"tim..." wrote in message news

[snip]

I bet they don't pick through for the best

tomatoes
apples
freshest bread
longest dated eggs
etc
etc
etc

so I have to go to the supermarket to buy that for myself anyway

so I might as well pick up the rest whilst I am there

(AIH the supermarket is a bad example as I do, in fact, have choice of
supermarkets that I can walk to - its other product classes that are
problematic, and as an example to stay OT - diy goods)

Good grief! You are embarrassing.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 11:19:27 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
We have Tesco deliveries for groceries, weekly. Only £2 if you pick
the appropriate day and time, which isn't difficult if you're retired,
and a £4 surcharge if orders are under £40 in value, which ours seldom
are. Saves time, saves money. What's not to like?

If retired and not housebound, isn't doing the shopping just part of
getting out generally?

Both what you and Tim.. say may be true, although I have no problem
with the freshness of what's delivered, and living out in the country
means you don't have the same need to 'get out' as you might have
living in a town or city, but the discussion was about whether you
could cope in the country without a car, which you can, as TNP says.

I said it too. Of course you can live anywhere without a car. People did
so for thousands of years.

but 1000 years ago everything that you could possibly need was within
walking distance

tim

..

"Richard" wrote in message
news
"tim..." wrote in message news



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 29/12/16 21:54, Richard wrote:
"tim..." wrote in message news


"mechanic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:30:04 -0000, tim... wrote:

And I won't even start on how they expect people to charge up at
home with
planning rules that allow developers to build hundreds of houses on
an
estate with only communal parking.

The thinking there is that public transport takes away a lot of the
journey needs. Plus amenities like schools, shops, doctors etc need
to be planned in (planning gain).

I live in a small town.

one bus per hour (on each route - different directions) last bus 6pm,
three buses in total on Sunday (per route)

Living without the use of a car is not "possible".

That's ********. It is possible, just not something that you'd like to
do.

Yep. I live in a similar place.

I could dispense with a car have all food and groceries delivered

if you can find someone who will deliver for below a £75 spend

tim

OK dim...wit, is it possible or not? I don't give a toss whether the
delivery is free or not.

As I don't use them (for the reason stated elsewhere), I had genuinely got
the impression from casual observation that they wouldn't deliver at all if
you didn't make some minimum spend.

If it is, in fact, a spend for free delivery, I am quite happy to be
corrected, but not to be insulted

tim

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 30/12/16 13:13, tim... wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 12:30:25 +0200, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/12/16 11:31, tim... wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news On 29/12/16 21:54, Richard wrote:
"tim..." wrote in message news


"mechanic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:30:04 -0000, tim... wrote:

And I won't even start on how they expect people to charge up at
home with
planning rules that allow developers to build hundreds of houses
on an
estate with only communal parking.

The thinking there is that public transport takes away a lot of
the
journey needs. Plus amenities like schools, shops, doctors etc
need
to be planned in (planning gain).

I live in a small town.

one bus per hour (on each route - different directions) last bus
6pm,
three buses in total on Sunday (per route)

Living without the use of a car is not "possible".

That's ********. It is possible, just not something that you'd like
to do.

Yep. I live in a similar place.

I could dispense with a car have all food and groceries delivered

if you can find someone who will deliver for below a £75 spend


IIRC they all do .

They just charge a fiver. But that is less than driving to the
supermarket and back anyway.

We have Tesco deliveries for groceries, weekly. Only £2 if you pick
the appropriate day and time, which isn't difficult if you're retired,
and a £4 surcharge if orders are under £40 in value, which ours seldom
are. Saves time, saves money. What's not to like?

