Scrutable

A low speed limit past the site would surely be sensible? I’ve never been, I would hope it’s already a 30mph limit, if not 20.

plodder wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 9:28 am

lpm wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:56 am Mate, the speed is currently 5 to 10 mph during daylight hours, put in a limit at 30 or 60, whatever you like.

get the f.cking train then

If you can afford to take the train.

Grumble wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 9:33 am A low speed limit past the site would surely be sensible? I’ve never been, I would hope it’s already a 30mph limit, if not 20.

Of course it isn't. This is Jeremy Clarkson's England.

Isnt the actual solution to make the M4/M5 route West less sh.t ?

noggins wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 10:09 am Isnt the actual solution to make the M4/M5 route West less sh.t ?

No, it's to make the trains better, and just close that road entirely.

That or flying cars (can you imagine the air traffic congestion around somewhere like Stonehenge if we all had flying cars?)

lpm wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 10:02 am

plodder wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 9:28 am

lpm wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:56 am Mate, the speed is currently 5 to 10 mph during daylight hours, put in a limit at 30 or 60, whatever you like.

get the f.cking train then

If you can afford to take the train.

you can afford to get the train

I'm happier to trundle through a 20 minute jam than get a train. The route is fast enough overall, there's no need for a tunnel to make it faster.

Fwiw, Mrs PD and I went to central London yesterday for a picnic. It was cheaper and easier to drive in than it was to take the train. To London. If that's true, of all destinations, then public transport pricing policy is f.cked.

On the other hand, rumour has it that free travel for rail employees is coming back, so maybe I'll be taking the train a bit more after all.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 9:34 am Fwiw, Mrs PD and I went to central London yesterday for a picnic. It was cheaper and easier to drive in than it was to take the train. To London. If that's true, of all destinations, then public transport pricing policy is f.cked.

On the other hand, rumour has it that free travel for rail employees is coming back, so maybe I'll be taking the train a bit more after all.

Yes, but what kind of idiot drives to the middle of a city for a picnic? You deserve to pay higher prices.

Aggressive, much?

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 9:34 am Fwiw, Mrs PD and I went to central London yesterday for a picnic. It was cheaper and easier to drive in than it was to take the train. To London. If that's true, of all destinations, then public transport pricing policy is f.cked.

On the other hand, rumour has it that free travel for rail employees is coming back, so maybe I'll be taking the train a bit more after all.

For two people it probably is cheaper to drive. But I hope you calculated in depreciation, wear and tear, MOT, climate change etc and didn't just use the fuel cost. Cars are more expensive than just fuel. Part of the problem with public transport costs is that the user sees all of the PT costs, but doesn't notice the hidden car ownership costs. I suspect there are hidden subsidies that don't get seen too.

JQH wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 10:47 amAggressive, much?

Yes, but going for a picnic in London? I mean what? Huh?

science_fox wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 10:49 am

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 9:34 am Fwiw, Mrs PD and I went to central London yesterday for a picnic. It was cheaper and easier to drive in than it was to take the train. To London. If that's true, of all destinations, then public transport pricing policy is f.cked.

On the other hand, rumour has it that free travel for rail employees is coming back, so maybe I'll be taking the train a bit more after all.

For two people it probably is cheaper to drive. But I hope you calculated in depreciation, wear and tear, MOT, climate change etc and didn't just use the fuel cost. Cars are more expensive than just fuel. Part of the problem with public transport costs is that the user sees all of the PT costs, but doesn't notice the hidden car ownership costs. I suspect there are hidden subsidies that don't get seen too.

Not to mention the cost of central London picnic nibbles.

lpm wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 10:59 am

JQH wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 10:47 amAggressive, much?

Yes, but going for a picnic in London? I mean what? Huh?

Whilst the planet is burning

I like a nice bit of air pollution with my cucumber sandwiches, especially if I get the chance to contribute to it myself.

It will be nice to go for a picnic on Primrose Hill beach, seeing the tops of ruined skyscrapers poking above the waves.

science_fox wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 10:49 am

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 9:34 am Fwiw, Mrs PD and I went to central London yesterday for a picnic. It was cheaper and easier to drive in than it was to take the train. To London. If that's true, of all destinations, then public transport pricing policy is f.cked.

On the other hand, rumour has it that free travel for rail employees is coming back, so maybe I'll be taking the train a bit more after all.

