SUVs in multi-storey car parks

[johnhemming]

I would rather concentrate on energy efficiency than the size of a car or its drive mechanism. For example a BMW 7 Series has worse fuel consumption than a Land Rover Discovery diesel.

There are a number of surprising issues relating to energy efficiency such as the fact that energy efficiency in railways has been getting worse.

The advantage of schemes such as domestic tradeable quotas of carbon is that they monitor energy (carbon emissions) rather than setting arbitrary rules such as not driving 4x4s.

[skeptik]

There are a number of surprising issues relating to energy efficiency such as the fact that energy efficiency in railways has been getting worse.

This could be to do with the fact that carriages are a lot stronger ( and therefore heavier?) than they used to be for reasons of safety

In the past in the event of a serious rail crash carriages had the habit of crumpling up and exploding into a milllion matchsticks . Modern carriages can survive even serious crashes fairly intact.

[RogerCO]

I think someone has commented in here before that the railways are quite a good example of Jevons' paradox (increase efficiency in consumption of a resource leads to an increase, not decrease, in total rate of consumption) - More efficient powertrain enables stronger carriages with sealed windows and air conditioning and CCTV cameras and all sorts of 'go faster' bells and whistles.

But I agree with John that the thing to focus on is energy efficiency, and tradeable carbon quotas are a very good idea to put the onus on the consumer/polluter.

(I've got an overall average 60.2mpg over the last 27,000 miles in my current car - anyone want to buy some spare carbon quota?)

[Bandidoz]

I would rather concentrate on energy efficiency than the size of a car or its drive mechanism. For example a BMW 7 Series has worse fuel consumption than a Land Rover Discovery diesel..........rather than setting arbitrary rules such as not driving 4x4s.

But surely you have to factor psychology into the equation?
People could drive around in "efficient" 4x4s, they become trendy, and others buy "not so efficient" 4x4s because they're following a fashion trend rather than focussing their attention on efficiency.

[johnhemming]

I don't think psychology has to be built into this equation. If we are looking for a reduction in energy consumption then that is the objective.

On the issue of trains it is true that they are safer because they are heavier and less energy efficient. It is a question of a tradeoff.

I am sure AirPlanes could be slightly safer if they were heavier.

For safety on the railways, however, there are probably more energy efficient routes to safety - having fewer crashes rather than surviving the crashes more effectively.

[RogerCO]

For safety on the railways, however, there are probably more energy efficient routes to safety - having fewer crashes rather than surviving the crashes more effectively.

At the risk of straying slightly off topic and being slapped by DamianB can I just point out (again) that rail is already ridiculously safe (as are aeroplanes) and the media focus on rail and aeroplane safety and accidents has much more to do with the news agenda and what makes a good self contained palatable story (not too threatening to the audience who all drive cars) than any objective assessment of risk.

Deaths per billion passenger kilometers:
Air 0.02
Water 0.3
Rail 0.9
Car 2.8
Pedal cycle 41
Pedestrian 49
Two-wheeled motor vehicle 112

(these were 1999 figures, there should be more recent ones but not near the top of google's response)

Remember the rail figures also include people comitting suicide by jumping in front of trains which is perhaps a little unfair on the rail industry.

In the UK road deaths are around 3,400 per year (thats 9 EVERY day) any 36000 serious injuries (2003 figures).

And yet people still seem to think that they are at more risk on a train or in a plane - v.strange

[snow hope]

Good point, well made Roger.

[bigjim]

Maybe part of the reason is, if you're driving a car you've actually got control of it rather than having to rely on someone else (the driver or pilot) to get you to your destination.

[Joe]

Maybe part of the reason is, if you're driving a car you've actually got control of it rather than having to rely on someone else (the driver or pilot) to get you to your destination.

Yeah, possibly. To make a gross generalisation I think having control appeals to the macho side in a lot of men and a lot of women like the independence that having their own car gives them because of the perception that it isn't safe to walk the streets at night.

Personally, I hate driving and would much rather leave it to someone with more training and experience than me so I can sit back and relax with a book/in-flight movie.

[clv101]

Deaths per billion passenger kilometers:
Air 0.02
Water 0.3
Rail 0.9
Car 2.8
Pedal cycle 41
Pedestrian 49
Two-wheeled motor vehicle 112

Whilst deaths per billion passenger km is one way of looking at it is it any more justified than deaths per journey? Those figures suggest that cars are 140 times more dangerous than planes per mile. But (to keep the numbers easy) if the average plane journey is 140 times longer than the average car journey (say 560 miles compared to 4 miles which sounds reasonable) the chance of death getting on the plane is the same as the chance of death getting into the car.

I hate the media fixation on rail safety and the way road deaths are ignored, crazy. I'm also none to keen on coverage terrorism gets compared to road deaths. Why does the government feel it's acceptable to have 3,400 die and 36000 serious injured on the roads but is willing to spend billions and move heaven and earth to try and lessen the chance of a terrorist attack.

If the billions spend on the war-on-terror to borrow a phrase were spent on road safety we could save far more lives, broken families etc. The way this could work might be along the lines of mandating much stricter safety standards in cars (think carbon fibre, roll cages etc) and subsidise the car manufactures so the price didn't increase. Oh well... just my rant for the evening.

[skeptik]

I would rather concentrate on energy efficiency than the size of a car or its drive mechanism. For example a BMW 7 Series has worse fuel consumption than a Land Rover Discovery diesel.

I've suggested this before..once more unto the breach.

WHat about a sliding scale tax disc related to fuel consimption. Income tax is progressive so why not car tax?

A sliding scale tax inversly proportional to miles per gallon per passenger on the urban cycle

one of these gets zero rated... (as would all two wheelers and electric vehicles)



and a tax disk for one of these would cost ?1000+ a year...

Lamborghini L-147 Murcielago, 2 seats, 9 miles per gallon.
In baby puke green, I assume. That really is a horrid colour!