise street lighting - people should either stay at home after dark or provide their own light source from a torch etc. Why should I subsidise education, when I don't have children etc etc.

The fact is we do these things because they're recognised as a public good. Most people need or at least expect to be able to drive to get to work, to visit people and places etc. You can argue that they shouldn't but the fact is they do. Even authoritarian governments don't usually do highly unpopular things unnecessarily, if they want to stay in power. So it's highly unlikely that the majority of people are going to stop driving. Yes, public transport can and should be improved but private transport isn't just going to go away.

So if people are going to keep driving, the question is how to reduce the health and environmental cost ie a public good. Hence the widely recognised need for the electrification of road transport.

Parking a car is not a public good. If you want to run a car, that is a decision you have made. You choose to live somewhere without appropriate car storage, that's your problem. It is akin to buying a 1 bedroom house and then complaining you're overcrowded because you have 5 kids.

Street lighting in urban areas has proven societal benefits.

Parked cars do not.

We can go round and round the merits of street parking, but it would be fruitless as people are not going to stop doing it. No one is going to stop the many millions of people without off street parking from having cars.

Once you start from this reality rather than an alternative reality of how you think things *should* be, the question remains how to reduce the emissions from these vehicles (a clear public benefit).

Charging while parked obviously doesn't have to be on the street and not all street parking places are going to be suitable. There are also all the other places cars are parked, such as work car parks, shopping centres etc. The point is EV charging and fuelling are such different technologies that there's no logic in expecting the former to mirror the latter. It would be like expecting people to go to centralised locations to send emails and then having them delivered once a day just because that was how letters worked.

[KeithW]

We can go round and round the merits of street parking, but it would be fruitless as people are not going to stop doing it. No one is going to stop the many millions of people without off street parking from having cars.

Once you start from this reality rather than an alternative reality of how you think things *should* be, the question remains how to reduce the emissions from these vehicles (a clear public benefit).

Charging while parked obviously doesn't have to be on the street and not all street parking places are going to be suitable. There are also all the other places cars are parked, such as work car parks, shopping centres etc. The point is EV charging and fuelling are such different technologies that there's no logic in expecting the former to mirror the latter. It would be like expecting people to go to centralised locations to send emails and then having them delivered once a day just because that was how letters worked.

There is no reason at all why metered charging points should not be installed in towns and cities, there is generally good electrical provision on streets and the required posts are already on the market and can be incorporated intp existing lamp posts.
https://www.earth.org.uk/img/EV/ubitric ... q-853w.jpg

[Bryn666]

Metered charging points at specific locations in a town is a different concept to lotrjw's suggestion every house gets a charger wired to a lamppost at taxpayer's expense.

And as for "we have to deal with the reality we've got"; sure, the reality we've got is a climate that is going to cause loss of coastal agricultural land and towns through sea level rises. The polluted air we breathe is still causing more excess deaths per year than the pandemic right now could ever hope to. Traffic kills 1,800 a year and maims a further 25,000. We waste millions of people hours a day to a pointless activity (commuting) causing stress and mental health disorders when we have now established more people can work remotely and succeed.

History will remember those who wanted a better world and those who were ostriches burying their heads in the sand and thinking the status quo would prevail.

We need to reduce the number of vehicles on the road. There is no alternative and people dismissing the very real reality we are in as fantasy nonsense or socialism or whatever canard is popular this week will be in for a real shock in the coming decades.

[booshank]

Metered charging points at specific locations in a town is a different concept to lotrjw's suggestion every house gets a charger wired to a lamppost at taxpayer's expense.

And as for "we have to deal with the reality we've got"; sure, the reality we've got is a climate that is going to cause loss of coastal agricultural land and towns through sea level rises. The polluted air we breathe is still causing more excess deaths per year than the pandemic right now could ever hope to. Traffic kills 1,800 a year and maims a further 25,000. We waste millions of people hours a day to a pointless activity (commuting) causing stress and mental health disorders when we have now established more people can work remotely and succeed.

