New car

Fabio,

I think that some forum members need to see a car...diologist urgently, Friday or no Friday.

H.

ChrisR_EPL posted:

Never quite got the need for a 4x4 just because the roads are bumpy or it's a bit muddy. Growing up on a farm we never had any bother with our normal cars; off the top of my head a Mk1 Cortina, 1600E, Avenger, Mini Cooper [yay!!!] and since I moved on to urban life cars like a 205GTi, Escort again [Mk4 by now], Espace, Corsa etc etc have never failed to get up the rough old pot-holed path or across a muddy field. And snowy roads? Doesn't matter if you drive a tank; first hint of snow and the roads are blocked by people who can't deal with it. Justifying a big 4x4 because the lanes are poor doesn't cut it tbh.

Yeah, seen that argument against 4X4s posted umpteen times in various forms  - “In my day...”. Being the age I am, I also used to drive those old cars around in the winter, not so much on bumpy farm tracks because they haven't got sufficient ground clearance, and no way can a 2 wd car cope with mud the way a properly-tyred 4X4 can. Sorry, driving icy and snowy Lake District lanes and across the A66 during a blizzard is rather less worrisome, more comfortable and certainly safer in a good 4X4. I don't get stuck behind stranded cars because most locals up there are sensible enough to use them too.

Tony, agreed you do need the correct kit for a bit of mud?

Don Atkinson posted:

Woj posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

hungryhalibut posted:

I’m sure my dislike of these vehicles is irrational, but they are just huge, unnecessarily so. If somebody wants the luggage or dog space, something like a 5 series estate seems ideal. It’s a nice looking car, but doesn’t take up half the road. There are a couple of examples on here, sensibly explained, of needing to go to snowy places or rough country tracks. But I bet hardly any of the owners do that. There’s a little unassuming guy round the corner with a Cayenne, which he drives at ridiculous speeds in 30mph roads. He won’t put his dog in the car as it would make it dirty, so has another vast 4x4 that he uses at the weekend. All week long, it sits on the road so we struggle to see round the corner. Another neighbour has a Jaguar F pace or something. It’s bloody enormous. The most challenging thing it does is go to collect his son from football. It has never seen a speck of mud in its life. It needs huge parking spaces. A nice 320 or A4 would suit him much better but no, it must be a puffed up Chelsea tractor. And it’s a bloody diesel. Why, why, why?

Freedom of choice.

We don't live in a dictatorship (yet)..........

 

 

Freedom of choice.

We don't live in a dictatorship (yet)..........

..but if that freedom of choice affects others? I have similar situation. A neighbor has got several large cars. Most of them parked alongside kerb-line on the narrow street: difficult to pass and obstructing the visibility, not mentioning that they take spaces for visitors. Some of them parked half one the street and half on the footpath so pedestrians need to walk on the street to pass it. Should the freedom of choice be taken away from him on the basis: if you want cars make sure you can park them on your own property? Should parking on footpaths be made illegal so the pedestrians can actually fully use footpaths?

Let's be ABSOLUTELY clear.

First, DON'T play around with words. Freedom of choice is just that. We live in a RULES-BASED society. So that freedom comes WITHIN the rules. And it includes the associated RESPONSIBILITIES.

We can DEMOCRATICALLY agree to change the rules. But with regard to buying cars, whether 4x4s, diesels, SUVs or whatever, all are within the rules.

Parking on the curb or on the footpath, causing an obstruction, etc is NOT within the rules. Don't do it. Simple.

If the rules allow you park in the street, do so responsibly, in consideration of other users. Many people don't have the luxury of their own, dedicated off-street parking.

By all means lobby or campaign peacefully to change the rules. HH probably does that every day of the week. Please also feel free to self-impose rules on yourself even if such action isn't required by the current rules.

But just because people buy (diesel) cars because they have that freedom of choice, is no excuse to suggest that justifies illegal street parking or vice-versa.

We can act within the rules and still be self-centered, selfish, short-sighted and cruel. We can act within the rules, yet also act in a manner that has very bad outcomes for everyone other than ourselves. Complying with the rules does not require empathy. It does not even require the illusion of empathy.

https://www.express.co.uk/life...olkswagen-Golf-price

On a more positive note. This thing seems like it could be a bit of a winner. From Volkswagen next year. 342 miles of range (OK, perhaps 280 to 300 miles in the "real world" - and still nowhere near enough for Don who drives extremely long distances just for fun). Pricing close to the similarly sized Golf. Potentially the first all-electric vehicle from a mainstream manufacturer that even holds a candle to a Tesla, in my view.

