Comments by "Nigel Johnson" (@nigeljohnson9820) on "EU wants to tax aviation fuel and phase out polluting cars by 2035" video.

  1. 9
  2. 1
  3.  @pcuimac  that will simply not happen. Public transport is far too inefficient to act as a replacement. Car ownership may be reduced as more people work from home, an idea that was rejected by businesses for decades. Autonomous taxi services may provide a substitute in some cases, but again it is inefficient because of the number of such vehicles required to meet the potential demand. The advocates for public transport do not understand the difficulties of using it, and invariable have good reasons why they should be exempt from such rules. Try carrying the weekly shop on a bus. It is necessary to travel very light if you wish to be a passenger on such a service. Cambridge, uk, has a regular bus service, but most of the busses travel most of their route with only a few passengers. Until recently, these buses were diesel powered, and belched out thick black smoke, while block the flow of car traffic. There was nothing more annoying than being stuck behind one of these busses, badly parked at a stop, while a passenger loaded with cases negotiated with the bus driver for ten minutes. Unless the public transport service is running in a big city, it is simply uneconomic to run a reliable timely service that can be used for regular commutes to and from work. It is ridiculous that the NHS expects hospital patients to travel to and from hospital by public transport. In order to optimise the bus service, the route invariable take it through all the bus stops in the surrounding villages, turning a 20 minute trip hospital into a two and half hour journey or more journey, bad enough for a healthy person, completely unendurable for people with serious illness or injuries. The last thing a cancer patient wants is repeated long bus trips, and yet the definition of what qualifies for special transport, often does not include such regular trips.
    1