The Historically Accurate EV discussion

[grantp]

The change will happen not because it makes sense (whether it does or not) but because it is politically driven by very short term decisions about changes to regulations that, at least in Europe, make it impossible for a commercial operation to do anything else unless they can survive despite enormous contraction of operations over the lifetime of a single model development.

It is based on the same sort of political logic that sees people being told that restrictions on gatherings of more than a handful of people are necessary due to the current virus concerns and that any meetings that might be considered exercise heavy - like church services and choirs for their singing - should remain banned. At the same time the concept of self isolation in a vehicle (no matter how powered) is to be considerably constrained in favour of an increased in people walking (or, worse, running) and cycling, preferably in much greater numbers and especially in large cities. Either that or using public transport where self isolation is certainly challenging even if changes are made to restrict the numbers of passengers per transport device and thus make them even less economically viable than they are today.

Meanwhile in recent times one of the EV centric blogs in the UK has recently posted a couple of times about being paid to charge his Tesla overnight, at home.

Now if this becomes a regular situation we need to consider who is paying for the wind farms (presumably on the basis that Solar is not likely to be operating much overnight and Drax is unlikely to a big enough operation to influence the market in that way at this time nor does it have the need to dump output for an extended period) that, once in a while, are producing more than they can sell profitably. Presumably they are selling on and paying people to take the production because that is a better option than taking any constrain payments that might be available to them (or do they get those anyway?) and have some reason to want to keep the generators running.

Or maybe the rationale for making everything electric is that the desire to shake up the energy industry (for whatever reason and there could be many in play) in a "renewables" direction would be a very difficult sell on a commercial basis over the next decade (as per target dates) due to the high levels of redundancy associated with the investment required to deliver occasional peak demand coverage.

That can be hidden for a while if more and more consumption can be forced to go electric by law.

Eventually one can argue that, since nearly everything is electric and there is no going back, then the only option is to complete the uneconomic build out or accept some outages as part of a normal lifestyle.

Meanwhile we can head off the concerned critiques by coming up with all sorts of suggestion of remarkable and apparently cost effective new inventions and discoveries that are just around the corner and may even happen and happen in time to avoid all worst possible outcomes.

As recent experiences are showing countries are not always great at forward planning an execution of the plans. Some are better than others it seems but there are no discernable signs that we can expect the less competent to "learn" much from the more competent. And no guarantee that competence is a long term trait.

Nevertheless it seems that most if not all governments want to follow an "everything changes and changes quickly" approach to the concept of energy production and use.

If they get it right it would probably be the first time ever that such 'planning' has relied in hopes and wishes and come anywhere close to succeeding.

If they get it wrong ... things will be very interesting indeed

Either way the the car manufacturing industry as we currently know it is very unlikely to survive and as a result of that motorsport will largely disappear, probably quite soon.

For background reading.


https://www.unece.org/info/ece-homepage.html


http://www.unece.org/trans/main/welcwp29.html

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by Lancsbreaker

As ever I'm a little trepid about entering the dialogue of the deaf between CRMalcom and Tel911S, but I wonder whether there are other issues rather than the minutiae of charging distribution and capacity, and the economic justification for its funding......


And at the risk of dragging the debate (aka slanging match) back to something motorsport related on this motorsport forum, do the concerns and caveats expressed in the recently issued Motorsport UK document ( https://www.motorsportuk.org/wp-cont...eid=4371805fba ) highlight safety concerns with the more general spread of EVs that don't seem to have been mentioned elsewhere? It may be that MUK are being very over-cautious, but certainly I wasn't aware of some of the potential issues should I come across a Nissan Leaf or a Tesla that's been involved in an RTA.

About quarter of an amp at 120 volts is capable of killing someone .
So the 400 to 500 volt rating of an EV battery does need considerable caution . Unless you are sure you know what you are doing , you should not touch a damaged car .
And then there is the fire risk . It Is almost impossible to put out the fire if a Li battery pack goes up , which is why some airlines banned the transit of them .

So , for motorsport , marshals will need extra training to deal with EV crashes . And for a RTA , do not go near it . I believe the fire brigade have been told to just let them burn out .

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

And then there is the fire risk . It Is almost impossible to put out the fire if a Li battery pack goes up , which is why some airlines banned the transit of them .
[...] I believe the fire brigade have been told to just let them burn out .

