Southwark-wide CPZ

[Penguin68]

22 hours ago, mr.chicken said:

Electric car fires hit the news because they are so rare.

That is indeed true, but not true of fires caused by batteries on electric bikes and scooters, which appear to be anything but rare, almost certainly because they are both more vulnerable to damage and more likely, through ill-use, to be damaged. The most common cause of fires in petrol vehicles is a consequence of a high(er) speed crashes - luckily (and I use that word quite wrongly) this is more likely to happen on open, fast, roads, and not in houses where scooter and bike fires are more common.

[malumbu]

Difficulty is that many want EVs to fail and will look to any scrap of news to justify their views, aided by some of the rabid mainstream and social media.  Similar to people looking for dirt on LTNs and ULEZ.

I've test driven quite a few EVs, a hydrogen FCE and PHEVs and they are great, as is the new 63 bus.  Still don't want the streets full of EVs as well as the current ICEs on unnecessary journeys.

 

 

[mr.chicken]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

Difficulty is that many want EVs to fail and will look to any scrap of news to justify their views, aided by some of the rabid mainstream and social media.

Douglas Adams has a great quote:

1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”

I think this is why the naysayers think that electric cars are bad but aren't rocking 8 tracks and carburetors.

And of course there's good money and power involved in being vociferously for the natural order of things.

In 10 years time, if you told people you were advocating for people to be able to have more noxious fumes coming out of their car, opening up the quiet residential roads to heavy through traffic and encouraging car use by dedicating a huge amount of available public space to unrestricted parking, they'd look at you like you'd grown an extra head.

All such moves are vociferously countered when they first come in and the movements to undo them all fade away pretty quickly.

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

I've test driven [...] a hydrogen FCE

Got to ask: where did you even find one of those? Japan? They're almost nonexistent here.

 

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by mr.chicken

[exdulwicher]

2 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

That is indeed true, but not true of fires caused by batteries on electric bikes and scooters, which appear to be anything but rare, almost certainly because they are both more vulnerable to damage and more likely, through ill-use, to be damaged. The most common cause of fires in petrol vehicles is a consequence of a high(er) speed crashes - luckily (and I use that word quite wrongly) this is more likely to happen on open, fast, roads, and not in houses where scooter and bike fires are more common.

They're still relatively rare, the problem is that when they do happen they tend to burn down a house which invariably attracts a lot of media attention. The issue is not the proper e-bikes and e-scooters you can buy from legitimate retailers - they go through the same safety checks, warranties etc as car batteries - it's the "plug and play" stuff you can buy online from China that you simply bolt to your bike. That's what the vast majority of those Deliveroo type contraptions are; basic mountain bikes illegally converted to "e-motorbikes" or "e-mopeds".

Those are also the types of "vehicle" (using that term loosely!) that tend to be run ragged in all weathers, ad-hoc charging from a variety of sources and put together by the rider themselves rather than by anyone qualified. You occasionally hear of similar when people buy cheap mobile phone or laptop batteries from similar online sources and then wonder why their laptop bursts into flames. 

[heartblock]

9 hours ago, malumbu said:

Difficulty is that many want EVs to fail and will look to any scrap of news to justify their views, aided by some of the rabid mainstream and social media.  Similar to people looking for dirt on LTNs and ULEZ.

? Just so weird. People ‘looking for dirt’. Isn’t it a good idea for people to research any claim or to read about stuff in general, I mean honestly ..even I a supporter of ULEZ and CPZ find this patronising and rather weird tone.... mainly because it’s patronising and weird.

Anyway, batteries are very safe in general, and I think most reports are privately owned electric scooters charged at home. Hopefully more cash will go into battery technology, bigger steps are needed in terms of cleaner manufacturing and longevity of charge.

Electric cars are a real step forward, it would be great if central government funded a scrappage and electric car replacement scheme. Be aware though that electric cars to have tyre wear and can contribute to particulate matter if stopping and starting in idling traffic, especially over speed bumps.

 

[mr.chicken]

6 hours ago, exdulwicher said:

The issue is not the proper e-bikes and e-scooters you can buy from legitimate retailers

Indeed. It's a combination of factors. It's unregulated imports of dangerous goods which meet no safety standards aided by large companies (i.e. Amazon) who profit from it. Sale of goods which are mostly used for illegal purposes (how many of the 1000W £190 conversion kits are used for off road biking), and near zero enforcement of the existing, perfectly good laws from a police force which has seen substantial budget cuts. And of course the rise of the "gig economy" where people can only survive doing deliveries by using cheap, illegal e-bikes, with the refusal of the government to step in and protect those workers and make it illegal to incentivize people to break the law.

