How Wireless EV Charging Works

[Harry Bloomfield]

my 'trusty ' car pre-dates any such new-fangled technology, and I only rarely use satnav!

You could always upgrade your Model T

 

[JohnW2]

You could always upgrade your Model T

One day I might have to

 

[morqthana]

My cruise control is annoying. You can't set any speed, or resume the last one set, unless you're doing at least 20mph, and 20 is the minimum it will set. So at 20 and above I can set any speed from 20 upwards, and it will take me there. I can set any speed down to 20, and it will take me there.

It would be really useful if, once rolling, I could set it to take me to 20 (I too am still climbing the learning curve of how that speed feels, and I don't get a lot of opportunity to practice), but no.

 

[ericmark]

My car will not allow the cruise control to be set to 20 either, I have to watch the speedo, which means less attention paid to the road, but I am sure in time I will be able to judge 20 MPH better, where I live I have already started to get use to it, and am pulling out with less distance now to car on the main road, however I have heard brakes being applied behind me even so time after reaching 20 MPH where clearly some one was speeding.

However this is really nothing to do with charging EV cars.

In the early days of EV's we did see some free charging points at shops, but this did not last long, so we see people spending 15 minutes just to set up the app. So can't see the point trying to charge an EV like we charge our phones, the losses are just too much to be worth while.

 

[JohnW2]

But you can/will get used to them - hundreds of millions of drivers in other countries manage it. ... I'm not a fan of any arguments like that. Logically the same applies to any speed, so if you can manage to drive at 30mph without staring at the speedo you can do it at 20. And the more widespread 20mph limits become, more people will get used to it, and sooner.

All inevitably true but, as I've said, in my case a very slow process, and I'm far from convinced that I will personally 'get used to it' before my 'driving career' comes to its end.

As I've said, I think one of the psychological issues is that 20mph is 'unnaturally slow for a motorised vehicle. We are used to the concept that a motor vehicle travels faster than any unaided human being could, and although even olympic athletes cannot not achieve 30 mph, there was a day (a long long time ago) when I could approach 20 mph over a short distance (100 yards)!

And even if you remain an outlier, if everyone around you is doing 20 all you have to do is to avoid running into the car in front of you.

I've tried that one, but it relies on assumptions that are (currently) often not true. When I have travelled 'at the same speed as the line of traffic in front of me', when I've eventually looked at the speedo it's indicated nearer to 30 mph than 20 mph

Simply changing the default for restricted roads from 30 to 20 nation-wide has a lot of merit.

If yiou mean that it would hasten the 'getting used to it' process, then, yes, that would be true if everything became 20 mph and no 30 mph was left.

On the other hand, if you are saying that what 'has a lot of merit' is the reduction of speed limits from 30 to 20 mph, per se, then, if you are thinking soley of the consequences of impacts, then you are again right. However, it then becomes a question of 'where to draw the line' (that line being between swings and roundabouts) , since a reduction to 10 (or 5, or whatever) mph would 'have even more merit'. Politicians/legislators don't like (being seen to) talking in such terms, but it inevitably comes down to the question of what is an 'acceptable' number of deaths and serious injuries (to balance against the benefits of faster road travel)

And I must admit I'm unfamiliar with any cars which need constant braking like that. The implication is that you're having to bring the engine speed down below idle - do you get problems with it stalling?

I'm talking about automatics, which obviously don't stall when one brakes and, more specifically, about the car of a family member - which, once it gets going, will often try to 'idle' at more than 20 mph, particularly if there is the slightest of downwards inclines. There is also an issue, with both manual and automatic cars, of deciding what gear to be in when travelling at 20 mph - and the car I'm talking about does a lot of 'gear changing' at around that speed

 

[morqthana]

As I've said, I think one of the psychological issues is that 20mph is 'unnaturally slow for a motorised vehicle. We are used to the concept that a motor vehicle travels faster than any unaided human being could, and although even olympic athletes cannot not achieve 30 mph, there was a day (a long long time ago) when I could approach 20 mph over a short distance (100 yards)!

