Which electric car to buy?

[Amarillo]

I'll say it again. There are no specific rules about towing a car in this context, there are rules about towing a trailer.
A car with no one in it towed with its wheels on the ground is a trailer, from the Gov website :

Legal issues
When an A-frame is attached to a vehicle (eg a motor car) we consider the A-frame and car temporarily become a single unit. When towed by another motor vehicle (eg motorhome) we believe that this single unit is, for the purposes of its construction, treated in GB legislation as a trailer.

3. The brakes on the trailer
This depends on the weight capacity of the trailer.

A trailer with a GVW of 750kg or lower, is not required to have brakes, but if brakes are fitted they must be in full working order.

Towing dollies - a frame which tows a vehicle with 2 wheels off the ground is only legal for recovery purposes.


The only legal way to tow anything like this is either on trailer with all the wheels off the ground, or on an A frame with the brakes connected so that come on when the towing vehicle slows down.

I don’t know if you’re right or wrong: the words “car” and “vehicle” seem to be used interchangeably.

=====Quote=====

You can only use an A-frame or recovery dolly legally to recover a *vehicle* which has broken down.

If you tow a *car* that hasn't broken down using an A-frame or dolly, then the law treats the combination as a trailer which must meet the appropriate braking and lighting rules.

=====\Quote=====

How to tow a caravan: Beginner's guide to towing | The AA

The rules about towing a caravan (or trailer) can seem technical, but staying safe and lawful is simple to do. Here's how to tow a caravan securely.

www.theaa.com

An Ami is definitely a vehicle, but it is not a car. In the above the AA use both terms.

Is there a loophole which would allow an Ami to be legally towed on a dolly, unbraked as it would be <750 Kg?

 

[Red wine lover]

Just seen the 2cv ev, my ideal car!

 

[andyinluton]

Is there a loophole which would allow an Ami to be legally towed on a dolly, unbraked as it would be <750 Kg?

No

It doesn’t matter if you call it a car, a van or a quadracycle, or even a kids pedal car, the minute you start towing it becomes a trailer.

Forget about < 750kg it makes no difference to the rules, if a trailer has brake’s irrespective of weight , they have to be operational.

Towing an Ami has exactly the same rules as towing as say A VW Polo.

All of it is probably hypothetical anyway unless the Ami has been designed to be towed. You need something substantial to fix an A frame to.
The wheels need to be able to be disengaged from the drive system and the handbrake released.
Then you need a way to connect the brakes.

There is also the point that a Ami has been designed to do 28mph I’m not sure how that’s going to stand up to bringing pulled along at high speed.

 

[willwander]

No

It doesn’t matter if you call it a car, a van or a quadracycle, or even a kids pedal car, the minute you start towing it becomes a trailer.

Forget about < 750kg it makes no difference to the rules, if a trailer has brake’s irrespective of weight , they have to be operational.

Towing an Ami has exactly the same rules as towing as say A VW Polo.

All of it is probably hypothetical anyway unless the Ami has been designed to be towed. You need something substantial to fix an A frame to.
The wheels need to be able to be disengaged from the drive system and the handbrake released.
Then you need a way to connect the brakes.

There is also the point that a Ami has been designed to do 28mph I’m not sure how that’s going to stand up to bringing pulled along at high speed.

You could put it on a little trailer

 

[westfalia]

You could put it on a little trailer

You could do, but if you're going to tow a trailer fit for a car, there
are better cars out there than that piece of landfill. I'd rather walk.

 

[andyinluton]

I thought the main attraction of this type of transport in France was that you can still drive them if you’ve got a driving ban.

 

[Ting Tong]

I thought the main attraction of this type of transport in France was that you can still drive them if you’ve got a driving ban.

or 14 years old.

 

[Wildcamper]

More climate sceptic guff. Like the last thing you shared from the famously climate sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation.

This one is from an “investment strategy consultant” in Forbes business magazine. I wonder perhaps if he has some oil investment interests…?
Why do you repeat this stuff without saying where you got it from?
Do you have oil investments!?!
Can’t you just start your own thread “I don’t believe in climate change”?
People who are interested in buying an electric car don’t need your clearly biased cut and paste balderdash.
People write articles that masquerade as “news” and people then share them on Facebook and Forums like this. This is how fake news happens.
Is the author of this article shorting Tesla? Maybe his son-in-law is? The point is this is another clearly one-sided article pretending to be journalism. It’s not.
Next time you share something tell us where you got it, otherwise it’s dishonest.

