Rip off price of petrol and diesel

[BCram]

I think Islay is winning. No personal rudeness from him.

[grantzer]

I think Islay is winning. No personal rudeness from him.

But plenty of lies

[BCram]

But plenty of lies

I think there is a difference between what he actually says and what you say he says.
The basic point is that the weight of vehicles does have a bearing on the number of vehicles that the ferries can carry. As you point out heavy lorries will mean fewer spaces available for cars. Heavier cars will mean fewer spaces for cars.

I agree that Islay can be frustrating to discuss stuff with but he does make you think and for me that's a more interesting post than a name calling personal attack.

You have different views and are obviously interested in the truth so I am hoping you will find some stuff to counteract the alarmist comments from Islay.

[grantzer]

I think there is a difference between what he actually says and what you say he says.
The basic point is that the weight of vehicles does have a bearing on the number of vehicles that the ferries can carry. As you point out heavy lorries will mean fewer spaces available for cars. Heavier cars will mean fewer spaces for cars.

I agree that Islay can be frustrating to discuss stuff with but he does make you think and for me that's a more interesting post than a name calling personal attack.

You have different views and are obviously interested in the truth so I am hoping you will find some stuff to counteract the alarmist comments from Islay.

I don't have to,I already know the truth,and have in fact refuted everything he has said. Electric cars do NOT weigh 50% more than petrol or diesel cars. The don't run on silent mode looking for innocents to kill. They don't go on fire more than petrol or diesel cars.

These are all lies peddled by Islay on this post.

Any ferry that is concerned about an extra bit of weight in a car is a ferry I won't go on. They sail with weight limits set to ensure they are well within tolerances, and they know what the tolerances are. If Islay can show any evidence of a ferry sinking because of electric cars,I would be happy to apologise,and change my view. That's mot going to happen though because Islay doesn't care about evidence,only what popped into his head 5 minutes ago.

He has made zero attempts to refute what I say,instead he just tells us about emails he sent,as if that is evidence of him being right.

He is not right,he is absolutely 100% wrong.

Now if that means he wins,I couldn't care less. He is still 100% wrong.

[Deeranged]

You have hit the nail on the head!
Not only are these electric vehicles a lot heavier than a petrol or diesel powered vehicle their engine does not make a noise.
People crossing the road do not hear an electric vehicle coming because their engine is silent.
In my opinion electric vehicles will soon be dubbed the silent killers.
Tyre manufacturers are having to produce special tyres to take the increased weight of the electric vehicles.
If there is a crash involving an electric vehicle and a petrol or diesel powered vehicle there are no prizes for guessing that the petrol or diesel powered vehicles will come off worst.
Sadly there is no chance of the politicians banning these electric vehicles as they think that they are gong or save planet. Meanwhile the Scottish Government have not been counting all the CO2 emissions throughout Scotland since 2010 if not before by ignoring the CO2 emissions from one major sector.
However that is worth a separate topic on its own!

Quite a lot of nonsense there Islay.

1. EVs are quieter than traditional fuel powered vehicles but are not by any means silent and pedestrians can hear them with the obvious caveat that deaf or hard of hearing pedestrians might not. Silent killers? Don't think so.

2. Tyre manufacturers have been manufacturing tyres for heavy vehicles for decades; they go on lorries, buses etc. These tyres are designed to take the weight of heavy vehicles. Material technology will soon reduce the amount of material required for these heavier type tyres (but probably not the cost)

3. Not every vehicle - v - pedestrian collision is the fault of the vehicle driver. Regardless of whether the vehicle that hits a pedestrian is petrol, diesel or electric the pedestrian is going to come off worst. Possibly the more significant factor in the severity of injuries caused in an accident will be speed at impact.

4. All cars are now designed with safety in mind, crumple zones and energy deflecting design for example. In fact a modern car colliding with a bus or lorry is designed to give as much protection to the occupants as is possible. Highly unlikely therefore that a collision between a petrol / diesel vehicle and an EV will have too much difference in risk to the occupants or to how the vehicles themselves e=react to the impact

5. You're missing a very important point about EVs. Try looking at the raw materials required in the manufacture of the batteries and the re-cyclability of the materials used. The greens seem happy to allow this without considering the potential for global raw material shortages ten years from now.

[grantzer]

Quite a lot of nonsense there Islay.

1. EVs are quieter than traditional fuel powered vehicles but are not by any means silent and pedestrians can hear them with the obvious caveat that deaf or hard of hearing pedestrians might not. Silent killers? Don't think so.