Even Usain Bolt could only average a tad over 23mph in his world record 100m (I accept that the peak speed would have been higher).

There are no world class athletes who have ever managed to average even 20mph over distances greater than 400m, so in practical terms, with ordinary people, 20mph is considerably faster than unaided people can travel.

I've tried that one, but it relies on assumptions that are (currently) often not true. When I have travelled 'at the same speed as the line of traffic in front of me', when I've eventually looked at the speedo it's indicated nearer to 30 mph than 20 mph

It's true that much more needs to be done to increase the observance of 20mph limits. Making them the default, and as ubiquitous as the 30mph limit currently is for restricted roads would help.

If yiou mean that it would hasten the 'getting used to it' process, then, yes, that would be true if everything became 20 mph and no 30 mph was left.

There would be some 30mph left, just as there are currently some roads with 40mph limits which would otherwise default to 30.

On the other hand, if you are saying that what 'has a lot of merit' is the reduction of speed limits from 30 to 20 mph, per se, then, if you are thinking soley of the consequences of impacts, then you are again right. However, it then becomes a question of 'where to draw the line' (that line being between swings and roundabouts) , since a reduction to 10 (or 5, or whatever) mph would 'have even more merit'. Politicians/legislators don't like (being seen to) talking in such terms, but it inevitably comes down to the question of what is an 'acceptable' number of deaths and serious injuries (to balance against the benefits of faster road travel)

Studies show that there are benefits from 20mph limits, and that those benefits extend beyond simply lower accident and casualty rates. They show that 20mph limits are popular, and that their popularity increases after implementation, implying that some people's fears fail to materialise. And they show that journey times are barely affected.

Yes, there is the diminishing returns problem - some countries have even lower limits than 30kph in residential areas, or stronger prioritisation of cyclists, even prohibitions on motorists overtaking cyclists at any speed. I don't know what the evidential basis is for those, or what their "acceptable" level of accidents is, but it comes down to a recognition that it isn't just about the acceptable KSI threshold when setting limits for motor traffic, but that other road users have interests too, and need to be prioritised more than they are now.

You used the term "pyschological issues" above - again studies show that if we want people to do more walking and cycling (a worthwhile aim for environmental and public health reasons) then we need to reduce vehicle speeds, and that might well mean reducing them to below the point where there's a statistically significant reduction in car-related casualties because of the pyschological impact of lower speeds on people's perception of how safe it is to walk or cycle.

It isn't only about what car drivers want, and it is clear that the anti-20 brigade are motivated primarily by want, and not by an unbiased examination of the evidence. So fair enough - let's extend that to what pedestrians and cyclists want. Why should they only get what can be "justified" when car drivers benefit from unjustified favouritism?

I'm talking about automatics, which obviously don't stall when one brakes and, more specifically, about the car of a family member - which, once it gets going, will often try to 'idle' at more than 20 mph, particularly if there is the slightest of downwards inclines.

Every automatic I've driven has had a means to take it out of fully automatic mode and lock in a maximum gear. When I had automatic cars without cruise control I had no problem with pulling the selector out of D and into 3 or 2 when going downhill so that I didn't need to use the brakes to keep within the speed limit.

There is also an issue, with both manual and automatic cars, of deciding what gear to be in when travelling at 20 mph - and the car I'm talking about does a lot of 'gear changing' at around that speed

And I've driven automatics prone to hunting at 30mph.

 

[JohnW2]

Even Usain Bolt could only average a tad over 23mph in his world record 100m (I accept that the peak speed would have been higher). There are no world class athletes who have ever managed to average even 20mph over distances greater than 400m, so in practical terms, with ordinary people, 20mph is considerably faster than unaided people can travel.

