EV Discussion thread

Martyn1981

Nice to see that things are improving in London, from the ULEZ expansion in late 2021. As the article points out there are a host of reasons for the changes, as cleaner vehicles arrive.

Revenue is falling, as more vehicles are compliant. Reminds me of the Irish politician when asked how much they hoped to raise from the plastic carrier bag charge, and answered 'zero'.

Ulez expansion results in 60% reduction in ‘dirty’ cars in inner London

The expansion of the ultra-low emission zone to the edge of the North and South Circular roads resulted in an astonishing 60 per cent reduction in the number of non-compliant vehicles being driven in inner London.

This included a 63 per cent reduction in the number of “dirty” diesel cars – those which break the Ulez rules and would have to pay the £12.50-a-day levy.

Their number reduced from 79,000 to 29,000 a day in the 12 months after the Ulez was expanded to the suburbs in October 2021.

Mayor Sadiq Khan said the findings delivered a “game, set and match” boost to extend the Ulez to the Greater London boundary on August 29.

michaels

Of course if you only factor in the gains then a policy looks like a winner.  There were also losses in terms of reduced personal mobility, greater impact on poorer members of society, potentially early scrap-page of vehicles that would otherwise have spread the sunk cost of CO2 in manufacture over more miles etc etc.  The reduction in particulates may well outweigh these dis-benefits but ignoring them is very typical of politicians

thevilla

michaels said:

Of course if you only factor in the gains then a policy looks like a winner.  There were also losses in terms of reduced personal mobility, greater impact on poorer members of society, potentially early scrap-page of vehicles that would otherwise have spread the sunk cost of CO2 in manufacture over more miles etc etc.  The reduction in particulates may well outweigh these dis-benefits but ignoring them is very typical of politicians

So? what?  Status quo?

JKenH

1961Nick said:

The latest NTSB investigation comes to nothing...

Regulator says likely cause of Texas Tesla crash excess speed, driver impairment

08-02-2023 20:02

WASHINGTON, Feb 8 (Reuters) – ​The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board said on Wednesday the probable cause of an April 2021 Tesla crash that killed the driver and a passenger was the driver’s excessive speed and failure to control the 2019 Tesla Model S.

The NTSB cited the driver's impairment from alcohol intoxication in combination with the effects of two sedating antihistamines. Local police had said in 2021 they believed the crash occurred with no one in the driver's seat, raising questions about Tesla's driver-assistance systems. The NTSB probable cause findings did not reference Autopilot or any other advanced system. (Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Leslie Adler) ((David.Shepardson@thomsonreuters.com; 2028988324;)

The reason for the investigation was that the driver was found in the back seat.

The crash, which happened on April 17th, 2021 in Spring, Texas, made headlines due to investigators at the scene determining that the driver’s seat was unoccupied. The two men who died in the fiery crash were unbuckled; one of them was in the front passenger seat and the other in the backseat. The scene set suspicions that Tesla’s Autopilot advanced driver assistant software might have been in use, somehow without a driver present.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/10/23592910/tesla-texas-crash-ntsb-investigation-conclusion-no-autopilot

I don’t think anything can be implied, one way or the other, about Autopilot from the investigation of this incident as  Autopilot wasn’t engaged. 


This was an NTSB rather than NHTSA investigation. The organisations have different remits but there is some overlap and there is a bit of a turf war. 

https://www.torquenews.com/13417/ntsb-and-nhtsa-dispute-over-regulating-tesla

NHTSA are investigating the 21 car pile up in the tunnel when the driver claimed the car was on FSD (or was it LSD?) when it swerved and stopped of its own accord. 

https://insideevs.com/news/628720/nhtsa-probes-tesla-fsd-new-crashes/

An investigation doesn’t imply a fault, just the circumstances may suggest something needs investigating. If the same circumstances keep being repeated then the investigations get stepped up. Drivers posting videos of themselves doing silly things only invites more investigations. 

silvercar

michaels said:

Of course if you only factor in the gains then a policy looks like a winner.  There were also losses in terms of reduced personal mobility, greater impact on poorer members of society, potentially early scrap-page of vehicles that would otherwise have spread the sunk cost of CO2 in manufacture over more miles etc etc.  The reduction in particulates may well outweigh these dis-benefits but ignoring them is very typical of politicians

thevilla said:

michaels said:

Of course if you only factor in the gains then a policy looks like a winner.  There were also losses in terms of reduced personal mobility, greater impact on poorer members of society, potentially early scrap-page of vehicles that would otherwise have spread the sunk cost of CO2 in manufacture over more miles etc etc.  The reduction in particulates may well outweigh these dis-benefits but ignoring them is very typical of politicians

So? what?  Status quo?

I am within 1 mile of the boundary. There are a lot of complaints of people who can't take their children to school as their vehicle isn't compliant and they can't afford to change it.