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Woj posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

hungryhalibut posted:

 

Freedom of choice.

We don't live in a dictatorship (yet).........

Dictators won't ban gas-guzzlers. They love them. Everywhere on the planet.

A sensible government might, though.

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Woj posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

hungryhalibut posted:

I’m sure my dislike of these vehicles is irrational, but they are just huge, unnecessarily so. If somebody wants the luggage or dog space, something like a 5 series estate seems ideal. It’s a nice looking car, but doesn’t take up half the road. There are a couple of examples on here, sensibly explained, of needing to go to snowy places or rough country tracks. But I bet hardly any of the owners do that. There’s a little unassuming guy round the corner with a Cayenne, which he drives at ridiculous speeds in 30mph roads. He won’t put his dog in the car as it would make it dirty, so has another vast 4x4 that he uses at the weekend. All week long, it sits on the road so we struggle to see round the corner. Another neighbour has a Jaguar F pace or something. It’s bloody enormous. The most challenging thing it does is go to collect his son from football. It has never seen a speck of mud in its life. It needs huge parking spaces. A nice 320 or A4 would suit him much better but no, it must be a puffed up Chelsea tractor. And it’s a bloody diesel. Why, why, why?

Freedom of choice.

We don't live in a dictatorship (yet)..........

 

 

Freedom of choice.

We don't live in a dictatorship (yet)..........

..but if that freedom of choice affects others? I have similar situation. A neighbor has got several large cars. Most of them parked alongside kerb-line on the narrow street: difficult to pass and obstructing the visibility, not mentioning that they take spaces for visitors. Some of them parked half one the street and half on the footpath so pedestrians need to walk on the street to pass it. Should the freedom of choice be taken away from him on the basis: if you want cars make sure you can park them on your own property? Should parking on footpaths be made illegal so the pedestrians can actually fully use footpaths?

Let's be ABSOLUTELY clear.

First, DON'T play around with words. Freedom of choice is just that. We live in a RULES-BASED society. So that freedom comes WITHIN the rules. And it includes the associated RESPONSIBILITIES.

We can DEMOCRATICALLY agree to change the rules. But with regard to buying cars, whether 4x4s, diesels, SUVs or whatever, all are within the rules.

Parking on the curb or on the footpath, causing an obstruction, etc is NOT within the rules. Don't do it. Simple.

If the rules allow you park in the street, do so responsibly, in consideration of other users. Many people don't have the luxury of their own, dedicated off-street parking.

By all means lobby or campaign peacefully to change the rules. HH probably does that every day of the week. Please also feel free to self-impose rules on yourself even if such action isn't required by the current rules.

But just because people buy (diesel) cars because they have that freedom of choice, is no excuse to suggest that justifies illegal street parking or vice-versa.

We can act within the rules and still be self-centered, selfish, short-sighted and cruel. We can act within the rules, yet also act in a manner that has very bad outcomes for everyone other than ourselves. Complying with the rules does not require empathy. It does not even require the illusion of empathy.

Well, I don’t know who you include along with yourself in the “we” but I consider that list of characteristics to be truly despicable.

My paragraph “ if the rules allow........” summarises my view. And I think it’s a much better view than yours.

winkyincanada posted:

https://www.express.co.uk/life...olkswagen-Golf-price

On a more positive note. This thing seems like it could be a bit of a winner. From Volkswagen next year. 342 miles of range (OK, perhaps 280 to 300 miles in the "real world" - and still nowhere near enough for Don who drives extremely long distances just for fun). Pricing close to the similarly sized Golf. Potentially the first all-electric vehicle from a mainstream manufacturer that even holds a candle to a Tesla, in my view.

It won't look like that when produced unfortunately. And the Chevy Bolt is a mainstream all electric that holds a candle to the Tesla. Are they not sold in Canada? They're quite impressive.

winkyincanada posted:

https://www.express.co.uk/life...olkswagen-Golf-price

On a more positive note. This thing seems like it could be a bit of a winner. From Volkswagen next year. 342 miles of range (OK, perhaps 280 to 300 miles in the "real world" - and still nowhere near enough for Don who drives extremely long distances just for fun). Pricing close to the similarly sized Golf. Potentially the first all-electric vehicle from a mainstream manufacturer that even holds a candle to a Tesla, in my view.