I've certainly never been competition for Usain Bolt but, back in my mid-teens, I very briefly held my school's age- related ("under 15" or "under 16" I imagine) record of 11.2 secs for 100 yards - I reckon that's about 18.26 mph, which I would say was 'in the ballpark' of 20 mph. My point was simply that whilst 20 mph was just about credible for an unaided human, 30 mph isn't, and probably never will be.

It's true that much more needs to be done to increase the observance of 20mph limits. Making them the default, and as ubiquitous as the 30mph limit currently is for restricted roads would help.

Yes, I've agreed with that.

Studies show that there are benefits from 20mph limits, and that those benefits extend beyond simply lower accident and casualty rates. They show that 20mph limits are popular, and that their popularity increases after implementation, implying that some people's fears fail to materialise.

I'm not sure what these 'other benefits' are (other than, as you go on to say, discouraging people from driving at all) but I'm surprised by the suggestion that 20 mph limits are 'popular' (other than in the eyes of those other than drivers of motorised vehicles) - all I tend to hear about them (from drivers of such vehicles, who are the majority users of 'roads') tends to be moans!

And they show that journey times are barely affected.

I would imagine that the majority of 'domestic' urban journeys are predominantly in 30 mph (or 20 mph) roads. If it is the case that reducing the limit from 30 to 20 mph 'barely affects' journey times, then the implication must be that it 'barely affects' average speeds - which makes one wonder what it does achieve? (and I'm not talking about short bits of 20 mph 'outside school gates' etc.).

.... I don't know what the evidential basis is for those, or what their "acceptable" level of accidents is ...

I can't see how there can be an 'evidential basis' other than 'evidence' of public opinion - but, just as with the politicians/legislators, I think that even the general public are likely to be uncomfortable expressing a view about an "acceptable" levels of deaths and serious injuries.

, but it comes down to a recognition that it isn't just about the acceptable KSI threshold when setting limits for motor traffic, but that other road users have interests too, and need to be prioritised more than they are now.

If I understand you correctly, is there not a case for questioning whether the 'other road users' should be sharing roads with fast moving havy motor vehicles which can (and do) kill and injure?

Every automatic I've driven has had a means to take it out of fully automatic mode and lock in a maximum gear. When I had automatic cars without cruise control I had no problem with pulling the selector out of D and into 3 or 2 when going downhill so that I didn't need to use the brakes to keep within the speed limit.

Indeed - but who wants to have to 'fiddle with the lever' (another 'distraction' from looking at the road) just because of a speed limit?

And I've driven automatics prone to hunting at 30mph.

Same here, but they're much less prone to it at 30 mph than 20 mph

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

On the other hand, if you are saying that what 'has a lot of merit' is the reduction of speed limits from 30 to 20 mph, per se, then, if you are thinking soley of the consequences of impacts, then you are again right.

There are potentially other benefits, such as it being a much nicer, quieter place to live, alongside a road where the limit has been reduced to 20mph.

 

[JohnW2]

There are potentially other benefits, such as it being a much nicer, quieter place to live, alongside a road where the limit has been reduced to 20mph.

I'm not actually convinced that it would make much difference to quietness and niceness, but if you want to think in such terms, maybe we should ban motor vehicles completely?

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I'm not actually convinced that it would make much difference to quietness and niceness, but if you want to think in such terms, maybe we should ban motor vehicles completely?

I can assure you it does make living by a road much better. Banning, motor vehicles is not possible, but we can reduce their impact on life considerably, by limiting their speeds in populated areas.

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

Banning, motor vehicles is not possible, but we can reduce their impact on life considerably, by limiting their speeds in populated areas.

Maybe they can invent some sort of car whose engine doesn't make any significant noise!

 

[JohnW2]

Maybe they can invent some sort of car whose engine doesn't make any significant noise!

It seems that they already have . I've lost count of the number of times I have, when crossing roads on foot, been 'taken by surprise' by an EV that I hadn't 'heard' coming. This must be worrying for those who are visually impaired.