I bet they don't pick through for the best

tomatoes
apples
freshest bread
longest dated eggs
etc
etc
etc


Good grief. They just pick.


so I have to go to the supermarket to buy that for myself anyway


Only because you are a finicky arsehole

If you are a family of 6 it hardly matters if the use by date on 6 eggs is
in 4 days time

but as a family of 1, I require it to be 15 days away if I want to use them
all before that date

tim

"Richard" wrote in message
news
"tim..." wrote in message news

[snip]

I bet they don't pick through for the best

tomatoes
apples
freshest bread
longest dated eggs
etc
etc
etc

so I have to go to the supermarket to buy that for myself anyway

so I might as well pick up the rest whilst I am there

(AIH the supermarket is a bad example as I do, in fact, have choice of
supermarkets that I can walk to - its other product classes that are
problematic, and as an example to stay OT - diy goods)

Good grief! You are embarrassing.

oh, is my shirt hanging out or summat?

tim

"tim..." wrote in message news



"Richard" wrote in message
news
"tim..." wrote in message news



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news On 29/12/16 21:54, Richard wrote:
"tim..." wrote in message news


"mechanic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:30:04 -0000, tim... wrote:

And I won't even start on how they expect people to charge up at
home with
planning rules that allow developers to build hundreds of houses on
an
estate with only communal parking.

The thinking there is that public transport takes away a lot of the
journey needs. Plus amenities like schools, shops, doctors etc need
to be planned in (planning gain).

I live in a small town.

one bus per hour (on each route - different directions) last bus 6pm,
three buses in total on Sunday (per route)

Living without the use of a car is not "possible".

That's ********. It is possible, just not something that you'd like to
do.

Yep. I live in a similar place.

I could dispense with a car have all food and groceries delivered

if you can find someone who will deliver for below a £75 spend

tim

OK dim...wit, is it possible or not? I don't give a toss whether the
delivery is free or not.

As I don't use them (for the reason stated elsewhere), I had genuinely got
the impression from casual observation that they wouldn't deliver at all if
you didn't make some minimum spend.

If it is, in fact, a spend for free delivery, I am quite happy to be
corrected, but not to be insulted


So you lied. Not very bright to use such a blatant lie. Now, please explain
where I allegedly insulted you.

On 30/12/16 18:07, tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 11:19:27 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
We have Tesco deliveries for groceries, weekly. Only £2 if you pick
the appropriate day and time, which isn't difficult if you're
retired,
and a £4 surcharge if orders are under £40 in value, which ours
seldom
are. Saves time, saves money. What's not to like?

If retired and not housebound, isn't doing the shopping just part of
getting out generally?

Both what you and Tim.. say may be true, although I have no problem
with the freshness of what's delivered, and living out in the country
means you don't have the same need to 'get out' as you might have
living in a town or city, but the discussion was about whether you
could cope in the country without a car, which you can, as TNP says.

I said it too. Of course you can live anywhere without a car. People did
so for thousands of years.

but 1000 years ago everything that you could possibly need was within
walking distance


As people could walk up to 100km in a week...


.

On 30/12/2016 01:44, bm wrote:
50 years back most folks lived within spitting distance of the rest of their
families, no probs.

50 years ago I lived in Scotland, and my aunt south of London.

I think you may have to go further back. 50 years ago is only 1966.

Andy

On 30/12/16 19:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 30/12/2016 01:44, bm wrote:
50 years back most folks lived within spitting distance of the rest of
their
families, no probs.

50 years ago I lived in Scotland, and my aunt south of London.

I think you may have to go further back. 50 years ago is only 1966.

Andy
50 years ago...I lived in Surrey, my grandparents in suffolk, the other
grandparents in Middlesex, aunts in australia, uncle in USA...

All that local stuff ended with WW2.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 01:44:34 -0000, bm wrote:

50 years back most folks lived within spitting distance of the
rest of their families, no probs.

And there were deliveries of milk and bread and there were village
shops.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 00:30:47 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

to one.

Of course a car is more convenient. And that convenience means PT won't be
used as much as if there were no cars. Therefore, a worse service. A
viscous circle.
Coupling communities together as the buses fan out into the
countryside.


