Do you agree with the ban on new petrol and diesel cars from 2035?

KoK obviously does not drive.

A regular 400 mile journey is not suited to a EV unless your are happy adding hours on to your already long journey waiting for it to charge.

 

I think that the EV bubble will burst well before 2030

https://www.techradar.com/vehicle-t...ks-away-from-plan-to-go-electric-only-by-2030
EVs hit traffic as Mercedes backs away from plan to go electric-only by 2030

https://dailycaller.com/2024/02/19/electric-vehicles-unpopular-rare-metal-markets-spiraling/
Electric Vehicles Are So Unpopular That Entire Mines Are Shutting Down

 

I’m sure we’ve had this discussion before - I drive around 20,000 miles a year on average, purely for work purposes.

 

I don't agree with them being mandated so I am still interested in the EV news mate

 

I don't get why folk are so against something that doesn't affect them. Just let other people worry about these issues, if that's the route they want to go down.

 

If they find a way yo fast charge properly and get plenty mileage out of them I'd possibly agree with it but I can't see it in the next 10 years yet. Plus the weight of all the batteries won't help currently.

 

I think BMS’s issue isn’t so much that electric cars may or may not have problems, it’s that they are restricting access to IC cars.

I can sympathise with that to be honest. It’s a slippery slope.

 

Exactly mate.

I don't have a problem with people buying electric cars, I have a problem with the possibility of me being forced to drive one in the future.

If I'm still allowed, I will continue to use this thread to post reasons why I think the 2035 mandate should/will be revoked

 

It's more than this topic. Life in general really.

It wasn't specifically aimed at anyone either. Every post on social media etc involving any electric car is the same boring comments.

 

For what it's worth, I agree there is little chance of current targets being met. The country is currently suspending building works on hospitals, councils are closing libraries and swimming pools and can't fix pot holes on the road. There is little chance over the next 6 years we get to a point that they have funded a new infrastructure to cater for a majority of new cars being EV.

That said, it isn't worth stressing about. As far as stuff to worry about that may or may not happen 9 years from now goes, this isn't an issue. And I quite like my car

 

Sorry to bump this again but as long as there are legit plans in place to make EVs mandatory it's fair game to point out their flaws.

Carpark fire at Gatwick Airport yesterday, very little reports no follow up no mention of the type of car but looks to be a Tesla.

https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/gatwick-airport-car-park-fire-28813286

Another one today. Eight cars destroyed after electric car catches fire at salvage yard in Rochford

https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/eight-cars-destroyed-after-electric-9164216

It is a fact that there are more fires in IC cars than EVs but I think it's fair to assume that the vast majority if not all of the IC fires are when the vehicle was in use, never when you are on the beach in Tenerife thousands of miles away.

If this continues it will get to a point where car parks and cargo ships will no longer take EVs long before any mandate will be enforced.

 

There’s too much to be done infrastructure wise for 2035 to be met. And think it’s similar to what we’ve seen from a lot of Government targets set ten years from now that we’ve seen before, it’s a hopeful target to aim for and get * moving, but it’s flexible. Honestly think they give these targets that are down the line but close enough that people accept when it’s worked towards.

I’m all for it being the target and work towards making it happen, being less reliant on fossil fuels is just sensible in my mind. I’m actually surprised that it’s not been lobbied to * and stopped from even being talked about by big energy companies.

But it needs major work done to be a realistic possibility, because our electrical infrastructure are nowhere near being able to deal with it, and to get it to that level to be able to there is a monumental amount of work required to deal with it. To such an extent, 2050 would be a stretch.


Seen an article yesterday as well that there’s been a major trend starting about copper being nicked from charging stations. Used to be a big problem on the telecoms network, that took a long while to stop with people still stealing cables that were fibre and pretty much worthless. Moved on from that to EV charging stations apparently. Always a thing grand plans forget about, people are dicks

 

The future will not be ice cars, its not someone forcing you to do something it is just a fact that fossil fuels will run down and the resouce will be used for other purposes than cars. Whether that happens in 5,10,15 or 20 years is irrelevant to me and fail to see why it would bother anyone. Ice cars will only stop being sold once the infrastructure for electric or or whatever other energy being used is adequate enough to sustain it, regardless of the difficult timelines governments try to impose, which are just lies to appeal to the geeen voter in any case.

For me this argument is just people leaning to or have right wing views and want to complain about something, I think even if the electric cars superceded the mileage that an ice can do and there were super chargers that could charge a car in 2 mins that they would still complain about freedom of choice or something else

 

I don't think time to charge is the fundamental issue, it's more to do with the amount of power required and the capabilities of our current infrastructure to supply it. A supercharger takes a lot of energy from the grid and if we replace the millions of trips a day to petrol forecourts with ev charging the grid will be overloaded in no time.

Massive grid operations should already be well under way if there was any serious ambition to make our country EV compatible. This isn't happening so I fear the full thing is just to price people out of having personal transport.

Assuming this is a dig at me without quoting me so apologies if not. Why pointing out these seemingly obvious problems with this makes you right wing is very strange. I would hate to be scared to agree with something, or point out the obvious for fear of being called right wing. But just to clarify, I have never voted right wing in my life and I'm now only drawing a * and balls on my ballot. There all corrupted to *. Two sides of the same bed. They all want the same things.

 

Also, the last place you want EV mandates would be the ambulance service for * sake.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/14/nhs-electric-ambulances-concern-net-zero-above-patients/

"The NHS is to introduce electric ambulances, raising concerns that its drive for net zero is being put above patient safety.

Paramedics fear patients will be forced to wait longer because of the hours lost recharging the vehicles, with particular concern about coverage of rural areas, given the limited range.

The move next month is part of a series of measures that whistleblowers fear put green credentials above medical priorities."

"An evaluation of the pilot scheme found the ambulances took up to four hours to charge and travelled an average of 70 miles between charging, with the papers warning “range and recharge time is a significant limiting factor”.

While the vehicles had a range of 100 miles, which would cover a shift in urban areas, this would not be the case from most of its hubs, it states, adding: “Rural areas in particular are covering twice this mileage and more in a shift.” The report says that, as a minimum, ambulances need to be able to cover 160 miles.

Standard ambulances can cover up to 800 miles a day and be filled up in just minutes"

 

To be honest this is just your typically telegraph/daily mail fear mongering story about nothing. In the top 100 problems that the NHS have, the fact they have a few EV ambulances isn't going to make the list. I am willing to bet that they will simply keep petrol ambulances in areas that require them, use EVs in areas that allow it, and there will ultimately be no problems caused by it.

Also to @Dannybhoy81 point, this is a perfect example of an article from a right wing rag that only exists to antagonize people and annoy them about an issue that doesn't seem to be an actual issue. They seem to have lumped net zero into the big group of stuff they like to use to wind people up about - it isnt serious.

 

Its not all about you man, it was a generalisation of what I see as a particular view point from a collection of people who share similar views. Its your sources you quote that makes you right leaning and I don't think that can be denied. If you read known right wing news and then quote it to back up your point of view then...