Have you placed your order yet ?

You are correct about my mileage limitation but that’s it.

winkyincanada posted:

https://www.express.co.uk/life...olkswagen-Golf-price

On a more positive note. This thing seems like it could be a bit of a winner. From Volkswagen next year. 342 miles of range (OK, perhaps 280 to 300 miles in the "real world" - and still nowhere near enough for Don who drives extremely long distances just for fun). Pricing close to the similarly sized Golf. Potentially the first all-electric vehicle from a mainstream manufacturer that even holds a candle to a Tesla, in my view.

Winky, I was reading couple of weeks ago that the VW emission scandal was the catalyst that has kick started a massive investment programme by the VAG group and other German manufactuers into EV vehicles.

VW announced this week that their last Diesel engine range will be introduced in 2026 after that Diesel engine development will cease.

BMW and Porsche are currently tesing a new Super fast charger that has a charge rate of 50% more than the Tesla equivalent evidently it will give a 62 mile range on a 3 minute charge they just need the vehicle and hardware to suit.

BMW are looking at a new EV Battery manufacturing facility outside of Germany this will be powered by more environmentally friendly sources than they currently use thus reducing the Carbon Footprint of the Battery Pack.

Tesla will be opening a new Battery plant shortly if not already open this plant will be powered by Solar energy and likewise will be a more environmentally friendly production facility.

Having recently retired after over 40 years in the Transport Industry its quite amazing at the rate of change and what can be achieved when needed or required by changes in Legislation. 

Interesting times ahead?

Pcd posted:

Tony, agreed you do need the correct kit for a bit of mud?

 

Was out on my bike earlier and one of these came past me. It had one of those “one life, live it” stickers in the rear window. I would have laughed but I was too busy coughing my guts up with all the crap being dished out of the exhaust. 

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Woj posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

hungryhalibut posted:

I’m sure my dislike of these vehicles is irrational, but they are just huge, unnecessarily so. If somebody wants the luggage or dog space, something like a 5 series estate seems ideal. It’s a nice looking car, but doesn’t take up half the road. There are a couple of examples on here, sensibly explained, of needing to go to snowy places or rough country tracks. But I bet hardly any of the owners do that. There’s a little unassuming guy round the corner with a Cayenne, which he drives at ridiculous speeds in 30mph roads. He won’t put his dog in the car as it would make it dirty, so has another vast 4x4 that he uses at the weekend. All week long, it sits on the road so we struggle to see round the corner. Another neighbour has a Jaguar F pace or something. It’s bloody enormous. The most challenging thing it does is go to collect his son from football. It has never seen a speck of mud in its life. It needs huge parking spaces. A nice 320 or A4 would suit him much better but no, it must be a puffed up Chelsea tractor. And it’s a bloody diesel. Why, why, why?

Freedom of choice.

We don't live in a dictatorship (yet)..........

 

 

Freedom of choice.

We don't live in a dictatorship (yet)..........

..but if that freedom of choice affects others? I have similar situation. A neighbor has got several large cars. Most of them parked alongside kerb-line on the narrow street: difficult to pass and obstructing the visibility, not mentioning that they take spaces for visitors. Some of them parked half one the street and half on the footpath so pedestrians need to walk on the street to pass it. Should the freedom of choice be taken away from him on the basis: if you want cars make sure you can park them on your own property? Should parking on footpaths be made illegal so the pedestrians can actually fully use footpaths?

Let's be ABSOLUTELY clear.

First, DON'T play around with words. Freedom of choice is just that. We live in a RULES-BASED society. So that freedom comes WITHIN the rules. And it includes the associated RESPONSIBILITIES.

We can DEMOCRATICALLY agree to change the rules. But with regard to buying cars, whether 4x4s, diesels, SUVs or whatever, all are within the rules.

Parking on the curb or on the footpath, causing an obstruction, etc is NOT within the rules. Don't do it. Simple.

If the rules allow you park in the street, do so responsibly, in consideration of other users. Many people don't have the luxury of their own, dedicated off-street parking.