G.Harman

In article ,
tim... wrote:
I said it too. Of course you can live anywhere without a car. People
did so for thousands of years.

but 1000 years ago everything that you could possibly need was within
walking distance

Do you mean need or want?

1000 years ago people would have been delighted with your once an hour bus
service. ;-)

--
*It's a thankless job, but I've got a lot of Karma to burn off

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
My guess is they do the exact reverse. Unload everything as close to the
sell by date as possible.

If they do that, and the stuff is not really useable, then whinge and
get a refund. Usually works IOE at least with Sainsbury.

If it is before its sell by date I'd expect it to be usable. When you do
your own shopping you can pick the ones with the latest sell by date. Can
make a difference to those with small families etc that don't get through
a vast amount of food each day.

--
*I don't feel old. I don't feel anything until noon. Then it's time for my nap.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
mechanic wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 11:39:32 -0000, tim... wrote:

It depends. If 'they' tax the f**k out of diesels etc or ban them
totally in towns, they might be the only option for commuter
journeys.

Yeah right.

Ban petrol cars whilst the alternatives all cost over 40 grand

He was talking about diesel powered cars. I'm a bit surprised that
the govt hasn't announced an intention to do this some time in the
future. They are a menace.

Then the Government will have to compensate the owners of diesel engined
cars. We bought them because the Government recommeded them as creating
less polution than petrol ones and reduced road tax to prove it.

Most people who are suggesting banning diesels have suggested a date of
2025 for implementation.

ISTM that 9 year's notice is sufficient for people who already own one,
people who buy going forward from today, are already "on notice".

The big problem with banning diesels is in lorry/van usage. This market
uses diesels because of the greater longevity of the engines

Nope, because of the better fuel economy.

and forcing commercial operators to use vehicles that need scrapping
sooner will push up costs

Fuel efficiency will do that much more.

But that is affordable for the better pollution result.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
claiming that as it's a "city" car it only needs a range of 100 miles
isn't valid as everybody needs to do the 300 mile trip once in a while
and a car that can't do that for you is useless as your main car.

Which is why you get the nonsense of people using Chelsea tractors to take
the kids to school.

The reason that happens is because stupid women feel safer in them.

The alternative normal cars have just as good a range.

On Thursday, 29 December 2016 10:37:47 UTC, charles wrote:
In article , tim...
wrote:


"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 27/12/2016 16:42, tim... wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news On 27/12/16 17:12, tim... wrote:
For example, there are supposed to be some new battery technologies
that are a couple of orders of magnitude better than currently
available.

I can assure you there are not....

I know, you have told me before

but you are just a random person on the internet so why should I
attribute more weight to you than to all the other "random" persons on
the internet who disagree with you.

Some of whom are actually academic physicists (even if I have never
heard of them) and some people with a very real interest in it
actually being right.

I have no personal opinion on who is right, but you really do not have
the visibility for me to believe that it is you.

Especially when, without these two orders of magnitude improvement,
electric cars for the masses, that automotive companies are investing
billion in, are never going to happen.

Tim, I'll be amazed if you can find any scientist who thinks you can
get two orders of magnitude more storage in a chemical battery. The
limits are down the the reaction energy of the elements involved, and
these are well known.

So why aren't these scientists explaining to politicians that their
aspiration of 100% electric cars/vans/lorries is unachievable.

To get mass take up of electric cars you have to have a range of 350
miles (in real use), a residual value after 5 years (so the initial
battery needs to be useful for 10) with base models (still with that 350
range) selling for under 15 grand (today's money).

At least 3 times a year, I have a requirement for a 400 mile, one day,
journey - each way.

Get on the train.

On Thursday, 29 December 2016 19:19:53 UTC, tim... wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
news
On 27/12/2016 22:30, tim... wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news On 27/12/16 18:42, tim... wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news On 27/12/16 17:12, tim... wrote:
For example, there are supposed to be some new battery technologies
that
are a couple of orders of magnitude better than currently available.

I can assure you there are not....

