The winner is . Not what you think

HY10

100 mW
Joined
Sep 18, 2014
Messages
35
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-15/electric-cars-breaking-australia-roads-reform-road-user-charging/9235564
Just paid rego and license and it is more then the average, it seems
 
Right. You need to account for taxes and what they pay for when comparing different fuel options.
 
The main factors of road cost and environment impact are weight, size, and mileage.

People believe in Zero Emission as the ultimate solution but it is not. Environment impact of an electric car vs a combustion car, is not so much better. Our problem is that we use way too much resources for transportation, and that we are traveling way too much mileage.
 
MadRhino said:
The main factors of road cost and environment impact are weight, size, and mileage.

People believe in Zero Emission as the ultimate solution but it is not. Environment impact of an electric car vs a combustion car, is not so much better. Our problem is that we use way too much resources for transportation, and that we are traveling way too much mileage.

If we were willing to go a bit slower, we could use less massive vehicles and probably have a net gain in safety and use fewer resources. So in that sense, yes, shorter distances would improve things. And lighter slower vehicles are more effective with shorter distances.

But weening us off of the automobile will be hard. We are used to the tremendous convenience and cost of it. Few people bother to understand that cost. Over their lifetimes it really isn't that low. Especially the way most people go about buing and owning cars. But that just points out how normalized we are to having cars. So it will be a long time before we transition. But things like online shopping, Uber/Lyft, and the soon to be normal automated cars will helps speed the shift. And young people are buying fewer cars than that segment bought in the past.
 
More than anything, governments should dramatically raise the taxes on gasoline and diesel to partially offset the external damages caused by using petroleum for propulsion.

Don't worry about lost revenues from people moving in the right direction. Make them up by taking it out of people who don't.

When most people have switched to private electric cars, raise gas taxes even more and heavily tax private electric cars, while exempting robot taxis. The benefit of taxation, besides raising needed funds for the common good, is to help guide people to doing things that are in the public interest.
 
One thing that seems for sure is there's a whole lot of people in the US who are not going to reduce their fuel consumption unless forced to via massively increased fuel taxes or costs due to their attitude that it's their God given right to drive whatever they want whenever and wherever they want. It always amazes me when I think to myself that this problem didn't even exist a short 120 years ago, travel by horse and buggy worked pretty good didn't it?
 
Raisedeyebrows said:
It always amazes me when I think to myself that this problem didn't even exist a short 120 years ago, travel by horse and buggy worked pretty good didn't it?

When bicycles arose, there was much outrage because they went too fast. I'm sure there were a few hooligans and jackasses who made that impression-- at the beginning, bicycles were only for rich fux after all. But how times have changed.
 
wturber said:
If we were willing to go a bit slower, we could use less massive vehicles and probably have a net gain in safety and use fewer resources. So in that sense, yes, shorter distances would improve things. And lighter slower vehicles are more effective with shorter distances.

One day a future generation will look back on us and say "I can't believe they were willing to spend the energy to move 1800kg of metal and plastic, just to get a 60kg person from A to B without getting wet. What a wasteful generation"

Sometimes for amusement while waiting for a bus, or a light to change, and I see how many cars have either more than 1 person in them, or obviously for tools/goods. it's usually about 1 in 10. the rest are sole occupancy.
 
Yep. They will also laugh at us for eating sh*t food, grown or even manufactured on the other side of the planet, when we could have better in our own backyard.

They will laugh at us for traveling thousands of miles for no useful purpose, to watch a car race or to bath in mud.

We are rich. It doesn’t keep us from being stupid. It only makes it possible to us, to better practice our stupidity.
 
Chalo said:
Raisedeyebrows said:
It always amazes me when I think to myself that this problem didn't even exist a short 120 years ago, travel by horse and buggy worked pretty good didn't it?

When bicycles arose, there was much outrage because they went too fast. I'm sure there were a few hooligans and jackasses who made that impression-- at the beginning, bicycles were only for rich fux after all. But how times have changed.

No. Horse and buggy had significant problems compared to the automobile. If it had been pretty good we'd have stayed with it. But primitive automobiles eventually took over. (By comparison, a modern car would seem almost magical.) Horses created major sanitation problems in towns and cities and travel was significantly restricted. Neither horse or buggies were particularly comfortable. And maintenance and expense was pretty significant. Never mind the outrage you'd hear from PETA,

And while we typically use cars wastefully by frequently only carrying one passenger, the reality is that their purchase usually includes other intended uses. Their versatility is typically pretty important to they buyer. They are purchased for their versatility and convenience - their ability to haul more people, travel long distance easily, easily carry cargo/groceries, protect passengers not only from a simply rain shower, but snow, sleet, hail and extremely hot weather. Let's not kid ourselves about the auto going away. It will merely evolve as will purchasing priorities.
 