Like you I believe in Climate Change. Also I do not have oil shares, nor electric shares nor hydrogen shares. I do not believe that the wholesale electrification of transport is a good idea, will go further it is a bad idea. The electrification of cars is nothing more that moving the problem offshore, out of sight out of mind. The environmental damage being done through rare earth metal mining and mining of battery metals is huge. As an industrial chemist I have carried out experiments on the extraction of neodymium. To obtain 1g of the metal requires vast quantities of water and the amount of toxic waste is huge. Scale this up and it is easy to believe that the planet is sleepwalking into another environmental disaster. Hydrogen is a much better and cleaner alternative for transportation. Also the change from petrol/diesel is so much simpler - no I do not have hydrogen interests. Unfortunately the electrification lobby is very economical with the truth when it comes to transport. I know from first hand experience having been asked to leave meetings when I have queried findings, had reports embargoed (not contested, simply taken out of circulation). While the quoted report may be biased it almost certainly contains truths. The key to reducing emissions is to reduce consumption. We see again that vast areas of the Amazon forest have been felled over the last year. The lungs of the planet are being removed. If this continues then no amount of electrification, or hydrogenation, of transport will save the planet. Consumption is driven by over population, I bet this was not discussed at COP26! If the planet is to be saved then governments must address overpopulation - is not going to happen is it? Eventually the planet will fight back, famine, drought, plague etc or there will be a major war over resources. Climate change is serious, governments are doing very little about it.

 

[Wildcamper]

The extraction of neodymium might be of interest.

First take the ore and make a concentrate, not going into this as it is quite involved. Then the concentrate goes through a multitude of processes involved treatments with a library of toxic chemicals:
Sulphuric acid, nitric acid, sodium hydroxide, ammonia, trioctylamine, tributylphosphate, trioctylphosphine oxide, diethylhexylphosphoric acid and kerosene. All of these are used in significant quantities and some are exceptionally difficult to recover or reuse.
There are other routes to the pure metal but all are equally unpleasant leaving a pollution legacy.

 

[WelshGas]

Getting down to the basics - EVERYONE supports Climate Change BUT not if it affects their standard of living.
eg: One of the leaders of Insulate Britain hasn't insulated his house, Why?. Because it would cost him but he is prepared to cause mayhem for others

So instead of driving less we turn to electric vehicles, instead of consuming less we look at different alternatives.

No matter which way you throw the dice to maintain standards of living then the population has to be reduced. If population levels increase then standards of living have to reduce.

Some countries are now introducing incentives for younger generations to have more children as the average age of the population increases, thus more consumption and more destruction of the environment and climate changes.

The whole problem is one that will not be solved by mankind as there are too many vested interests. It will be solved eventually by nature.

 

[Amarillo]

Getting down to the basics - EVERYONE supports Climate Change BUT not if it affects their standard of living.

I think there are plenty of people who will or would accept a change in their standard of living to reduce the effects of global heating. Going vegan, no longer flying, going car free, turning down the thermostat by a degree or two, etc. etc. etc.

What is true is that plenty of people like the idea of reducing global heating but mock those who actively try to do something about it.

 

[WelshGas]

I think there are plenty of people who will or would accept a change in their standard of living to reduce the effects of global heating. Going vegan, no longer flying, going car free, turning down the thermostat by a degree or two, etc. etc. etc.

What is true is that plenty of people like the idea of reducing global heating but mock those who actively try to do something about it.

There might be a few in the Western world, especially city dwellers, but the majority?

Vegan, not based on home grown seasonal produce.
Flying, possibly, but can’t see many people voluntarily giving up their 2 weeks in the sun.
Car free, in your dreams if you live outside a city.
Turn down the thermostat, if you have one to turn down, possibly.

 

[clarinetbcn]

Since early 2019 my flat in Barcelona, built in 1880, produces all the energy it uses with a solar installation. In spite of endless studies that show that an installation like mine reduces pollution over its lifetime, including manufacturing and eventual recycling, there is always someone who claims that the manufacture of the system creates more pollution than it saves, which is simply not true. I don’t understand it, but I believe it is related to “Future Shock,” where people are so overwhelmed by the speed of change that they can’t absorb developments that are objectively beneficial to them.

 

[andyinluton]

That’s not really surprising- solar makes sense in a sunny country. It gets progressively harder as you move North.

 

[66tim99]

I think there are plenty of people who will or would accept a change in their standard of living to reduce the effects of global heating. Going vegan, no longer flying, going car free, turning down the thermostat by a degree or two, etc. etc. etc.

What is true is that plenty of people like the idea of reducing global heating but mock those who actively try to do something about it.

As long it’s down to individuals to choose change their standard of living, most will quietly continue to live according to their means. Friends have quietly boasted about buying a Tesla, and openly criticised me for buying a diesel California. At least I feel guilty for buying the California (and am happy to tell people it is ULEZ compliant!).But I know neither decision matters one iota to climate change. Mass movements are essential, and can only be caused by political will.
Our feeble government are incapable of requiring people to wear a mask on the train, never mind introduce a ULEZ that has ultra low limits, encourage people to actually reduce their heating, introduce an aviation fuel tax (they actually REDUCED tax on domestic flights!) , or heaven forbid manage population growth. Shameful and incompetent bunch that they are.
I agree cheap laughs have been got mocking efforts to “go green”, with Boris famously sceptic only a decade ago, and even David Cameron seeking to “cut the green crap” despite asking people to “vote blue to go green”. Is there any wonder it’s taken so long for the British public to accept the science that has been known for 40 years? And now as the tide of public opinion turns, it’s painful to watch todays politicians wriggle to try to avoid prescribing the bitter pill.