History will remember those who wanted a better world and those who were ostriches burying their heads in the sand and thinking the status quo would prevail.

We need to reduce the number of vehicles on the road. There is no alternative and people dismissing the very real reality we are in as fantasy nonsense or socialism or whatever canard is popular this week will be in for a real shock in the coming decades.

These are all good points and I agree with them, except I think the logical conclusion is the opposite of yours. We urgently need to reduce emissions. We can't wait for everyone without a driveway to stop driving. Hence we need to electrify transport so that it can be powered by low carbon sources of energy.

That's not to say that we shouldn't be reducing commuting (shown to be possible by the current pandemic), improving public transport, improving planning so that there is less need to drive etc. Bus companies are still buying diesel buses which is unforgivable. I don't believe Bath has a single electric bus, despite being badly affected by air pollution. Other cities around the world are already switching or have switched to electric buses. Regulations urgently need tightening.

But even if we do all those things we're not going to stop the many millions of people without off street parking from driving. Reduce it yes, but it's not going away in the foreseeable future. The choice therefore isn't between people driving and not driving, it's between continuing to use fossil fuel powered vehicles with all the health and environmental costs and switching to lower emission vehicles. If you block the transition, it's not going to stop people driving, it will just prolong the use of FF vehicles.

[Bryn666]

Electric powered vehicles are still carbon intensive, those batteries aren't just appearing or being charged by magic. Shifting the problem around isn't going to get rid of it.

The Welsh government has just announced a target to get 30% of the Welsh population able to work from home on a permanent basis. This is all it needs, just enough to tip the scales away from runaway climate devastation and buy time for long term planning. The "EVs will save the day" argument is designed purely to further lock in car dependency and keep the car industry in charge of the political agenda where transport is concerned.

[booshank]

Electric powered vehicles are still carbon intensive, those batteries aren't just appearing or being charged by magic. Shifting the problem around isn't going to get rid of it.

The Welsh government has just announced a target to get 30% of the Welsh population able to work from home on a permanent basis. This is all it needs, just enough to tip the scales away from runaway climate devastation and buy time for long term planning. The "EVs will save the day" argument is designed purely to further lock in car dependency and keep the car industry in charge of the political agenda where transport is concerned.

You seem to see this in very much "either-or" terms which isn't helpful I don't think. As I said, there are lots of other solutions that need to be implemented. But EVs are still going to be a significant part of the total.

Even if the Welsh government's working from home target is met (and it's not a bad target) many of these people are going to be driving for other reasons - to get things, to visit places and people that are not accessible by public transport etc.

I'd also say that EVs have an environmental cost as all manufactured goods do, but it is not nearly as high as FF vehicles and is falling as the emissions of the electricity used to charge and manufacture them decrease. The former have been exaggerated by FF interests/climate denialists/right-wing populists.

[XC70]

IMO M1 J33-34 is a complete waste. They've just spent ages giving it a fourth lane and fancy VSL equipment and now they're going to go ahead and give it a fixed limit of 60 anyway - will the MS4s be used to display the 60 or fixed signs?

I don't get this either. A longer section of the M1 (J28 to J34 iirc) was subject to a multi-year peak time 60 limit. The trial was - I think - not a success and we returned to a default 70 limit some years ago now. So now we do it again. What is different this time?

[A9NWIL]

Wow questions questions!
Yes a payment system should be installed where each car owner/keeper gets a keycard or other such device that activates their account. People pay in the same ways they normally do for electricity, either prepaid by putting so much on their account in advance, could be done online, over phone or at a pay point. Or pay a monthly fee in arrears. Socket is only open with metal sliding door when driver touches their keycard. Driver uses their own cables.
As for making sure cables arent all over the pavement, charge points have to be almost on the kerb like bollards that are by kerbs. Drivers need to be parked right next to the charger cameras could be built into the charge point that activate to pick up drivers who park so far away they are trailing cables. If they park too far off and trail cables they get a fine from the council.
As for protecting against vandalism, make the units very robust objects that would need a very heavy vehicle running into them to break.