I know, you have told me before

but you are just a random person on the internet so why should I
attribute more weight to you than to all the other "random" persons on
the internet who disagree with you.

Because it is one of my specualist subjects?

so you say

but how do I know that

One way you can tell is that on this aspect of battery technology I am in
full agreement with TNP (and that doesn't happen all that often).

but I don't know who you are either

About the best we can hope for with electrochemistry is at most another
order of magnitude beyond present commercial Lion batteries eg.

https://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/30...nergy-density/

Best so far if they can make it commercially viable and reliable.

and it's better than TNP claims is physically possible

FTAOD, I have no issues with the argument that the necessary improvements
aren't going to happen in less than 20-50 years. I have seen the paltry
improvements that the past 30 years have brought.

It's with his claim that anything more than 2 or 3 times improvement is
physically impossible.

Physics tells us that. That's why I can say 'aint gonna happen'

So why aren't these same Physicists explaining all that to the
Automotive industry?

It's awash with money. It's not like the can't afford to ask

The problem is that they don't want to listen when the answers don't

I don't believe that the car manufactures care

they are doing what their governments are telling them they should do.

but if they have credible scientific evidence that what their government is
asking for is undeliverable, their time/money would be better spent changing
the minds of the politicians

Investing billions in something that you know wont work, just to avoid
upsetting a few politicians is nutty.

In my time I have worked on many a telecoms project based upon a new common
standard that turned out not to have the commercial traction that everyone
thought it would.

But each time the whole team (developers/management) really did think that
it would be a winner.

From what is being said here, you can't say this about EVs

tim

Drivel. As usual.
https://www.ergon.com.au/network/sma...-vehicle-range

On Thursday, 29 December 2016 19:24:16 UTC, tim... wrote:
"mechanic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:30:04 -0000, tim... wrote:

And I won't even start on how they expect people to charge up at home
with
planning rules that allow developers to build hundreds of houses on an
estate with only communal parking.

The thinking there is that public transport takes away a lot of the
journey needs. Plus amenities like schools, shops, doctors etc need
to be planned in (planning gain).

I live in a small town.

one bus per hour (on each route - different directions) last bus 6pm, three
buses in total on Sunday (per route)

Living without the use of a car is not "possible".

tim

Yes it is.
Widespread car ownership has only existed for forty years.
We have had millenia without.

On Friday, 30 December 2016 01:44:36 UTC, bm wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"mechanic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:30:04 -0000, tim... wrote:

And I won't even start on how they expect people to charge up at home
with
planning rules that allow developers to build hundreds of houses on an
estate with only communal parking.

The thinking there is that public transport takes away a lot of the
journey needs. Plus amenities like schools, shops, doctors etc need
to be planned in (planning gain).

I live in a small town.

one bus per hour (on each route - different directions) last bus 6pm,
three buses in total on Sunday (per route)

Living without the use of a car is not "possible".

Of course it is. People lived long before cars were invented. And there
are bound to be some in your small town with no car or access to one.

Of course a car is more convenient. And that convenience means PT won't be
used as much as if there were no cars. Therefore, a worse service. A
viscous circle.

50 years back most folks lived within spitting distance of the rest of their
families, no probs.

The problem is the cost of moving house. (Taxation).
People used to live close to their work. Often within walking distance. Or they lived on a bus route to their job.
I recall there was a bus every 20 minutes.

Often too, people did the same job all their lives.
Mt father only changed employers once in his entire life.

"Richard" wrote in message
news
"tim..." wrote in message news



"Richard" wrote in message
news
"tim..." wrote in message news


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news On 29/12/16 21:54, Richard wrote:
"tim..." wrote in message news


"mechanic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:30:04 -0000, tim... wrote:

And I won't even start on how they expect people to charge up at
home with
planning rules that allow developers to build hundreds of houses
on an
estate with only communal parking.

The thinking there is that public transport takes away a lot of the
journey needs. Plus amenities like schools, shops, doctors etc need
to be planned in (planning gain).