By all means lobby or campaign peacefully to change the rules. HH probably does that every day of the week. Please also feel free to self-impose rules on yourself even if such action isn't required by the current rules.

But just because people buy (diesel) cars because they have that freedom of choice, is no excuse to suggest that justifies illegal street parking or vice-versa.

We can act within the rules and still be self-centered, selfish, short-sighted and cruel. We can act within the rules, yet also act in a manner that has very bad outcomes for everyone other than ourselves. Complying with the rules does not require empathy. It does not even require the illusion of empathy.

Well, I don’t know who you include along with yourself in the “we” but I consider that list of characteristics to be truly despicable.

My paragraph “ if the rules allow........” summarises my view. And I think it’s a much better view than yours.

Well naturally you would. Your view gives you the ability to act as you please, without consideration of the consequences to others. And that's OK by you, because it's within the "rules".

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Woj posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

hungryhalibut posted:

I’m sure my dislike of these vehicles is irrational, but they are just huge, unnecessarily so. If somebody wants the luggage or dog space, something like a 5 series estate seems ideal. It’s a nice looking car, but doesn’t take up half the road. There are a couple of examples on here, sensibly explained, of needing to go to snowy places or rough country tracks. But I bet hardly any of the owners do that. There’s a little unassuming guy round the corner with a Cayenne, which he drives at ridiculous speeds in 30mph roads. He won’t put his dog in the car as it would make it dirty, so has another vast 4x4 that he uses at the weekend. All week long, it sits on the road so we struggle to see round the corner. Another neighbour has a Jaguar F pace or something. It’s bloody enormous. The most challenging thing it does is go to collect his son from football. It has never seen a speck of mud in its life. It needs huge parking spaces. A nice 320 or A4 would suit him much better but no, it must be a puffed up Chelsea tractor. And it’s a bloody diesel. Why, why, why?

Freedom of choice.

We don't live in a dictatorship (yet)..........

 

 

Freedom of choice.

We don't live in a dictatorship (yet)..........

..but if that freedom of choice affects others? I have similar situation. A neighbor has got several large cars. Most of them parked alongside kerb-line on the narrow street: difficult to pass and obstructing the visibility, not mentioning that they take spaces for visitors. Some of them parked half one the street and half on the footpath so pedestrians need to walk on the street to pass it. Should the freedom of choice be taken away from him on the basis: if you want cars make sure you can park them on your own property? Should parking on footpaths be made illegal so the pedestrians can actually fully use footpaths?

Let's be ABSOLUTELY clear.

First, DON'T play around with words. Freedom of choice is just that. We live in a RULES-BASED society. So that freedom comes WITHIN the rules. And it includes the associated RESPONSIBILITIES.

We can DEMOCRATICALLY agree to change the rules. But with regard to buying cars, whether 4x4s, diesels, SUVs or whatever, all are within the rules.

Parking on the curb or on the footpath, causing an obstruction, etc is NOT within the rules. Don't do it. Simple.

If the rules allow you park in the street, do so responsibly, in consideration of other users. Many people don't have the luxury of their own, dedicated off-street parking.

By all means lobby or campaign peacefully to change the rules. HH probably does that every day of the week. Please also feel free to self-impose rules on yourself even if such action isn't required by the current rules.

But just because people buy (diesel) cars because they have that freedom of choice, is no excuse to suggest that justifies illegal street parking or vice-versa.

We can act within the rules and still be self-centered, selfish, short-sighted and cruel. We can act within the rules, yet also act in a manner that has very bad outcomes for everyone other than ourselves. Complying with the rules does not require empathy. It does not even require the illusion of empathy.

Well, I don’t know who you include along with yourself in the “we” but I consider that list of characteristics to be truly despicable.

My paragraph “ if the rules allow........” summarises my view. And I think it’s a much better view than yours.

Well naturally you would. Your view gives you the ability to act as you please, without consideration of the consequences to others. And that's OK by you, because it's within the "rules".

Winky, you really must keep up.

My view is clearly stated, “if the rules allow.......do so responsibly, in consideration of others......”

Your view is clearly stated “We (ie you and yours) can act within the rules and still be sel-centred, selfish, short-sighted and cruel...........” etc. 

Pleasedon’t get these opposing points of view confuseD.