As for non EV owners subsidising, the government should subsidise the project as an initial layout cost, but it would be paid for by people paying to charge their cars. So the government would make their money back
As for using the electricity from the street lighting circuit well that needs redoing in many areas to upgrade to LED lighting which is a fraction of the cost of the old sodium, so that shouldnt overload the circuit. Each light could be given a remote unit along with a light sensitive switch on top of the light. That way electricity could be powering the circuit up to the control units in the lights 24/7 meaning that the EV chargers could get the power they needed 24/7 too.

They wouldnt be installed by driveways, between driveways yes but not by driveways, that way visitors could charge their cars if parked on the street, but people with driveways would need their own chargers.
The units wouldnt be installed anywhere its dangerous to park either.

But still obstructing the public highway for private users benefit then. The public highway is not for charging EVs. If you've bought a car, it is your responsibility to find somewhere safe to store (and if it's electric, fuel it). The local taxpayer is not responsible for retrofitting the street to suit entitled car owners.

OK so have you got a more practical solution? You suggested being able to charge the battery indoors but thats impractical is there anything else that could be done? Ideally all properties would have at least 1 parking space, no good for 2 car households or multiple occupancy properties, but still better than no parking.
As I said government would only be laying out for the cost not funding it. Also central government should be giving grants to cover such schemes as I know local governments are cash strapped. Central government can always find money when needed so dont say thats an issue.

[c2R]

IMO M1 J33-34 is a complete waste. They've just spent ages giving it a fourth lane and fancy VSL equipment and now they're going to go ahead and give it a fixed limit of 60 anyway - will the MS4s be used to display the 60 or fixed signs?

I've not seen anything that says the limit will be fixed; I'd anticipate it being set to 60 mph when otherwise it would be off / showing NSL; but that, when required, a lower mandatory limit would be set.

[Bryn666]

Wow questions questions!
Yes a payment system should be installed where each car owner/keeper gets a keycard or other such device that activates their account. People pay in the same ways they normally do for electricity, either prepaid by putting so much on their account in advance, could be done online, over phone or at a pay point. Or pay a monthly fee in arrears. Socket is only open with metal sliding door when driver touches their keycard. Driver uses their own cables.
As for making sure cables arent all over the pavement, charge points have to be almost on the kerb like bollards that are by kerbs. Drivers need to be parked right next to the charger cameras could be built into the charge point that activate to pick up drivers who park so far away they are trailing cables. If they park too far off and trail cables they get a fine from the council.
As for protecting against vandalism, make the units very robust objects that would need a very heavy vehicle running into them to break.

As for non EV owners subsidising, the government should subsidise the project as an initial layout cost, but it would be paid for by people paying to charge their cars. So the government would make their money back
As for using the electricity from the street lighting circuit well that needs redoing in many areas to upgrade to LED lighting which is a fraction of the cost of the old sodium, so that shouldnt overload the circuit. Each light could be given a remote unit along with a light sensitive switch on top of the light. That way electricity could be powering the circuit up to the control units in the lights 24/7 meaning that the EV chargers could get the power they needed 24/7 too.

They wouldnt be installed by driveways, between driveways yes but not by driveways, that way visitors could charge their cars if parked on the street, but people with driveways would need their own chargers.
The units wouldnt be installed anywhere its dangerous to park either.

But still obstructing the public highway for private users benefit then. The public highway is not for charging EVs. If you've bought a car, it is your responsibility to find somewhere safe to store (and if it's electric, fuel it). The local taxpayer is not responsible for retrofitting the street to suit entitled car owners.

OK so have you got a more practical solution? You suggested being able to charge the battery indoors but thats impractical is there anything else that could be done? Ideally all properties would have at least 1 parking space, no good for 2 car households or multiple occupancy properties, but still better than no parking.
As I said government would only be laying out for the cost not funding it. Also central government should be giving grants to cover such schemes as I know local governments are cash strapped. Central government can always find money when needed so dont say thats an issue.