It sounds like you are referring to exothermic thermal runaway - a potential risk with Li-ion battery packs.
You are right, there are a number of restrictions and control measures connected to the movement of them, as they are classed as hazardous goods.
Li-ion batteries not installed in equipment are a significantly different risk to those fitted, either in vehicles or other devices.

During transit, the risk comes from damage leading to a short circuit event - which leads to fire.
During use, the risk comes from poor management systems, which lead to localised hotspots developing and a cascade effect.

That's not to say there is no risk there - there definitely is a risk, but it should be understood properly before it's validity can be expressed accurately.

For balance, one side of the debate says:
Are Electric Cars Safer in Collisions?
'However, when compared to the flammability of gasoline, Li-ion batteries pose a far lower risk of fire or explosions. In cases of vehicular fires that were the result of damaged Li-ion batteries, the fire was limited to the area where the batteries were contained before it could be extinguished. In cases of vehicle fires that were the result of spilled gasoline or damaged fuel-delivery components, the fire tended to spread to other parts of the vehicle before it could be contained, and those fires also required more effort from firefighters to extinguish.'

Whereas the counter says:
Lithium-ion batteries: How can thermal runaway be prevented?
'Lithium-ion batteries have a narrow operating temperature range of between +15 and +45°C. The functional safety, service life, and cycle stability of the battery cell - and thus also the functional safety of the battery and the entire electric car or electric tool system - depend to a large extent on the battery cell remaining in this range. If the temperature exceeds a critical level, thermal runaway occurs.'


One of those is selling insurance, the other is selling battery management systems. Which to trust - or is the truth somewhere in the middle?

With regards to how the Fire Brigade(s) deal with a burning EV, the specific fire guidance varies between regions, and sometimes is no different to any other vehicle. Hearing from a fire fighter who responded to an lpg-powered vehicle fire last year, they allowed the vehicle to burn out rather than tackle the fire. This is referred to as a controlled burn.

Following a FOI request to Shropshire Fire Service, the following was published:
Electric Vehicles
'Avoid cutting or touching orange coloured cables'
'Fires involving hybrid vehicles should be dealt with as for any vehicle fire; be sure to use copious amounts of water'
'There is no danger of shock or electrocution during a direct attack on the fire even if the battery pack is involved'
'Consideration should be given, depending on the development of the fire, to allowing a "controlled burn"'

In contrast, Cheshire Fire Service train the following:
Electric Vehicle Fire Training
'Firefighting in Li-ion Battery Pack
• Request attendance of company engineer
• Breathing Apparatus must be worn
• Dry agent or C02 if available
• Beware use of water (electrical hazard)'


If two neighbouring fire services disagree on the correct method to tackle an EV fire, it's not surprising MSUK are concerned about the risk.

[Peter Mallett]

They are good points, which also reflects what they do with F1 cars when in the pits. As ever anything done for progress will often result in a counter problem. Getting rid of lead in fuel created worse smog levels.

I don't know the level of risk of electrification with EVs but I would expect the road versions to be well catered for whereas competition cars require different levels of safety. That said I did read somewhere that a Tesla or two have self combusted.

[andy97]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

........I did read somewhere that a Tesla or two have self combusted.

Probably because Elon Musk stroked his cat!

[Lancsbreaker]

Love the reference in one of the responses to "duel-fuel" vehicles - they must have been reading this thread......


Little apparent reference to pure electric vehicles, and the Shropshire one seems to be primarily concerned with buses - presumably they have a local authority that runs them.


I can't say that I'm overwhelmed with a feeling of safety concerning EVs in a shunt.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Lancsbreaker

I can't say that I'm overwhelmed with a feeling of safety concerning EVs in a shunt.

On paper, a petrol-powered car doesn't sound that safe.
I would imagine if you put forward today the idea of a vehicle being driven with a combustible fuel source on board of 70 litres plus (in some cases), housed in a chassis with electrical circuits and an ignition source, and being used alongside millions of other similar vehicles at speeds of up to 70mph, it might raise concerns?

Are EVs safer? I honestly don't know. It's a different risk, and one that possibly is not fully understood yet.

What is clear is that, with something that is different to the established norm, the cases of issues arising are highlighted in the press.

Yes - it's true that a few EVs have caught fire, and those fires may have burnt uncontrollably. That doesn't mean that we should campaign to ban all EVs. But it is right to campaign for appropriate safety measures to be in place.