Sunder said:
One day a future generation will look back on us and say "I can't believe they were willing to spend the energy to move 1800kg of metal and plastic, just to get a 60kg person from A to B without getting wet. What a wasteful generation"
Are you saying the same thing about trains a century ago? Because early steam engines had efficiencies of about 2%; modern gas vehicles approach 40%, and modern EV's approach 90% efficiency (and 50% well to wheels.)
Sometimes for amusement while waiting for a bus, or a light to change, and I see how many cars have either more than 1 person in them, or obviously for tools/goods. it's usually about 1 in 10. the rest are sole occupancy.
Yep. And with time those cars will get smaller, lighter and more efficient (following the same trend they are now.) And fewer people will drive them, although that won't decrease the number of car trips - they will just do more car sharing via Uber and the like.
 
The car won’t disappear anytime soon. Yet they will drastically decrease in number, simply because of the resources required to make them, the environment damage they make being built, driven, and disposed. Our planet just can’t suffice much more of that abuse.

We will have to go back to work and consume locally, or else we will destroy our habitat to the point of no return. It may be too late already, and an important part of the world population might have to suffer the consequences before we start to change our egocentric way of life.
 
billvon said:
And with time those cars will get smaller, lighter and more efficient (following the same trend they are now.)

I don't see such a trend. I know that in 1980, you could buy a car that weighed under a ton, carried four adults, and got 50 mpg. Today, the same car has put on something like 75% more weight and is consuming more fuel. Compare 35 to 40 year old VW Golfs and Honda Civics to today's versions.

I think it's fair to say that full size and luxury cars have gotten smaller and lighter. But their role has been largely filled by truck-based SUVs and four-door trucks that are bigger and heavier than the big sedans of those days.

Car drivers being what they are-- generally self-centered and callously indifferent to the harms they inflict-- their vehicles have kept getting worse in many ways. Not-- as you say-- smaller, lighter, and more efficient.

I think as self-driving taxis become a thing, and people let go of the idea that the car is an extension of their identity, then lighter and lower-powered cars will come to prevail. But there has been no such trend for the last thirty years at least. As far as I can tell, the only periods during which cars got significantly smaller were post-WWII and post-Arab oil embargo.
 
Bring on the self driving taxis. There has been a significant decline in applications for new car licences over the past few decades in Australia and the US.

http://time.com/money/4185441/millennials-drivers-licenses-gen-x/

https://theconversation.com/why-are-young-australians-turning-their-back-on-the-car-35468
 
wturber said:
Chalo said:
Raisedeyebrows said:
It always amazes me when I think to myself that this problem didn't even exist a short 120 years ago, travel by horse and buggy worked pretty good didn't it?

When bicycles arose, there was much outrage because they went too fast. I'm sure there were a few hooligans and jackasses who made that impression-- at the beginning, bicycles were only for rich fux after all. But how times have changed.

No. Horse and buggy had significant problems compared to the automobile. If it had been pretty good we'd have stayed with it. But primitive automobiles eventually took over. (By comparison, a modern car would seem almost magical.) Horses created major sanitation problems in towns and cities and travel was significantly restricted. Neither horse or buggies were particularly comfortable. And maintenance and expense was pretty significant. Never mind the outrage you'd hear from PETA,

And while we typically use cars wastefully by frequently only carrying one passenger, the reality is that their purchase usually includes other intended uses. Their versatility is typically pretty important to they buyer. They are purchased for their versatility and convenience - their ability to haul more people, travel long distance easily, easily carry cargo/groceries, protect passengers not only from a simply rain shower, but snow, sleet, hail and extremely hot weather. Let's not kid ourselves about the auto going away. It will merely evolve as will purchasing priorities.

Supposedly the ride on the old Buckboards lived up to their name and obviously the masses are likely not going to be returning to horse travel ever again but I'd imagine with today's suspension technology some Stages and Buggys could be made with vastly improved ride quality, carbon framed jobs with a set of Fox 40's on each wheel maybe?
 
No matter the buggy. Horses cost a lot of work and supplies to care for, can’t supply much work in a day, and even when they are not working they continue to require maintenance and food.

They are also dangerous to anyone who is ignorant or negligent of their sensitivity, and very fragile to many environmental factors. Horses are luxury for one who doesn’t own and produce everything they need, and has the knowledge to care by himself. A working horse does eat enough grain in a day to feed a man a whole week, and enough hay to feed 70 big rabbits. He needs 20 liters of clean fresh drinking water, and at least twice as much to wash him. New shoes every 6 weeks, of course, and so many things else...

4 years are needed to make a good horse, 10 years to make a good rider. I could write 300 pages, and it wouldn’t cover everything there is to know.
 
The irony is, my poorest friends all only have gas cars and drive lots of miles a year. My richest friends cars stay mostly parked and ride bicycles and ebikes.

Today super rich people still ride horses, though mostly for recreational purposes.
 
liveforphysics said:
Today super rich people still ride horses, though mostly for recreational purposes.