For two people it probably is cheaper to drive. But I hope you calculated in depreciation, wear and tear, MOT, climate change etc and didn't just use the fuel cost. Cars are more expensive than just fuel. Part of the problem with public transport costs is that the user sees all of the PT costs, but doesn't notice the hidden car ownership costs. I suspect there are hidden subsidies that don't get seen too.

This. Usually, depreciation is one of the largest costs per kilometre driven. Which isn’t paid until the vehicle is replaced.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 9:34 am Fwiw, Mrs PD and I went to central London yesterday for a picnic. It was cheaper and easier to drive in than it was to take the train. To London. If that's true, of all destinations, then public transport pricing policy is f.cked.

On the other hand, rumour has it that free travel for rail employees is coming back, so maybe I'll be taking the train a bit more after all.

Flygskam aside, you're absolutely right about the systemic issues here. It's a failure of both national public transport policy and London's attempts to minimise car use if it's even roughly close to cheaper to drive.

Seeing as EPD is probably more favourably disposed towards trains than 99% of people in the UK, it's genuinely scary that he'd even be considering using private transport for such a journey while the world is, as noted, on fire (except for the bits that are underwater).

We should all be writing to our MPs rather than bitching on here.

Woodchopper wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 12:10 pm

science_fox wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 10:49 am

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 9:34 am Fwiw, Mrs PD and I went to central London yesterday for a picnic. It was cheaper and easier to drive in than it was to take the train. To London. If that's true, of all destinations, then public transport pricing policy is f.cked.

On the other hand, rumour has it that free travel for rail employees is coming back, so maybe I'll be taking the train a bit more after all.

For two people it probably is cheaper to drive. But I hope you calculated in depreciation, wear and tear, MOT, climate change etc and didn't just use the fuel cost. Cars are more expensive than just fuel. Part of the problem with public transport costs is that the user sees all of the PT costs, but doesn't notice the hidden car ownership costs. I suspect there are hidden subsidies that don't get seen too.

This. Usually, depreciation is one of the largest costs per kilometre driven. Which isn’t paid until the vehicle is replaced.

But elsewhere it was pointed out that most cars are killed by age, not mileage - corrosion is biggest cause of mortality. So depending on mileage per year, EPD's car might well be free for these extra miles.

lpm wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 1:11 pm

Woodchopper wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 12:10 pm

science_fox wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 10:49 am

For two people it probably is cheaper to drive. But I hope you calculated in depreciation, wear and tear, MOT, climate change etc and didn't just use the fuel cost. Cars are more expensive than just fuel. Part of the problem with public transport costs is that the user sees all of the PT costs, but doesn't notice the hidden car ownership costs. I suspect there are hidden subsidies that don't get seen too.

This. Usually, depreciation is one of the largest costs per kilometre driven. Which isn’t paid until the vehicle is replaced.

But elsewhere it was pointed out that most cars are killed by age, not mileage - corrosion is biggest cause of mortality. So depending on mileage per year, EPD's car might well be free for these extra miles.

That isn't how I'd work out average depreciation costs per km.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 12:28 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 9:34 am Fwiw, Mrs PD and I went to central London yesterday for a picnic. It was cheaper and easier to drive in than it was to take the train. To London. If that's true, of all destinations, then public transport pricing policy is f.cked.

On the other hand, rumour has it that free travel for rail employees is coming back, so maybe I'll be taking the train a bit more after all.

Flygskam aside, you're absolutely right about the systemic issues here. It's a failure of both national public transport policy and London's attempts to minimise car use if it's even roughly close to cheaper to drive.

Seeing as EPD is probably more favourably disposed towards trains than 99% of people in the UK, it's genuinely scary that he'd even be considering using private transport for such a journey while the world is, as noted, on fire (except for the bits that are underwater).

We should all be writing to our MPs rather than bitching on here.

There was that pipeline fire in the Gulf of Mexico a little while back...

Good point. "On fire and/or underwater" might have been more accurate.

monkey wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 3:21 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 12:28 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 9:34 am Fwiw, Mrs PD and I went to central London yesterday for a picnic. It was cheaper and easier to drive in than it was to take the train. To London. If that's true, of all destinations, then public transport pricing policy is f.cked.

On the other hand, rumour has it that free travel for rail employees is coming back, so maybe I'll be taking the train a bit more after all.

Flygskam aside, you're absolutely right about the systemic issues here. It's a failure of both national public transport policy and London's attempts to minimise car use if it's even roughly close to cheaper to drive.