Tesla reports an estimated 14 fires since 2013 (from >500,000 cars) - the majority after a crash.

In comparison:
May 2020 - Hyundai recalled 100,000 vehicles due to a risk of fire in the ABS circuits.
July 2019 - Volvo recalled over 500,000 vehicles due to a risk of fire in a part of a diesel engine.
April 2019 - Vauxhall recalled 235,000 Zafiras due to a risk of fire in the heating/ventilation system (the fourth fire-related recall on this model).
November 2019 - Nissan recalled 400,000 due to a risk of fire in the braking control circuits.

I haven't seen much call for ABS, diesel engines, heating/ventilation systems or braking control circuits to be banned because of the risk of fire. They are all cases of understanding, mitigating and eliminating risk. Something that is also happening with EVs.

Going back to the attorney Malcolm P. McConnell, III's view:
'Tesla made news in 2013 about three vehicle fires involving its Model S, and critics and the press were quick to jump to the conclusion that those cars were combustible and unsafe. A closer look at the crash data revealed that all of the fires were the result of drivers running over roadway debris that directly damaged the battery cells, but no one in the vehicles was injured in any of the accidents. In fact, later data supplied by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) supported the conclusion that had the same roadway debris struck a vehicle without the battery cells and their aluminum plate protective covering, then the occupants of the vehicle most likely would have been badly injured or even killed by debris piercing the floorboard of the car.'

Is there a problem with debris on US highways rather than EVs?

[grantp]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

In fact, later data supplied by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) supported the conclusion that had the same roadway debris struck a vehicle without the battery cells and their aluminum plate protective covering, then the occupants of the vehicle most likely would have been badly injured or even killed by debris piercing the floorboard of the car.'

Is there a problem with debris on US highways rather than EVs?

"Floorboard"?

Model T?

Something built before the 60s?

Morgans?

One of the crazy, to my mind, aspects of modern vehicles is the level of complexity built into them that offers no real regular benefits to the majority of users most of the time but adds to costs and a reduced "time to obsolescence".

Sensors for everything, sometime multiple sensors, and so many points of failure.

Since around the 2005 era it seems to me that changes imposed by legislation have added to costs with few if any really significant benefits to the consumer or the consumer's environment that could not have been attained in other ways.

Not that the decision makers care about that.

After all, if your job is to write standards for something, once the standards are written and applied you have no job unless you change them again. And again. And again.

[Paul D]

Originally Posted by grantp

"Floorboard"?

Model T?

Something built before the 60s?

Morgans?

One of the crazy, to my mind, aspects of modern vehicles is the level of complexity built into them that offers no real regular benefits to the majority of users most of the time but adds to costs and a reduced "time to obsolescence".

Sensors for everything, sometime multiple sensors, and so many points of failure.

Since around the 2005 era it seems to me that changes imposed by legislation have added to costs with few if any really significant benefits to the consumer or the consumer's environment that could not have been attained in other ways.

Not that the decision makers care about that.

After all, if your job is to write standards for something, once the standards are written and applied you have no job unless you change them again. And again. And again.

[crmalcolm]

An interesting article has been published following an interview with James Dyson discussing why they abandoned their project.

In the article, he alludes to development of solid-state batteries as being one of the key developments necessary.
'We needed the current lithium ion pack to launch the car, but solid state was the longer-term goal, to get the battery price down, reduce size and weight and make charging easier.'

[GORDON STREETER]

I would think that there will be a fair few fires in the future when people start playing about and doing "DIY" on their EVs if this video of an electric bike is anything to go by !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVp_ppkk-sk

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

An interesting article has been published following an interview with James Dyson discussing why they abandoned their project.

In the article, he alludes to development of solid-state batteries as being one of the key developments necessary.
'We needed the current lithium ion pack to launch the car, but solid state was the longer-term goal, to get the battery price down, reduce size and weight and make charging easier.'

More pie in the sky .
Do you actually believe anything in Autocar with their desperate " EVs are wonderful propaganda " .
Dyson probably got out because he could see there was no long term financial prospects for EVs .
There is no magic unknown element on Earth that will make batteries have a much higher energy density , be much cheaper or much lighter .

And there is still no way that they can all be charged up .