I live in a small town.

one bus per hour (on each route - different directions) last bus
6pm,
three buses in total on Sunday (per route)

Living without the use of a car is not "possible".

That's ********. It is possible, just not something that you'd like
to do.

Yep. I live in a similar place.

I could dispense with a car have all food and groceries delivered

if you can find someone who will deliver for below a £75 spend

tim

OK dim...wit, is it possible or not? I don't give a toss whether the
delivery is free or not.

As I don't use them (for the reason stated elsewhere), I had genuinely got
the impression from casual observation that they wouldn't deliver at all
if you didn't make some minimum spend.

If it is, in fact, a spend for free delivery, I am quite happy to be
corrected, but not to be insulted


So you lied.

no I didn't

Not very bright to use such a blatant lie. Now, please explain where I
allegedly insulted you.

dim - wit!

tim

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
tim... wrote:
We have Tesco deliveries for groceries, weekly. Only £2 if you pick
the appropriate day and time, which isn't difficult if you're retired,
and a £4 surcharge if orders are under £40 in value, which ours seldom
are. Saves time, saves money. What's not to like?

I bet they don't pick through for the best

tomatoes
apples
freshest bread
longest dated eggs
etc
etc
etc

My guess is they do the exact reverse. Unload everything as close to the
sell by date as possible.

If they do that, and the stuff is not really useable, then whinge and
get a refund. Usually works IOE at least with Sainsbury.

Oh I am sure that you can send back stuff that is short dated, or overripe

but that doesn't get your cupboard full of your week's food, does it?

so you have to:

a) accept everything that is delivered.
b) make a special trip for the things that they cock up.
c) over order in the hope that you get to reject some stuff and then find
you throw stuff away if you have to accept it all.

Now I am sure that a family of 4, who need 2 or 3 shopping loads per week
can work around these issue

but a family of 1 or 2 who needs a large shopping load only once a fortnight
can't

tim

"mechanic" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 01:44:34 -0000, bm wrote:

50 years back most folks lived within spitting distance of the
rest of their families, no probs.

And there were deliveries of milk and bread

we even had a fully grocers van come round (even though we had three grocery
shops within a short walk)

tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
I said it too. Of course you can live anywhere without a car. People
did so for thousands of years.

but 1000 years ago everything that you could possibly need was within
walking distance

Do you mean need or want?

1000 years ago people could barely pay for what they needed

what I meant was that every village would have all of the "trades" that you
could need

you didn't have to travel 30 miles to find someone to buy a replacement for
a broken bucket, because that was where the nearest DIY store was. The
smithy in the village would fix it for you.

tim

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 29 December 2016 19:19:53 UTC, tim... wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
news
On 27/12/2016 22:30, tim... wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news On 27/12/16 18:42, tim... wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news On 27/12/16 17:12, tim... wrote:
For example, there are supposed to be some new battery
technologies
that
are a couple of orders of magnitude better than currently
available.

I can assure you there are not....

I know, you have told me before

but you are just a random person on the internet so why should I
attribute more weight to you than to all the other "random" persons
on
the internet who disagree with you.

Because it is one of my specualist subjects?

so you say

but how do I know that

One way you can tell is that on this aspect of battery technology I am
in
full agreement with TNP (and that doesn't happen all that often).

but I don't know who you are either

About the best we can hope for with electrochemistry is at most another
order of magnitude beyond present commercial Lion batteries eg.

https://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/30...nergy-density/

Best so far if they can make it commercially viable and reliable.

and it's better than TNP claims is physically possible

FTAOD, I have no issues with the argument that the necessary improvements
aren't going to happen in less than 20-50 years. I have seen the paltry
improvements that the past 30 years have brought.

It's with his claim that anything more than 2 or 3 times improvement is
physically impossible.

Physics tells us that. That's why I can say 'aint gonna happen'

So why aren't these same Physicists explaining all that to the
Automotive industry?