Petriix

michaels said:

Of course if you only factor in the gains then a policy looks like a winner.  There were also losses in terms of reduced personal mobility, greater impact on poorer members of society, potentially early scrap-page of vehicles that would otherwise have spread the sunk cost of CO2 in manufacture over more miles etc etc.  The reduction in particulates may well outweigh these dis-benefits but ignoring them is very typical of politicians

The idea that it's somehow better to keep driving around polluting vehicles to "spread the sunk cost of CO2..." is a logical fallacy. A typical 50kWh EV battery adds 4 tonnes of CO2 to the manufacturing footprint, but saves 1 tonne for every 4000 miles driven. Then the battery (and certainly the metals within) remain useful indefinitely. That's before you even start to talk about the particulates...

JKenH

I wonder if Sadiq Khan was actually aware of how this ambiguous comment might be interpreted. Perhaps it was his intention all along to scare people and claim that it was not his fault if people misunderstood the remark. Or maybe air pollution is the biggest killer in Outer London.

“With the majority of deaths attributable to air pollution in outer London, it’s vital that we expand the Ulez London-wide.”

Edit: while he is cleaning up the capital’s air he might want to give some thought to the effects on health of cooking by gas. He might also look at gas boilers at the same time. 

Hexane

silvercar said:

michaels said:

Of course if you only factor in the gains then a policy looks like a winner.  There were also losses in terms of reduced personal mobility, greater impact on poorer members of society, potentially early scrap-page of vehicles that would otherwise have spread the sunk cost of CO2 in manufacture over more miles etc etc.  The reduction in particulates may well outweigh these dis-benefits but ignoring them is very typical of politicians

thevilla said:

michaels said:

Of course if you only factor in the gains then a policy looks like a winner.  There were also losses in terms of reduced personal mobility, greater impact on poorer members of society, potentially early scrap-page of vehicles that would otherwise have spread the sunk cost of CO2 in manufacture over more miles etc etc.  The reduction in particulates may well outweigh these dis-benefits but ignoring them is very typical of politicians

So? what?  Status quo?

I am within 1 mile of the boundary. There are a lot of complaints of people who can't take their children to school as their vehicle isn't compliant and they can't afford to change it.

My vehicle was manufactured in 2002, meets the ULEZ requirements, and is almost worthless (it costs me substantially more to get it through the MOT each year, than its second hand value). People who can't afford any vehicle that meets the ULEZ requirements, would almost be in a position where they can't afford to run a car at all.

Why are there "a lot" of kids in your area who have to be driven to school? Doesn't London have public transport?

silvercar

Hexane said:

silvercar said:

michaels said:

Of course if you only factor in the gains then a policy looks like a winner.  There were also losses in terms of reduced personal mobility, greater impact on poorer members of society, potentially early scrap-page of vehicles that would otherwise have spread the sunk cost of CO2 in manufacture over more miles etc etc.  The reduction in particulates may well outweigh these dis-benefits but ignoring them is very typical of politicians

thevilla said:

michaels said:

Of course if you only factor in the gains then a policy looks like a winner.  There were also losses in terms of reduced personal mobility, greater impact on poorer members of society, potentially early scrap-page of vehicles that would otherwise have spread the sunk cost of CO2 in manufacture over more miles etc etc.  The reduction in particulates may well outweigh these dis-benefits but ignoring them is very typical of politicians

So? what?  Status quo?

I am within 1 mile of the boundary. There are a lot of complaints of people who can't take their children to school as their vehicle isn't compliant and they can't afford to change it.

My vehicle was manufactured in 2002, meets the ULEZ requirements, and is almost worthless (it costs me substantially more to get it through the MOT each year, than its second hand value). People who can't afford any vehicle that meets the ULEZ requirements, would almost be in a position where they can't afford to run a car at all.

Why are there "a lot" of kids in your area who have to be driven to school? Doesn't London have public transport?

As is common, if you have owned an older car for many years, you trust it more than buying one of similar value. Also, remember that if you have a car essentially valueless, you don't have cash to buy a ULEZ compliant car. It may be that some people can't afford to run any car other than the one they currently have.

Like other places, transport within areas is often better than transport between areas. There is also the issue of cost, paying for school transport can be out of budget. Additionally younger children need to be escorted to school, it can be quicker to drive your kid to school on your way to work than take them on public transport, that is even if you can afford the fares for yourself plus your child.

To add, I am just outside London, which has an impact on fares; those within the London boundary get access to free fares for children going to school on trains and buses, we don't get that but reduced price season school tickets instead.

JKenH

A New Tesla Model 3 For As Little As $27,000? It's Possible In Oregon

You would imagine Teslas would be flying out the showrooms in the US. Model Ys are but the M3 is languishing. 294 M3s are available for immediate delivery in the US. Now I don’t know how Tesla stocking works and maybe they are in the wrong state but by contrast there are only 8 model Ys available. 

In the UK the respective figures are 342 and 389. In Germany 358 and 492.

https://insideevs.com/news/651923/tesla-model3-under-27000-dollars-oregon-incentives/