I had a few minutes spare & read up your link to SUBSTATIONS / tRANSFORMERS .
As I remembered , the highest current rating listed was 600 Amp , which is about the maximum the rest of the equipment can cope with .
So an end user supply will be around 250KW maximum
Which will be what your Tesla Supercharger stations quote as "up to 250KW".
That means that 1 car can charge at that , but any more will reduce the rate for each . So 6 cars can get about 40 KW each .
<a href="https://ibb.co/Y81PQKR"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/Y81PQKR/Generator-truck.jpg" alt="Generator-truck" border="0"></a>
Unless they have about 10 generator trucks parked there .

[grantp]

Originally Posted by GORDON STREETER

I would think that there will be a fair few fires in the future when people start playing about and doing "DIY" on their EVs if this video of an electric bike is anything to go by !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVp_ppkk-sk

Interesting Gordon.

Also that YouTube added several more E-bike fire videos in the side panel as suggested watching.

Presumably the heat issue that appears to be the source of the problem is partly affected by the design of the battery pack - the rate of cooling available. Must keep an eye on the batteries for my garden tools though I would imagine the pack design means a single layer of cells and therefore a relatively large heat dispersal area for a relatively low power pack so unlikely to be a problem unless damaged. Hopefully.

[grantp]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

More pie in the sky .
Do you actually believe anything in Autocar with their desperate " EVs are wonderful propaganda " .
Dyson probably got out because he could see there was no long term financial prospects for EVs .
There is no magic unknown element on Earth that will make batteries have a much higher energy density , be much cheaper or much lighter .

And there is still no way that they can all be charged up .

I had a few minutes spare & read up your link to SUBSTATIONS / tRANSFORMERS .
As I remembered , the highest current rating listed was 600 Amp , which is about the maximum the rest of the equipment can cope with .
So an end user supply will be around 250KW maximum
Which will be what your Tesla Supercharger stations quote as "up to 250KW".
That means that 1 car can charge at that , but any more will reduce the rate for each . So 6 cars can get about 40 KW each .
<a href="https://ibb.co/Y81PQKR"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/Y81PQKR/Generator-truck.jpg" alt="Generator-truck" border="0"></a>
Unless they have about 10 generator trucks parked there .

I think Dyson may be right about the need but overly hopeful about the availability of a solution.

Of course whether his numbers are correct for the aborted development spend may be a matter of interpretation.

I have yet to be impressed by any of the Dyson vacuum devices I have used but the company seems quite able to market them at a high price. My impression is that they are not especially durable (for the money) but I could be wrong.

He might be challenged to use a similar design approach for cars.

As for the chargers ...

One of the bigger challenges (and perhaps one of the biggest expected benefits from Electric Vehicles) is the Commercial Vehicle market and its economics.

As I recall it was reported that people who had seen the Tesla Semi prototype out on test and recharging has spotted that it was using the charge from 3 superchargers. So presumably it has 3 battery packs and 3 charge control systems.


In "design for purpose" terms that probably makes sense but one wonders about possible electricity supply issues for truck stops and Motorway service points (or whatever types of solutions my emerge to replace them).

[GORDON STREETER]

Originally Posted by grantp

Interesting Gordon.

Also that YouTube added several more E-bike fire videos in the side panel as suggested watching.

Presumably the heat issue that appears to be the source of the problem is partly affected by the design of the battery pack - the rate of cooling available. Must keep an eye on the batteries for my garden tools though I would imagine the pack design means a single layer of cells and therefore a relatively large heat dispersal area for a relatively low power pack so unlikely to be a problem unless damaged. Hopefully.

One of my drones has a rather sophisticated battery pack complete with a digital voltmeter built in, however both of them started to swell up so I discarded them and put them in a bucket up the garden as I didn't know what to do with them. Reading stuff on the internet is a bit ambiguous and so they are still there but have split open and are twice the size. The drone that cost a fair amount 3 years back is totally unusable as you can't buy batteries for them anymore and to fit a different type would take a lot of work (if at all possible).
I'm pretty sure that I am not alone in this happening, but I won't just stick them in the dustbin like several others do and set something alight. Only last year a dustcart caught alight in our village and caused a lot of damage to the cart and the road that was put down to a battery that someone had disposed of.

[Sodemo]

If the car companies had got together and organised a common battery or a series of them (so small car, mid car, saloon type car, 4X4 type car, sports car etc, so battery A, B, C, D), then you could have hotswapped them at a motorway services type place like you would a regular fuel stop. Granted, you would have had to have some kind of system to remove the likely very heavy battery and then stick in a new fully charged one, but it would mean that you wouldn't have to wait around for 30-60 minutes in order to get back on the road again.