Having said that, I'm not sure that engine noise is the main issue. One of my daughters lives in a house whose living room window is about 3 metres from a road which, although in a small village,is pretty busy with 'through traffic'. She and her family are used to it, so don't really notice anymore, but whenever I go there I am very aware of fair amount of 'road noise, not primarily from engines but, rather, the loud 'clatter' of HGVs (which I doubt is much different at the two speeds we're discussing)

 

[morqthana]

I've certainly never been competition for Usain Bolt but, back in my mid-teens, I very briefly held my school's age- related ("under 15" or "under 16" I imagine) record of 11.2 secs for 100 yards - I reckon that's about 18.26 mph, which I would say was 'in the ballpark' of 20 mph. My point was simply that whilst 20 mph was just about credible for an unaided human, 30 mph isn't, and probably never will be.

Hardly anybody can reach 20mph even briefly.

Nobody in the world can sustain it for the length of a journey where it would be considered sensible to drive.

For all practical purposes 20mph is considerably faster than humans can achieve unaided.

I'm not sure what these 'other benefits' are (other than, as you go on to say, discouraging people from driving at all)

Fewer casualties.
Cheaper car insurance.
More people walking instead of driving.
More people cycling instead of driving.

You could take a negative view of the last two, you could regard it as a bad discouragement of driving and not a good encouragement of walking or cycling.

I wonder why though.

but I'm surprised by the suggestion that 20 mph limits are 'popular' (other than in the eyes of those other than drivers of motorised vehicles)

Well perhaps you should look at some of the studies.

- all I tend to hear about them (from drivers of such vehicles, who are the majority users of 'roads') tends to be moans!

And when you hear those moans, do you dismantle every argument they use to "justify" their moaning? You could if you wanted to.

Perhaps you don't want to. Confirmation bias I think it's called.

I would imagine that the majority of 'domestic' urban journeys are predominantly in 30 mph (or 20 mph) roads. If it is the case that reducing the limit from 30 to 20 mph 'barely affects' journey times, then the implication must be that it 'barely affects' average speeds - which makes one wonder what it does achieve?

It reduces maximum speeds.

We don't have average speed limits.

I can't see how there can be an 'evidential basis' other than 'evidence' of public opinion

Of course there can be, potentially. There could be empirical evidence that lower limits than 30kph in residential areas, or stronger prioritisation of cyclists, even prohibitions on motorists overtaking cyclists at any speed does produce benefits. All I said was that I don't know what the evidence is. Or by extension whether there is any. But not knowing if, or what there is is not the same as knowing that there isn't.

If I understand you correctly, is there not a case for questioning whether the 'other road users' should be sharing roads with fast moving havy motor vehicles which can (and do) kill and injure?

Well, if they shouldn't, then we either have to find a way to prevent people from leaving their homes except in a car, do away with high street shops and restaurants etc and just have shopping centres with integral car parks, equip schools with large off-road areas for dropping off/picking up children, shut down all bus routes which need stops on pavements (which we might as well dig up to make more room for cars if nobody is to be allowed to use them) or we have to take every restricted road with a 30mph limit and make it pedestrian only - motor vehicles prohibited.

So feel free to question whether any non-motorist road users should be sharing the roads with motor traffic, but I doubt you'll get far.

Meanwhile those of us with a less sensationalist outlook can support the idea of lower speed limits.

Indeed - but who wants to have to 'fiddle with the lever' (another 'distraction' from looking at the road) just because of a speed limit?

Can we look forward to you starting a petition to get manual gearboxes banned? They must be a huge safety problem, given how many times a driver gets distracted from looking at the road by having to fiddle with the gear lever every time he needs to change gear.

 

[morqthana]

It seems that they already have . I've lost count of the number of times I have, when crossing roads on foot, been 'taken by surprise' by an EV that I hadn't 'heard' coming.

I'm sure you remember being taught the safe way to cross a road. And it involved looking, not just listening.