 

[Amarillo]

There might be a few in the Western world, especially city dwellers, but the majority?

Vegan, not based on home grown seasonal produce.
Flying, possibly, but can’t see many people voluntarily giving up their 2 weeks in the sun.
Car free, in your dreams if you live outside a city.
Turn down the thermostat, if you have one to turn down, possibly.

You don’t have to go completely vegan to make a difference. Even a couple of meat free days a week help.

I haven’t flown for over 5 years, and have no future plans to fly (though I don’t rule it out). I expect flying has passed its peak and will never recover to pre pandemic levels.

Over 50% of inner London households (more or less the area of London in the Ultra Low Emissions Zone) have no car. I expect it is similar in other big cities.

Rising gas prices as we move away from fossil fuels will help to encourage people to turn down their thermostat and wear an extra sweater instead.

I expect those prepared to make some sacrifice are in an overwhelming majority. Unfortunately, small sacrifices are not enough, but it is a start.

 

[GrumpyGranddad]

Getting down to the basics - EVERYONE supports Climate Change BUT not if it affects their standard of living.
eg: One of the leaders of Insulate Britain hasn't insulated his house, Why?. Because it would cost him but he is prepared to cause mayhem for others

So instead of driving less we turn to electric vehicles, instead of consuming less we look at different alternatives.

No matter which way you throw the dice to maintain standards of living then the population has to be reduced. If population levels increase then standards of living have to reduce.

Some countries are now introducing incentives for younger generations to have more children as the average age of the population increases, thus more consumption and more destruction of the environment and climate changes.

The whole problem is one that will not be solved by mankind as there are too many vested interests. It will be solved eventually by nature.

Agree @WelshGas . We all need to consume less and I believe many people are making an effort BUT with a growing number of people on the planet these efforts are negated - Every new person being a new consumer. I read somewhere that if every fertile female was restricted to one child then the world population will have shrunk to pre-industrial levels by the turn of the century and the resultant drop in consumption would greatly help in the fight against climate change. But of course that’s not going to happen.

 

[subthree]

Population Growth

Explore global and country data on population growth, demography, and how this is changing.

ourworldindata.org

 

[GrumpyGranddad]

You don’t have to go completely vegan to make a difference. Even a couple of meat free days a week help.

I haven’t flown for over 5 years, and have no future plans to fly (though I don’t rule it out). I expect flying has passed its peak and will never recover to pre pandemic levels.

Over 50% of inner London households (more or less the area of London in the Ultra Low Emissions Zone) have no car. I expect it is similar in other big cities.

Rising gas prices as we move away from fossil fuels will help to encourage people to turn down their thermostat and wear an extra sweater instead.

I expect those prepared to make some sacrifice are in an overwhelming majority. Unfortunately, small sacrifices are not enough, but it is a start.

Like you we’ve not flown for a few years and currently have no future plans. Three allotments and a back garden make us almost self sufficient in fruit and vegetables and we’re lucky enough to have shops within walking distance. Not vegetarians but we typically only have meat/fish 3 or 4 times a week. All fairly trivial in the grand scheme of things but every little helps.

 

[clarinetbcn]

Agree @WelshGas . We all need to consume less and I believe many people are making an effort BUT with a growing number of people on the planet these efforts are negated - Every new person being a new consumer. I read somewhere that if every fertile female was restricted to one child then the world population will have shrunk to pre-industrial levels by the turn of the century and the resultant drop in consumption would greatly help in the fight against climate change. But of course that’s not going to happen.

The current worldwide drop in male fertility due to toxins and pollution may unintentionally solve the problem.

It’s hubris to think that we are killing the planet. Give it 100-200 million years and the oceans and forests will be fine. We, however, will have wiped out the human race.

Male fertility is declining – studies show that environmental toxins could be a reason

People are exposed to toxic substances – like pesticides, chemicals in plastics and radiation – every day. A growing body of research shows that this exposure is causing a decline in male fertility.

www.google.es

 

[soulstyledevon]

The whole problem is one that will not be solved by mankind as there are too many vested interests. It will be solved eventually by nature.

Enter Covid…

 

[WelshGas]

Enter Covid…

Exactly - Nature.

 

[OGII]

Three allotments and a back garden make us almost self sufficient in fruit and vegetables

3 allotments! Sounds like you must know the local councillors' secrets. I got the impression you had to register before birth to get one.

 

[Wildcamper]

Exactly - Nature.

By comparison to many known viruses COVID is very mild. The difference is in the R rate, COVID has a high basic rate and the others, thank goodness, have low ones. If a virulent deadly virus cottons on to how to achieve a high R rate - watch out!! However, also watch out for the hidden viruses we do not know about. The more humanity messes with the environment the greater the chance an unknown virulent high R rate virus will be let lose. The more population is allowed to grow the higher the chance of this happening. Consider a new COVID virus with 100 times the death rate. This virus almost certainly exists somewhere, or a mutation route exists. A common viewpoint amount virologists, I know quite a few, is that humanity will be wiped out by a virus - we just don't know when.

 

[subthree]

I might need a beer in a minute reading some of these posts.