[grantp]

Originally Posted by GORDON STREETER

One of my drones has a rather sophisticated battery pack complete with a digital voltmeter built in, however both of them started to swell up so I discarded them and put them in a bucket up the garden as I didn't know what to do with them. Reading stuff on the internet is a bit ambiguous and so they are still there but have split open and are twice the size. The drone that cost a fair amount 3 years back is totally unusable as you can't buy batteries for them anymore and to fit a different type would take a lot of work (if at all possible).
I'm pretty sure that I am not alone in this happening, but I won't just stick them in the dustbin like several others do and set something alight. Only last year a dustcart caught alight in our village and caused a lot of damage to the cart and the road that was put down to a battery that someone had disposed of.

Sounds like a obvious case of built in obsolescence, Gordon.


What a pain. But presumably the battery design was a problem and the reason why you cannot now find replacements.


That the lack of that design makes the device unusable is no different, in it's own way, to the problems of significant components for cars being unavailable ro too expensive and this ending up with the heading to the recycling yards.


A lot of the early digital cameras will head the same way. The chances of a "collector" market for old digital cameras, as there is for old film cameras, is probably quite remote on the basis that some part of the electronics will fail and become unrepairable. Those cameras that used regular household batteries may stand some chance of surviving - but they are not usually the kind that one would collect.


Will the appreciation of "history" in general disappear of there are fewer and fewer usable products that end up spanning the ages?

[grantp]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

If the car companies had got together and organised a common battery or a series of them (so small car, mid car, saloon type car, 4X4 type car, sports car etc, so battery A, B, C, D), then you could have hotswapped them at a motorway services type place like you would a regular fuel stop. Granted, you would have had to have some kind of system to remove the likely very heavy battery and then stick in a new fully charged one, but it would mean that you wouldn't have to wait around for 30-60 minutes in order to get back on the road again.

Once the mergers in the industry are complete and those who are going to disappear have disappeared, the chances of a long period of same component badge engineering leading to common battery packs is greater.


In turn the chances that people stop buying cars and rent transport from a fully serviced pool of utility vehicles seems to be increasingly likely - in which case the battery pack may well become a standard design or two.

[midgetman]

It's going to happen, surely. It would be a system like Calor gas where you buy a bottle and swap it when emptied, really easy to administer. The big companies can work together if need be - look at the way Google works with myriad phone manufacturers to bring the Android system to your phone.

With this system we could easily overcome Tel911S's worries about grid capacity - send a plane load over to China every night for charging. (Yes I *am* joking)




Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by midgetman

It's going to happen, surely. It would be a system like Calor gas where you buy a bottle and swap it when emptied, really easy to administer.

I've often considered if this would be a possible route to solve the 'replenishment of energy' problem with EVs.

In a petrol or diesel car, you transfer the stored energy in its stored form to your vehicle. There is no transfer of energy between devices as such, and so there is no power consideration to factor in.
If the same was possible with EVs - where the energy is transferred in its stored form to the car, as opposed to having to transfer between storage mediums, then the transfer time would be reduced to seconds/minutes.

Although, how to achieve a common format? Tech firms are notorious for struggling to reach a common design, as shown by the range of serial bus connector types in use. USB is far from universal.....

[crmalcolm]

Another article published today, looks at whether there will be an uptake in EVs following the recent COVID situation.

I know some may be dismissive of the source, but if read objectively it is balanced in its consideration.
'To a large degree, it was legislation rather than consumer demand driving the mass uptake of EVs before this crisis.'
'Local authorities are increasingly banning diesels and will go further even if it defies logic. And brands including Honda and Volvo have already stopped making them.'

[grantp]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Another article published today, looks at whether there will be an uptake in EVs following the recent COVID situation.

I know some may be dismissive of the source, but if read objectively it is balanced in its consideration.
'To a large degree, it was legislation rather than consumer demand driving the mass uptake of EVs before this crisis.'
'Local authorities are increasingly banning diesels and will go further even if it defies logic. And brands including Honda and Volvo have already stopped making them.'

Geely want to use the Volvo brand to push their China based tech out to the developed world as a premium brand, perhaps aimed at the well heeled influencers amongst the green leaning consumers.