Seeing as EPD is probably more favourably disposed towards trains than 99% of people in the UK, it's genuinely scary that he'd even be considering using private transport for such a journey while the world is, as noted, on fire (except for the bits that are underwater).

We should all be writing to our MPs rather than bitching on here.

There was that pipeline fire in the Gulf of Mexico a little while back...

I guess there's a possibility of another Cuyahoga River type river fire due to climate effects as well.

Woodchopper wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 1:15 pm

lpm wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 1:11 pm

Woodchopper wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 12:10 pm

This. Usually, depreciation is one of the largest costs per kilometre driven. Which isn’t paid until the vehicle is replaced.

But elsewhere it was pointed out that most cars are killed by age, not mileage - corrosion is biggest cause of mortality. So depending on mileage per year, EPD's car might well be free for these extra miles.

That isn't how I'd work out average depreciation costs per km.

TCO is a complicated mix of mileage driven and time, with the mix depending on the type of driving as well as a mileage per year.

Large chunks of the insurance and depreciation costs are on a time basis, while some of the insurance costs and some of the depreciation and some of the maintenance costs are on a mileage basis.

The service schedule for your car, including things like tire replacement and oil changes, has time intervals as well as mileage intervals. Even here in the US, many cars get to scheduled major service intervals like timing belt changes on time before distance.

science_fox wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 10:49 am

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 9:34 am Fwiw, Mrs PD and I went to central London yesterday for a picnic. It was cheaper and easier to drive in than it was to take the train. To London. If that's true, of all destinations, then public transport pricing policy is f.cked.

On the other hand, rumour has it that free travel for rail employees is coming back, so maybe I'll be taking the train a bit more after all.

For two people it probably is cheaper to drive. But I hope you calculated in depreciation, wear and tear, MOT, climate change etc and didn't just use the fuel cost. Cars are more expensive than just fuel. Part of the problem with public transport costs is that the user sees all of the PT costs, but doesn't notice the hidden car ownership costs. I suspect there are hidden subsidies that don't get seen too.

Meh. I always find the depreciation argument an interesting one because it assumes that there's no positive value to the miles that are being driven. As if having the freedom to drive to wherever doesn't have a personal (intangible) benefit, and all there is is cost. But no matter, even if the car is worthless when we sell it on and the journey has no intangible value then yes, depreciation doesn't override the cost of the train fare, parking at the station, and use of the underground. Additionally, the MOT isn't an incremental cost - it will happen in January and cost the same regardless of this journey. Servicing will be barely changed as the journey represented a little over 1% of my annual mileage. The fuel cost isn't too bad either as I only used fuel on the motorway, and electric in the city (with free charging when we parked, nice). Even with the congestion charge (it wasn't congested, but hey, the principle is sound), it's still cheaper.

The picnic was at Buckingham Palace, btw, hence why we were there. I wouldn't ordinarily go for a picnic in central London but if a friend gets tickets and invites you along, it's a nice thing to do. Oh, and I made all our food as well. It was lovely.

But isn't it interesting, though, how many of the replies focus on my individual choices here, rather than the overall systemic and social incentives? Only BoaF acknowledged the bigger problem. Me choosing to take the train or drive on one journey makes f.ck all difference to climate change. Indeed, the entire country not going anywhere made only a small dent in emissions. The problem is industrial and social - we could all get rid of our cars tomorrow, electrify the railways in a heartbeat, ban flying completely, and that would still be nowhere near enough to solve the global emissions problem. You want climate change priced into my car costs? I agree, so do I. But if it's only an intangible cost, then that's f.cking stupid - it needs to be hitting people in the face every time they fill up, every time they take a journey which could've been done in a less emissive way.

You can't solve the climate crisis by asking people nicely to please do things a little bit better, please, if that's okay, sorry. Or even having a go at them when they do the wrong thing. Relying on individualism is an absolutely f.cked way of trying to solve climate change, and arguably helped exacerbate it in the first place. The entire concept of a personal carbon calculator was invented cynically by BP as a way of trying to shift the blame from massive organisations onto individuals - and it worked.

People will always act to save money if they have the choice to do so. Why the f.ck is it cheaper for me to drive into London? Having a government who thinks increasing price when demand drops off a cliff (as it did for the trains) doesn't f.cking help. Hit them (me) in the pocket and they'll start doing the right thing. But, mostly, focus on the big stuff, because it needs more than the general public to play their part.