A practical solution is don't buy something powered by the mains that you can't store on your own property and then complain that you can't plug it in.

Would you buy a 1 bedroom house if you had 5 kids? No, you'd say they were borderline idiotic.

Why then, is it a human tragedy if some numpty buys a house where they can't store a car then? The public highway is for the movement of people, not the storage of their possessions. Councils have zero obligation to subsidise the entitled that think the tarmac outside their house is "theirs".

Stop thinking in terms of more and more car ownership as a solution to any problem, because it isn't a solution unless the problem is flatlining profits of car manufacturers.

Start thinking in terms of redesigning towns so people don't need to drive everywhere. Start by building urban settings that people want to live in, not are forced to live in because it's cheap.

The inability to think beyond everyone being dominated by the finance payments on a two tonne box is why we have numerous social problems like childhood obesity (too dangerous to let kids play out in case a moron runs them over), mental health (all those angry shoutycrackers types complaining they're stuck in traffic and blaming everyone but themselves), noise pollution (try living next to a major road. I did for 24 years), crime (lack of social interaction on streets reduces natural surveillance and allows crime to flourish), spiralling debt (buy a new car at an APR rate you can't afford, get it repossessed along with everything else you own!), and so on and so on.

The practical solution is fewer people reliant on cars to begin. Once you solve emissions you still have all the other social problems to tackle like congestion, safety, fear of traffic, childhood obesity. If anything EVs will make this worse as car dependency-apologists will say "but there no exhaust emissions so it's ok!"

[booshank]

But still obstructing the public highway for private users benefit then. The public highway is not for charging EVs. If you've bought a car, it is your responsibility to find somewhere safe to store (and if it's electric, fuel it). The local taxpayer is not responsible for retrofitting the street to suit entitled car owners.

OK so have you got a more practical solution? You suggested being able to charge the battery indoors but thats impractical is there anything else that could be done? Ideally all properties would have at least 1 parking space, no good for 2 car households or multiple occupancy properties, but still better than no parking.
As I said government would only be laying out for the cost not funding it. Also central government should be giving grants to cover such schemes as I know local governments are cash strapped. Central government can always find money when needed so dont say thats an issue.

A practical solution is don't buy something powered by the mains that you can't store on your own property and then complain that you can't plug it in.

Would you buy a 1 bedroom house if you had 5 kids? No, you'd say they were borderline idiotic.

Why then, is it a human tragedy if some numpty buys a house where they can't store a car then? The public highway is for the movement of people, not the storage of their possessions. Councils have zero obligation to subsidise the entitled that think the tarmac outside their house is "theirs".

Stop thinking in terms of more and more car ownership as a solution to any problem, because it isn't a solution unless the problem is flatlining profits of car manufacturers.

Start thinking in terms of redesigning towns so people don't need to drive everywhere. Start by building urban settings that people want to live in, not are forced to live in because it's cheap.

The inability to think beyond everyone being dominated by the finance payments on a two tonne box is why we have numerous social problems like childhood obesity (too dangerous to let kids play out in case a moron runs them over), mental health (all those angry shoutycrackers types complaining they're stuck in traffic and blaming everyone but themselves), noise pollution (try living next to a major road. I did for 24 years), crime (lack of social interaction on streets reduces natural surveillance and allows crime to flourish), spiralling debt (buy a new car at an APR rate you can't afford, get it repossessed along with everything else you own!), and so on and so on.

The practical solution is fewer people reliant on cars to begin. Once you solve emissions you still have all the other social problems to tackle like congestion, safety, fear of traffic, childhood obesity. If anything EVs will make this worse as car dependency-apologists will say "but there no exhaust emissions so it's ok!"

I think the problem boils down to this assertion: "The public highway is for the movement of people, not the storage of their possessions." This is demonstrably untrue as people have been "storing their posessions" on the public highway for many decades, with the permission and often active assistance and regulation of authorities (marked parking bays, lines to show where you can/can't park, residents parking zones, parking charges etc etc). I think what you mean is "The public highway should be for the movement of people, not the storage of their possessions". Once you start from such a wrong starting point, everything based on it is bound to be fault.