For a brand that does not have a "small car" and therefore would have all sort of problems trying to achieve the required carbon targets across their achieved sales, there is no option open to them other than going up market and electric. I have read that their soon to be released All Electric version of their "small car" - the XC40 - will be priced at about twice the price of the current least expensive ICE version.

If they don't head that way then the price of the ICE versions will be increased by taxation anyway and city dwellers (assuming they still have roads on which to drive) will be banned from using ICE vehicles thus making the use of EV's the only choice presently available. Getting the things charged might be a problem but there will be no other choice.

In cities I would see that as an excellent reason not to own a vehicle and to have access to a full service on demand rental option. (Other than when preferring to social distance where a personally owned car would seem to be a much better option than public transport, puffing pedestrians and careering, competitive cyclists.)

[Tel 911S]

https://www.woodmac.com/press-releas...op-43-in-2020/

Wood Mackenzie Are forecasting a 43% drop in EV sales due to the world situation .

Legislation may have been driving sales , but a German Transport minister appeared on an online news program saying that , " after the lockdown had proved that transport was not the cause of air pollution in the cities , the ban on diesels was no longer being considered ".
https://www.focus.de/auto/news/focus...I-6zPzVtRMoZVU
The German politicians did not seem to like this , & it was made to disappear within 2 days .

So yes , logic does not seem to come into it .

But a transport analysis shows shows that EVs will never work in the UK
https://www.transportxtra.com/public...d-to-failure-/
Even without the planned huge extra load on the grid from domestic electric heating , there is simply not enough generation for just private EVs .
Plus there is not raw materials in the world to make the EVs for just the UK , without counting the rest of the world ,

[grantp]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

'Local authorities are increasingly banning diesels and will go further even if it defies logic. And brands including Honda and Volvo have already stopped making them.'

Forgot to mention re Honda - they were never a diesel powered company until the push towards diesel throughout Europe - but notably in the UK, traditionally a petrol domain - forced them to join in to gain the market share they wanted at the time. Now that diesel is seen as the devil's fuel and the legal emissions requirements will see their prices increase to uncompetitive levels they have no reason to remain.

Even significantly increased sales would still leave them as a minor manufacturer of cars.

So a "boutique" city car EV is probably all they are interesting in for Europe at this time.

Going off at a tangent with design concepts does not seem to have paid off. Once Swindon is closed they can simply aim at EV city cars and have done with it. If they were prepared to merge with someone else (but who?) it might be different. But then they would not be Honda.

[grantp]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

https://www.woodmac.com/press-releas...op-43-in-2020/

Wood Mackenzie Are forecasting a 43% drop in EV sales due to the world situation .

Legislation may have been driving sales , but a German Transport minister appeared on an online news program saying that , " after the lockdown had proved that transport was not the cause of air pollution in the cities , the ban on diesels was no longer being considered ".
https://www.focus.de/auto/news/focus...I-6zPzVtRMoZVU
The German politicians did not seem to like this , & it was made to disappear within 2 days .

So yes , logic does not seem to come into it .

But a transport analysis shows shows that EVs will never work in the UK
https://www.transportxtra.com/public...d-to-failure-/
Even without the planned huge extra load on the grid from domestic electric heating , there is simply not enough generation for just private EVs .
Plus there is not raw materials in the world to make the EVs for just the UK , without counting the rest of the world ,

Talking of logic ...

With city councils around the country not only banning diesels but altering roads so that even EV's will suffer possible travel consequences one has to wonder how that aligns with the new requirements to wear masks on public transport.

Now does that mean that Public Transport will be endeavouring to work with passenger loads somewhere near its notional "break even" financial capacity, the masks trying to compensate for reduced social distancing?

Or are people expected to forego public transport in favour of justifying the cost of pavement widening and additional cycling "rights" in order to not have to wear masks? Will masks be required for Walking and Cycling as well? Especially cycling (and the running version of walking) since the huffing and puffing and the spread trail the cyclist would leave behind may be a greater risk than sitting on a bus of a train.

Presumably the requirement to remove helmets and masks when going into a shopping emporium (or any remaining banks one might find) will need to be rescinded.

Maybe one can get a greater return in investment in one's fireproof balaclava and full face racing helmet by using it in everyday, new-normal situations.

Come to think of it the way things may be headed a full fireproof race suit when out in the town may work to ones advantage this summer.

Better if air-conditioned - but just be sure to avoid crushing the batteries.