2. Tyre manufacturers have been manufacturing tyres for heavy vehicles for decades; they go on lorries, buses etc. These tyres are designed to take the weight of heavy vehicles. Material technology will soon reduce the amount of material required for these heavier type tyres (but probably not the cost)

3. Not every vehicle - v - pedestrian collision is the fault of the vehicle driver. Regardless of whether the vehicle that hits a pedestrian is petrol, diesel or electric the pedestrian is going to come off worst. Possibly the more significant factor in the severity of injuries caused in an accident will be speed at impact.

4. All cars are now designed with safety in mind, crumple zones and energy deflecting design for example. In fact a modern car colliding with a bus or lorry is designed to give as much protection to the occupants as is possible. Highly unlikely therefore that a collision between a petrol / diesel vehicle and an EV will have too much difference in risk to the occupants or to how the vehicles themselves e=react to the impact

5. You're missing a very important point about EVs. Try looking at the raw materials required in the manufacture of the batteries and the re-cyclability of the materials used. The greens seem happy to allow this without considering the potential for global raw material shortages ten years from now.

Now there you go Islay, number 5. Go hard on that one and then come back with something I can't argue with.

[islaydarkblue]

Quite a lot of nonsense there Islay.

1. EVs are quieter than traditional fuel powered vehicles but are not by any means silent and pedestrians can hear them with the obvious caveat that deaf or hard of hearing pedestrians might not. Silent killers? Don't think so.

2. Tyre manufacturers have been manufacturing tyres for heavy vehicles for decades; they go on lorries, buses etc. These tyres are designed to take the weight of heavy vehicles. Material technology will soon reduce the amount of material required for these heavier type tyres (but probably not the cost)

3. Not every vehicle - v - pedestrian collision is the fault of the vehicle driver. Regardless of whether the vehicle that hits a pedestrian is petrol, diesel or electric the pedestrian is going to come off worst. Possibly the more significant factor in the severity of injuries caused in an accident will be speed at impact.

4. All cars are now designed with safety in mind, crumple zones and energy deflecting design for example. In fact a modern car colliding with a bus or lorry is designed to give as much protection to the occupants as is possible. Highly unlikely therefore that a collision between a petrol / diesel vehicle and an EV will have too much difference in risk to the occupants or to how the vehicles themselves e=react to the impact

5. You're missing a very important point about EVs. Try looking at the raw materials required in the manufacture of the batteries and the re-cyclability of the materials used. The greens seem happy to allow this without considering the potential for global raw material shortages ten years from now.

I have known about Item 5 in Deeranged’s post for several years having previously read about it in the Sunday Times newspaper.
I enclose an article from Reuters which states that China owns 90% of the worldwide stocks of rare earth materials used in permanent magnets that power electric cars. https://www.reuters.com/business/aut...ts-2021-07-19/
However it is up to the Green Party politicians to find this information out for themselves and not my job to do it for them.
They will have to learn the hard way when the Chinese government either bans the export of these rare earth materials or ramps up the price to a level that makes the cost of an electric vehicle prohibitive.

[Deeranged]

I have known about Item 5 in Deeranged’s post for several years having previously read about it in the Sunday Times newspaper.
I enclose an article from Reuters which states that China owns 90% of the worldwide stocks of rare earth materials used in permanent magnets that power electric cars. https://www.reuters.com/business/aut...ts-2021-07-19/
However it is up to the Green Party politicians to find this information out for themselves and not my job to do it for them.
They will have to learn the hard way when the Chinese government either bans the export of these rare earth materials or ramps up the price to a level that makes the cost of an electric vehicle prohibitive.

But it's your strongest argument against EVs and you're dismissing it in favour of arguing total nonsense about them being 50% heavier, silent, inconvenient to ferries and more lethal to pedestrians.

You really baffle me at times.

[BCram]

But it's your strongest argument against EVs and you're dismissing it in favour of arguing total nonsense about them being 50% heavier, silent, inconvenient to ferries and more lethal to pedestrians.

You really baffle me at times.

I had a look at this issue and I was surprised by the relative support for EV's even when looking specifically at the carbon costs of production. It seemed that there will be improvements in the manufacture of EV's which will reduce the carbon costs but there will not be any chance of a reduction in the amount of carbon being created if we continue to use fossil based fuels. Maybe it was the websites that I looked at, perhaps they were pro EV's.

[BCram]

EV's seem to weigh 30% more than their equivalent ICE. The expectation is that this difference will reduce as improvements in battery technology take place.