It's awash with money. It's not like the can't afford to ask

The problem is that they don't want to listen when the answers don't

I don't believe that the car manufactures care

they are doing what their governments are telling them they should do.

but if they have credible scientific evidence that what their government
is
asking for is undeliverable, their time/money would be better spent
changing
the minds of the politicians

Investing billions in something that you know wont work, just to avoid
upsetting a few politicians is nutty.

In my time I have worked on many a telecoms project based upon a new
common
standard that turned out not to have the commercial traction that
everyone
thought it would.

But each time the whole team (developers/management) really did think
that
it would be a winner.

From what is being said here, you can't say this about EVs

tim

Drivel. As usual.
https://www.ergon.com.au/network/sma...-vehicle-range

and where in that article is the any mention of the Development team's
enthusiasm?

It's marketing drivel from someone with a vested interest

tim

In article ,
John wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
claiming that as it's a "city" car it only needs a range of 100 miles
isn't valid as everybody needs to do the 300 mile trip once in a while
and a car that can't do that for you is useless as your main car.

Which is why you get the nonsense of people using Chelsea tractors to take
the kids to school.

The reason that happens is because stupid women feel safer in them.

I'm not sure they do. A neighbour's one was bought by the husband who
hardly ever drives it. His wife preferred her previous small estate car.

The alternative normal cars have just as good a range.

Most Chelsea tractors use a great deal more fuel than a car big enough to
take the kids to school.

--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"tim..." wrote in message news



"Richard" wrote in message
news
"tim..." wrote in message news



"Richard" wrote in message
news "tim..." wrote in message news


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news On 29/12/16 21:54, Richard wrote:
"tim..." wrote in message news


"mechanic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:30:04 -0000, tim... wrote:

And I won't even start on how they expect people to charge up at
home with
planning rules that allow developers to build hundreds of houses
on an
estate with only communal parking.

The thinking there is that public transport takes away a lot of
the
journey needs. Plus amenities like schools, shops, doctors etc
need
to be planned in (planning gain).

I live in a small town.

one bus per hour (on each route - different directions) last bus
6pm,
three buses in total on Sunday (per route)

Living without the use of a car is not "possible".

That's ********. It is possible, just not something that you'd like
to do.

Yep. I live in a similar place.

I could dispense with a car have all food and groceries delivered

if you can find someone who will deliver for below a £75 spend

tim

OK dim...wit, is it possible or not? I don't give a toss whether the
delivery is free or not.

As I don't use them (for the reason stated elsewhere), I had genuinely
got the impression from casual observation that they wouldn't deliver at
all if you didn't make some minimum spend.

If it is, in fact, a spend for free delivery, I am quite happy to be
corrected, but not to be insulted


So you lied.

no I didn't

Oh yes you did, by incorrectly stating the minimum purchase requirement.


Not very bright to use such a blatant lie. Now, please explain where I
allegedly insulted you.

dim - wit!

It was dim...wit actually.
'nuff said.

tim... wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
tim... wrote

I said it too. Of course you can live anywhere without a car.
People did so for thousands of years.

but 1000 years ago everything that you could
possibly need was within walking distance

Must be why those unspeakable Normans were silly
enough to show up on that soggy little frigid island.

Do you mean need or want?

1000 years ago people could barely pay for what they needed

What evidence do you have for that claim ?

what I meant was that every village would
have all of the "trades" that you could need

Must explain why there was no trade at all.

you didn't have to travel 30 miles to find someone to buy a
replacement for a broken bucket, because that was where the
nearest DIY store was. The smithy in the village would fix it for you.

Must explain why there was no trade at all.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
claiming that as it's a "city" car it only needs a range of 100 miles
isn't valid as everybody needs to do the 300 mile trip once in a while
and a car that can't do that for you is useless as your main car.

Which is why you get the nonsense of people using Chelsea tractors to
take
the kids to school.

The reason that happens is because stupid women feel safer in them.