 

 

[exdulwicher]

29 minutes ago, heartblock said:

Electric cars are a real step forward, it would be great if central government funded a scrappage and electric car replacement scheme. 

I'd rather they didn't. It's a very inefficient use of public money to be subsidising private vehicles for individuals. You get far higher return on investment by subsidising public transport, active travel and general societal benefits rather than giving individuals a few £££ towards their own private car. 

This goes back to the parking argument - free parking is effectively a subsidy for those who own cars. No-one else gets given 10 square metres of free space in London. Those who travel around by public transport don't benefit from free parking. All the arguments about (eg) "NHS workers should get free parking at their workplace" stops adding up the minute you think about the countless number of NHS workers who commute by public transport or by bike - none of them get contributions to their travel costs. 

And the EV argument is related as well because the transition to EV is very much dependent on the simultaneous rollout of EV chargers and the fact that, in the very near future, there's going to be a parking war when it comes to finding an available (and functional) charger. Part of the whole CPZ thing is future proofing on that. It's already becoming a serious issue that many councils are struggling to resolve - trailing cables across pavements, yet more pavement clutter if EV chargers are installed on kerbs rather than in the road and the battle to park right outside your own home in order to charge your EV and finding some non-local has parked their ICE car there for the day. 

[Rockets]

Electric vehicles are clearly part of the solution to the problem but it amazes me that the moment you mention them many in the pro-lobby will tell you about the particulates from tyre and brake wear which always makes me think "yeah, but there's no pollution from the exhaust pipe and if people need to use cars and pollution is your key objective why are you not embracing them as part of the solution". And then I realise the "problem" is because they are four wheels.....

[malumbu]

Nonsense generalisations again Rocks.  Where do you get this all from?  A few people will never be happy but this is by no means all people who believe that there should be restrictions on private vehicle use.  Ask yourself why you are so incredibly blinkered.  

[CPR Dave]

58 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

No-one else gets given 10 square metres of free space in London.

This just isn't true. 

The vast majority of London has streets with free parking on it 24 hours a day.  90 percent of the new extended  ULEZ has no CPZ whatsoever.

There are areas of central where you have to pay for parking sometimes, but even then at least 60% of the time, even in Zone 1 anyone and everyone can park for free on almost every single street.

[exdulwicher]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Electric vehicles are clearly part of the solution to the problem but it amazes me that the moment you mention them many in the pro-lobby will tell you about the particulates from tyre and brake wear which always makes me think "yeah, but there's no pollution from the exhaust pipe and if people need to use cars and pollution is your key objective why are you not embracing them as part of the solution". And then I realise the "problem" is because they are four wheels.....

You do know it was @heartblock who said about the particulates a couple of posts back, yes?
I'm not sure you could ever accuse heartblock of being in the "pro-lobby" (although actually I seem to remember he did say he was pro ULEZ).

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

Nonsense generalisations again Rocks.  Where do you get this all from?  A few people will never be happy but this is by no means all people who believe that there should be restrictions on private vehicle use.  Ask yourself why you are so incredibly blinkered.  

Err, you can find such posts telling anyone who will listen that EV is still a problem from our local councillors (not your local councillors obviously but those in Dulwich)....

https://twitter.com/margynewens/status/1373608197429342209?t=d9DSmvyu_ButDcS7n2j8mA&s=19

 

Why is it a nonsense generalisation if it has been a prevalent narrative from those on the pro- side? 

 

Perhaps you are the one that is blinkered?

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Rockets

[heartblock]

28 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

You do know it was @heartblock who said about the particulates a couple of posts back, yes?
I'm not sure you could ever accuse heartblock of being in the "pro-lobby" (although actually I seem to remember he did say he was pro ULEZ).

? again very weird... yep totally support ULEZ and CPZ, not sure what all this pro and anti business is anyway. I'm certainly 'pro' anything that contributes to less pollution. There isn't a 'blob' of anti or a 'blob' of pro (how very Boris of you).

I know it's useful to be reductive and class anyone who takes issue with LTNs as 'anti' this and 'anti' that, there is nuance and difference. It's a dangerous path to just lump people into a group and decide they are all the same and think the same, some very dangerous attitudes stem from that type of generalisation.