JamieWednesday posted:

Anyways Fab. When you get it, tell us what it’s like...

Jamie,Haim, I will do it for sure but it will arrive in three months.In the meanwhile I'm going back to the nice photos...See you there!

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

 

 

Well naturally you would. Your view gives you the ability to act as you please, without consideration of the consequences to others. And that's OK by you, because it's within the "rules".

Winky, you really must keep up.

My view is clearly stated, “if the rules allow.......do so responsibly, in consideration of others......”

Your view is clearly stated “We (ie you and yours) can act within the rules and still be sel-centred, selfish, short-sighted and cruel...........” etc. 

Please don’t get these opposing points of view confuseD.

Saying it doesn't make it so. You're missing the nuance. These things aren't necessarily opposing points at all. They are two overlapping, complementary and parallel guides as to how we behave. Everything we do has consequences for others. Playing by the "rules" doesn't change this in the slightest. Each of us is guided by our values and by our empathy. We can play by the rules and still act egregiously towards others. We perhaps don't consider our choice to drive vast distances to be unreasonable because it's within the rules. The consequences to others is abstract and in the future, so we don't consider our choice to be selfish at all. We pay for our cars and our petrol/diesel so it our business, and ours alone. Until the rules are changed we will conveniently ignore the real consequences of our actions. Because we assume too much of "the rules" in guiding our actions.

We can all claim we act "responsibly, in consideration of others" but we all know this is only partially true. We all make selfish choices all the time. How we reconcile that with our values varies.

(Why have all your family and friends moved so far away from you? Maybe they don't like you much.)

We’ll have to get you two together and charge for tickets - there’s a fortune to be made!!

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

 

 

Well naturally you would. Your view gives you the ability to act as you please, without consideration of the consequences to others. And that's OK by you, because it's within the "rules".

Winky, you really must keep up.

My view is clearly stated, “if the rules allow.......do so responsibly, in consideration of others......”

Your view is clearly stated “We (ie you and yours) can act within the rules and still be sel-centred, selfish, short-sighted and cruel...........” etc. 

Please don’t get these opposing points of view confuseD.

Saying it doesn't make it so. You're missing the nuance. These things aren't necessarily opposing points at all. They are two overlapping, complementary and parallel guides as to how we behave. Everything we do has consequences for others. Playing by the "rules" doesn't change this in the slightest. Each of us is guided by our values and by our empathy. We can play by the rules and still act egregiously towards others. We perhaps don't consider our choice to drive vast distances to be unreasonable because it's within the rules. The consequences to others is abstract and in the future, so we don't consider our choice to be selfish at all. We pay for our cars and our petrol/diesel so it our business, and ours alone. Until the rules are changed we will conveniently ignore the real consequences of our actions. Because we assume too much of "the rules" in guiding our actions.

We can all claim we act "responsibly, in consideration of others" but we all know this is only partially true. We all make selfish choices all the time. How we reconcile that with our values varies.

(Why have all your family and friends moved so far away from you? Maybe they don't like you much.)

well done winky.

Looks like you've decided after all to align yourself with my view (and actions) that regardless of the rules, you need to be considerate etc But as you say, actions speak louder than words.

What a pity you couldn't refrain from making that comment in parenthesis.

The question of considerateness towards others is of course all-pervading in life, including hifi (e.g. turning music down if playing with windows open so that neighbours can't hear). The impression I have is that as the years pass courtesy towards others generally is decreasing, similarly tolerance of others - which may or may not be related.

As far as road use is concerned, as I noted earlier with speculation as to cause, and clearly a generalisation, my observation is that the drivers of very large cars (typified by large 4x4s though they may or may not be 4wd) tend to be at the lower end of the courtesy scale - even though, as they take up so much more road, one might expect them to make more allowance for other road users than drivers of small cars. On the other hand, drivers of more exotic sports cars tend to be at the higher end of the courtesy scale. (Perhaps they feel less insulated from their surroundings, or feel their cars are more susceptible to damage, or simply they know that any delay giving way to others they'll make up again in a moment.) 

It is of course down to the individual to show courtesy to others - and hopefully Don and others on here are doing their best to buck the trend shown by other drivers of similar vehicles.