I'm not sure they do.

Plenty of them do. I did say stupid women.

A neighbour's one was bought by the husband who hardly
ever drives it. His wife preferred her previous small estate car.

The alternative normal cars have just as good a range.

Most Chelsea tractors use a great deal more fuel than a car big enough to
take the kids to school.

Range was what was being discussed, not fuel economy.

--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Richard" wrote in message
news
"tim..." wrote in message news



"Richard" wrote in message
news
"tim..." wrote in message news


"Richard" wrote in message
news "tim..." wrote in message news


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news On 29/12/16 21:54, Richard wrote:
"tim..." wrote in message news


"mechanic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:30:04 -0000, tim... wrote:

And I won't even start on how they expect people to charge up at
home with
planning rules that allow developers to build hundreds of houses
on an
estate with only communal parking.

The thinking there is that public transport takes away a lot of
the
journey needs. Plus amenities like schools, shops, doctors etc
need
to be planned in (planning gain).

I live in a small town.

one bus per hour (on each route - different directions) last bus
6pm,
three buses in total on Sunday (per route)

Living without the use of a car is not "possible".

That's ********. It is possible, just not something that you'd like
to do.

Yep. I live in a similar place.

I could dispense with a car have all food and groceries delivered

if you can find someone who will deliver for below a £75 spend

tim

OK dim...wit, is it possible or not? I don't give a toss whether the
delivery is free or not.

As I don't use them (for the reason stated elsewhere), I had genuinely
got the impression from casual observation that they wouldn't deliver at
all if you didn't make some minimum spend.

If it is, in fact, a spend for free delivery, I am quite happy to be
corrected, but not to be insulted


So you lied.

no I didn't

Oh yes you did, by incorrectly stating the minimum purchase requirement.

but not because I lied

I said that I genuinely thought it was the rule

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Moron Watch" wrote in message
news

"tim..." wrote in message
news

Not enough, not quick enough, to meet (worldwide) government aspirations
to have 100% electric car sales by 2025.

Along with worldwide government aspirations to have

World Peace by 2025

To end poverty by 2025

To end homelessness by 2025

and in the UK to finalise the details of Brexit by 2025

All bull**** IOW

though in the case of EVs governments are putting polices in place now on
the assumption that it will happen

And it wont, you watch.

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"mechanic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:30:04 -0000, tim... wrote:

And I won't even start on how they expect people to charge up at home
with
planning rules that allow developers to build hundreds of houses on an
estate with only communal parking.

The thinking there is that public transport takes away a lot of the
journey needs. Plus amenities like schools, shops, doctors etc need
to be planned in (planning gain).

I live in a small town.

one bus per hour (on each route - different directions) last bus 6pm,
three buses in total on Sunday (per route)

Living without the use of a car is not "possible".

Corse it is, just not as convenient as it is with a car.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 30/12/16 19:35, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 30/12/2016 01:44, bm wrote:
50 years back most folks lived within spitting distance of the rest of
their
families, no probs.

50 years ago I lived in Scotland, and my aunt south of London.

I think you may have to go further back. 50 years ago is only 1966.

Andy
50 years ago...I lived in Surrey, my grandparents in suffolk, the other
grandparents in Middlesex, aunts in australia, uncle in USA...

All that local stuff ended with WW2.

It ended long before that when the empire got started.

In article ,
John wrote:
Most Chelsea tractors use a great deal more fuel than a car big enough
to take the kids to school.

Range was what was being discussed, not fuel economy.

Didn't realise I was replying to Wodney.

Range isn't a problem in the UK for taking kids to school in towns.

--
*WHY IS THERE AN EXPIRATION DATE ON SOUR CREAM?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John wrote:
Most Chelsea tractors use a great deal more fuel than a car big enough
to take the kids to school.

Range was what was being discussed, not fuel economy.

Range isn't a problem in the UK for taking kids to school in towns.

Pity its what was being discussed and you carefully deleted that from the
quoting.