Of course one does need a lot of spare time, and half a million dollars a year to play Polo in California. :D
 
billvon said:
Are you saying the same thing about trains a century ago? Because early steam engines had efficiencies of about 2%; modern gas vehicles approach 40%, and modern EV's approach 90% efficiency (and 50% well to wheels.)

Nothing to do with the efficiency of energy conversion. If trains a century ago were running with only one person in them at a time, yes, I would have said that was shockingly wasteful.
 
Sunder said:
Nothing to do with the efficiency of energy conversion. If trains a century ago were running with only one person in them at a time, yes, I would have said that was shockingly wasteful.
Hmm. Modern trains are pretty heavy. A six car Amtrak train plus engine weighs about 1.1 million pounds. Older trains are heavier and seat fewer people (no aluminum, plastics, foams, high strength steel, single level) so let's say 1.5 million pounds for a 1920 six car train. You might see an average of 350 people on a six car train. (60 people per car, about 3/4 full.) That's 4300 pounds a person.

You were saying that a vehicle carrying one person and weighing 3960 pounds was shockingly wasteful. In that case, I imagine you are glad we got away from trains.
 
One thing about modern cars, electric or ICE powered, they are WAY safer then cars even 10 years ago, much less 20, 30 or more. The added safety features are a major cause of weight gain though. I read the accident reports religiously, and it's pretty amazing the spectacular wrecks that people more or less walk away from nowadays. My local news is pretty hardass about reporting as to whether the victims were wearing a seatbelt or not, kind of harsh but very educational. Going to a classic car show and looking at the dash of a '55 Chevy, and the crappy suspension and tires of the time, no seat belts much less air bags, it's a wonder anyone lived. I heard a number, that the total highways deaths are about the same as decades ago, but with many times more population and miles driven, it's a good example of how much safer they are. Still, the most dangerous thing most people will ever do!
 
billvon said:
Sunder said:
Nothing to do with the efficiency of energy conversion. If trains a century ago were running with only one person in them at a time, yes, I would have said that was shockingly wasteful.
Hmm. Modern trains are pretty heavy. A six car Amtrak train plus engine weighs about 1.1 million pounds. Older trains are heavier and seat fewer people (no aluminum, plastics, foams, high strength steel, single level) so let's say 1.5 million pounds for a 1920 six car train. You might see an average of 350 people on a six car train. (60 people per car, about 3/4 full.) That's 4300 pounds a person.

You were saying that a vehicle carrying one person and weighing 3960 pounds was shockingly wasteful. In that case, I imagine you are glad we got away from trains.

Hmm, not sure if you're being a bit selective with your choice of train. The Warratah trains in Sydney weigh 880,000 pounds and carry 900 people seated, probably around 1200 including standing.

Anyway, I'm certainly glad we got away from using heavy steel and hard wood to make trains, and use electricity over coal/diesel.

On the other hand, it seems in Australia, cars are just getting bigger and bigger.

Sales of high-riding SUVs have overtaken conventional cars for the first time in Australian automotive history
https://m.drive.com.au/motor-news/suvs-sales-overtake-passenger-cars-for-the-first-time-20170303-guq24l.html

Not to mention that it used to be one car per family, if that, but now Australia has more car refistered than drivers that are licensed. Figure that one out...
 
craneplaneguy said:
One thing about modern cars, electric or ICE powered, they are WAY safer then cars even 10 years ago, much less 20, 30 or more. The added safety features are a major cause of weight gain though. I read the accident reports religiously, and it's pretty amazing the spectacular wrecks that people more or less walk away from nowadays.

I think the thing that would make human-driven cars safer for those who aren't in one is to make them radically less safe for the driver. Let the passenger have an airbag, sure. But the driver should only have a long pointy spike sticking out of the steering wheel. That's basically the situation they put the rest of us in, and we don't even get a say in it.

Giving so much protection to the very people who choose to make the roads deadly is unethical.
 
There is another ethical solution. The bigger and heavier the vehicle is, the slower it should be allowed to be.
 
Sunder said:
Hmm, not sure if you're being a bit selective with your choice of train. The Warratah trains in Sydney weigh 880,000 pounds and carry 900 people seated, probably around 1200 including standing.
Sounds like a modern, lightweight train. Great! But I was responding to your claims about trains a century ago not being shockingly wasteful.

But sounds like you'd prefer to talk about modern vehicles. OK, let's do that. Your train weighs 880,000 and can carry 900 seated. That's about 1000 pounds of stuff to be hauled around per person if it's full.

I'll use my car as an example for a modern car. It weighs 3365 pounds and can carry 4 seated. (Probably could carry a few more sitting in the hatch, but let's go with 4.) That's 840 pounds of stuff to be hauled around per person if it's full. It runs on electricity or gas; when running on gas it gets 54mpg.

This is not to say "trains are bad" of course, but you do have to do the math before saying things are "shockingly wasteful" - especially if your preferred mode of transport is even more so.
 
Back
Top