The OP's chosen vehicle, however, is on the small side as 4x4s go, so in a rather different category and perhaps not really in the 'Chelsea Tractor' category.

This thread really went off on one whilst I looked away...

Anyway our i3 is a delight so far. My wife loves the cabin design, the great visibility and driving it has taken just a few trips for the one-pedal style to feel pretty second nature. The ride is a lot better than  her old Audi A1 which like most modern Audis felt to me to have concrete tyres.

In a pretty cold week we look to be getting about 160miles on its first charge as we slowly use it up. No issues with that kind of range with the use it will have from us, probably be charging it at home about once a week. Bang on BMW estimates too, and it might be 180-190 in warmer weather.

So far so good. it feels like the future to me-or at least a glimpse of one version. I have no doubt that for the next 10-20yrs we will see divergent technologies, ownership models and ideas as we see personal transport change pretty radically. Unlikely to be a 'one system fits all' solution.

Bruce

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

 

 

Well naturally you would. Your view gives you the ability to act as you please, without consideration of the consequences to others. And that's OK by you, because it's within the "rules".

Winky, you really must keep up.

My view is clearly stated, “if the rules allow.......do so responsibly, in consideration of others......”

Your view is clearly stated “We (ie you and yours) can act within the rules and still be sel-centred, selfish, short-sighted and cruel...........” etc. 

Please don’t get these opposing points of view confuseD.

Saying it doesn't make it so. You're missing the nuance. These things aren't necessarily opposing points at all. They are two overlapping, complementary and parallel guides as to how we behave. Everything we do has consequences for others. Playing by the "rules" doesn't change this in the slightest. Each of us is guided by our values and by our empathy. We can play by the rules and still act egregiously towards others. We perhaps don't consider our choice to drive vast distances to be unreasonable because it's within the rules. The consequences to others is abstract and in the future, so we don't consider our choice to be selfish at all. We pay for our cars and our petrol/diesel so it our business, and ours alone. Until the rules are changed we will conveniently ignore the real consequences of our actions. Because we assume too much of "the rules" in guiding our actions.

We can all claim we act "responsibly, in consideration of others" but we all know this is only partially true. We all make selfish choices all the time. How we reconcile that with our values varies.

(Why have all your family and friends moved so far away from you? Maybe they don't like you much.)

well done winky.

Looks like you've decided after all to align yourself with my view (and actions) that regardless of the rules, you need to be considerate etc But as you say, actions speak louder than words.

What a pity you couldn't refrain from making that comment in parenthesis.

I've decided nothing of the sort. You're interpreting what I say completely opposite to my intent. What I'm saying is that we can all choose to be selfish ar$h0le$ and still be within the rules. Not that acting within the rules confers some sort of moral authority, provided we are "considerate" (whatever that means). I'm saying that someone can choose an extremely selfish lifestyle, basically stealing from the future, and still not be doing anything illegal. Yes, we all do it, some of us more than others.

It's starting to look like Facebook here. Is it a full moon in England again?

We still drive a 2005 Golf which we bought in 2008 and I can't work out from this thread if I'm an eco warrior or should be shot for crimes against humanity, please help I don't wether to feel selfish and cruel or morally superior????

New age European eco warriors drive electric cars using electricity generated by fossils fuels ????

Mike Sullivan posted:

New age European eco warriors drive electric cars using electricity generated by fossils fuels ????

Mike

In 2017 the UK produced about 30% of its electricity from renewable sources, and that figure rises each year (it peaked this summer with nearly 30% from solar alone at one point). Nuclear produced 21%, a figure that is stable. Gas power stations produced about 40%, coal just 6%.

https://assets.publishing.serv...otice_March_2018.pdf

Gas power stations that generate electricity do so with substantially less harmful emissions per energy unit than burning fossil fuel in your car. They include CO2 scrubbing technologies, and also less particulates than diesel. Your petrol/diesel also takes additional energy to be synthesized from the raw materials.

I am sure there are many ways in which I could be accused of inconsistency and hypocrisy in terms of my environmental credentials but I don't think your comment is entirely fair.

Bruce

Electric cars and bikes are excellent technology, but I think people forget about where the electricity comes from. Quite a few European countries import their power from non-green sources then virtue signal their uptake of electric vehicles. I’m not up to speed on the battery technology, but I’ve heard that mineral sources for those can have environmental issues too.