In fact its so common (millions of people) that you can't brush it off as being some peculiar entitlement like someone wanting to have five children despite having a one bedroom bedroom flat.

Any proposal to clear the "plebs" off the roads by getting rid of on street parking so Mr Toad can whizz about unobstructed by parked cars and and pleb driver congestion isn't going to fly. It's not even worth discussing.

[Bryn666]

You might want to check the Highways Act definition of a highway and of an obstruction. Parked cars are tolerated where they do not obstruct the passage of traffic. It is NOT a right to park, and the tolerance of it can be withdrawn at any time.

The fact that careless and inconsiderate storage of cars has resulted in the DfT consulting on prohibiting parking on footways (which has always been illegal in London) suggests the idea can and will fly.

Get used to it. Much space once freed up from carelessly dumped private possessions is likely going to be reallocated for walking and cycling. The DfT have been quite clear on this, despite the whinging antics of a few London taxi drivers and the ABD.

[Bryn666]

As for some assumption it's "elite capture" it's quite clear where your bias lies on this one. Lower income families are proportionately the worst affected by car dependency so getting rid of car dependency and the forcing them into debt to own and run a car will level them up.

Maybe that's why a Tory central government is legions ahead (surprisingly) of the dinosaur Bufton Tuftons in town halls that still think the roads are purely for private cars and everyone else can jog on.

[Lockwood]

Not read all posts. Might have already been mentioned...

Dropping limit from 70 to 60.
Raising roadwork limits from 50 to 60.

Will these happen in the same places, so there is no drop in speed through works?

[poshbakerloo]

The sections chosen are often so congested that more than 60 is just not possible - of course, when there's less traffic there's less NOx so it's something of a pointless experiment.

This is exactly what I said! So the results will show that the new 'limit' works beautifully (even though no one actually got above 5mph), and it will get rolled out nationally with speed cameras to enforce the limit!

[Micro The Maniac]

The Welsh government has just announced a target to get 30% of the Welsh population able to work from home on a permanent basis.

Like videoconferencing, working from home seems to be seen as a panacea.

I would be quite interested in a breakdown of the applicable population and their employment status and type: Nationally, approximately 18% are retired and 4% are unemployed... so ~40% of the working population seems optimistic. There is a reason why so many people were furloughed, rather than working from home.

Given retail, hospitality and factory-based staff cannot work from home; ditto emergency services personnel, teaching staff (and supporting crew), care providers, transport staff (airline/airport, buses, trains, drivers)...

With the use of VOIP and VPNs I accept that many, but not all, office-based staff can be anywhere - but are 30% of the welsh population office-based?


VOIP = voice-over-IP (eg Skype, or other network based phones)

[Bryn666]

The Welsh government has just announced a target to get 30% of the Welsh population able to work from home on a permanent basis.

Like videoconferencing, working from home seems to be seen as a panacea.

I would be quite interested in a breakdown of the applicable population and their employment status and type: Nationally, approximately 18% are retired and 4% are unemployed... so ~40% of the working population seems optimistic. There is a reason why so many people were furloughed, rather than working from home.

Given retail, hospitality and factory-based staff cannot work from home; ditto emergency services personnel, teaching staff (and supporting crew), care providers, transport staff (airline/airport, buses, trains, drivers)...

With the use of VOIP and VPNs I accept that many, but not all, office-based staff can be anywhere - but are 30% of the welsh population office-based?


VOIP = voice-over-IP (eg Skype, or other network based phones)

As ever opponents of changing anything use the "all or nothing" canard. If just 20% of workers don't need to commute that's hundreds of thousands of trips off the roads/rails and an easier life for those who do.

[frediculous_biggs]

Can we stick to discussing the 60mph speed limits, please. Discussions around electric vehicles or working from home belong in their respective threads in Unleashed

[Truvelo]

Make the most of NSL while is lasts. This is approaching M5 J2. Not long to go now