This must be worrying for those who are visually impaired.

It is.

New noise systems to stop ‘silent’ electric cars and improve safety

From 1 July 2019 all manufacturers must install an acoustic sound system in new types of quiet electric and hybrid electric vehicles to improve road safety.

www.gov.uk

Electric vehicles: Department for Transport clarifies rule on sound generators

If you're affected by sight loss, we're here for you

www.rnib.org.uk

 

[JohnW2]

1...Fewer casualties.
2...Cheaper car insurance.
3...More people walking instead of driving.
4...More people cycling instead of driving.

1... As I've agreed, it goes without saying that the slower the traffic, the fewer and less serious the casualties and damage, and that continues to be the case when speed is reduced below 20 mph. So, as I've said, someone has to decide what is an 'acceptable' level of deaths, injuries and damage.

2... (2) id simply a consequence of (1) (providing insuraers 'pass on' reductions due to lowered speed limits - but I don't think I'll hold my breath )

3 & 4 ... I already anticipated those with my "... (other than, as you go on to say, discouraging people from driving at all)"

So I don't think you've introduced any 'benefits' that I hadn't considered.

And when you hear those moans, do you dismantle every argument they use to "justify" their moaning? You could if you wanted to. ... Perhaps you don't want to. Confirmation bias I think it's called.

I wasn't talking about whether the moans are justified, or whether I want to know if they are justified - I was merely expressing surprise that I generally only hear 'moans' about something you reported to be popular.

It reduces maximum speeds.

If the change in speed limit reduces maximum speeds but 'barely affects' average speed (hence journey times), then the change in speed limit probably also increases minimum speed (or, at least, shift the distribution of lower speeds in that direction). Is that what you believe happens.

We don't have average speed limits.

We don't have legislated 'average speed limits' as such (the imposed limits always relate to 'instantaneous speed') but, as you must be aware, there are many examples of speed limits 'policed' by average speed cameras - such that they are effectively policing an 'average speed limit'. As We obviously have countless temporary ones, but there are also a good few permanent ones, such as explained here ...

Average speed cameras were rolled out across parts of Birmingham and the Black Country a few years ago in response to concerns there was barely any deterrent to speeding in the West Midlands. The busiest speed cameras are all in the Black Country. The location where the highest number of drivers were caught in Birmingham was the A4540 Belgrave Middleway/Leebank Middleway, towards Five Ways.

Of course there can be, potentially. There could be empirical evidence that lower limits than 30kph in residential areas, or stronger prioritisation of cyclists, even prohibitions on motorists overtaking cyclists at any speed does produce benefits.
So what? I was talking about the impossibility of having an 'evidential basis' for a decision as to how many deaths and serious injuries is "acceptable" - and that is simply an opinion, of an individual or society as a whole (or anything in between).

All I said was that I don't know what the evidence is. Or by extension whether there is any. But not knowing if, or what there is is not the same as knowing that there isn't.

Well, if they shouldn't, then we either have to ..... So feel free to question whether any non-motorist road users should be sharing the roads with motor traffic, but I doubt you'll get far.

Quite, totally impractical, hence the question about the 'acceptable' number of deaths and injuries arises.

By allowing motorists and non-motorists to share the same 'roads' one is effectively doing the same as a zoo keeper who decided to house animals and their potential prey in the same enclosure. Again, fatalaties will be inevitable - so, again, the 'acceptable' number of such events would have to be decided.

Can we look forward to you starting a petition to get manual gearboxes banned? They must be a huge safety problem, given how many times a driver gets distracted from looking at the road by having to fiddle with the gear lever every time he needs to change gear.

No, but I suppose one could argue that such should happen....

... it's not a matter of 'not looking at the road', since established drivers of cars with manual boxes change gear without having to 'take their eye off the road', but it would be difficult to argue against a suggestion that it is safer to have both hands on the steering wheel for something approaching 'all the time', wouldn't it?