2 hours ago, exdulwicher said:

'd rather they didn't. It's a very inefficient use of public money to be subsidising private vehicles for individuals. You get far higher return on investment by subsidising public transport, active travel and general societal benefits rather than giving individuals a few £££ towards their own private car.

Yes sort of agree - but there is a scrappage scheme, so why not encourage EVs? I would absolutely support more spent on PT, even at the point of free at the point of use, or highly subsidised.

 

32 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

remember he did

Please don't decide my gender/sex for me. 

[mr.chicken]

17 hours ago, CPR Dave said:

This just isn't true. 

The vast majority of London has streets with free parking on it 24 hours a day.

@exdulwicher Don't you see it's not true that no one else gets 10 square meters of free space other than most drivers. It's just that the vast majority drivers get a free 10 square meters of space to park 24/7 (unlike anyone else who wants to occupy that space). 🤣

[CPR Dave]

Dont be a divvy Chicken.

The CPZs that you and your fellow councillors are proposing do nothing more to allow anyone else who wants to to occupy that space. 

You're still reserving it for cars. You're just making people pay for keeping their cars there some of the time. 

Pretending you are freeing up that space is either utterly disingenuous or just  a bit dim.

[mr.chicken]

3 minutes ago, CPR Dave said:

 

Not a hundred percent sue what a divvy is, it sounds good!

Either way storage for cars is free unlike say a skip or bike.

Plus when the bunch of car journeys and cars decreases the space can be repurposed. MinI parks, green space etc. That won't come that soon but better late than never.

 

[first mate]

But anyone can leave their bike in the street free of charge, it may not be secure but then cars are also broken into, stolen etc..  Now if people were asking for secure street storage for their car, as in a car hangar or similar, that would be different. Mind you, not convinced bike hangars are really that secure. Doubt I'd leave mine in one.

[aggie]

1 hour ago, mr.chicken said:

Not a hundred percent sue what a divvy is, it sounds good!

Either way storage for cars is free unlike say a skip or bike.

Plus when the bunch of car journeys and cars decreases the space can be repurposed. MinI parks, green space etc. That won't come that soon but better late than never.

 

Storage for cars is not free. Try leaving an untaxed car on the road and you will find out! HM Revenue & Customs definition on Vehicle Excise Duty :

‘V.E.D. is a tax on vehicles Used or Kept on public roads and rates depend on vehicle type’

[heartblock]

Vehicle Excise Duty (road tax) brings in £7 billion a year to central Government, fuel duty - £28 billion a year.

After CPZ on East Dulwich Grove there is definitely less parked cars and I'm not against CPZ, as long as there is provision for trades parking / short term visitor parking and some free parking around shopping areas such as LL to help businesses.

I just wish Southwark used some of the income to repair the terrible pavements and poor road surfaces on EDGrove and keep the pavements clean and free of abandoned e-bikes. Sometimes walking to Herne Hill station is like an obstacle course.

[Spartacus]

13 minutes ago, heartblock said:

Vehicle Excise Duty (road tax) brings in £7 billion a year to central Government, fuel duty - £28 billion a year.

Don't forget to also add 

VAT at 20% on a new car

Insurance Premium Tax

VAT on spares and services 

All of these are costs to the motorists to own (and park) a car so no one really gets  free parking space as cars raise a lot of revenue for the government that is distributed to other areas.

The numbers that heartblock above quotes are taken from an article discussing how will the UK government replace lost revenue when all cars are electric. 

 

[Spartacus]

On 09/07/2023 at 11:39, Rockets said:

If Mal does ban all cars they will need a caveat and special exemption clause for those emergency journeys made to run furniture to their second home in France of course...

Although if Mal is going soon can he help rescue the lake of wine that's about to be destroyed. Maybe there is a use for cars after all 🤣 (the author of this post is not advocating drinking French wine whilst driving) 

BBC News - France to spend €200m destroying wine as demand falls
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66623636

[MrsR]

please contribute if you can…..
 

https://opposethecpz.org/2023/08/28/funding-for-legal-advice/

[malumbu]

No thanks.  The question is, if the council goes ahead, what sort of CPZ do you want?

[Rockets]

Malumbu - are you the genius author of the council's "consultation" as that is 100% what they are asking residents? 😉

No chance to say you don't want one, just "when we roll it out what type do you want". That is clearly not a robust consultation.

[Penguin68]

14 hours ago, malumbu said:

No thanks.  The question is, if the council goes ahead, what sort of CPZ do you want?

One conspicuous by its absence