Car Emmisisons (was Thunderf00t thread)

[Zero999]

Not necessarily. My daughter's van doesn't.
https://www.gov.uk/historic-vehicles

Normal countries have this sensible rule that you are only allowed to drive your rust bucket oldtimer during the weekend, for limited distance. During dieselgate, we found out that there are cars that have 100x  the NOx emissions than normal petrol cars, and we honestly, shouldn't act like this is normal. Those cars are preserved for historical reasons, and entertainment, and not to be used on a daily basis.

It no big deal, since there are such a small number of cars that old on the road and the majority of them are not used on a daily basis anyway.

Keeping some old cars is good, for historical purposes. Hardly anyone uses electronics with glassware nowadays, but it doesn't mean they should all be destroyed because they're inefficient.

Do you remember Bob Pease? He was raving all the time that he has a VW Beetle. Several articles its mentioned, best car ever because he can fix it with a monkey wrench and a flathead screwdriver. Do you remember that he also died in a car accident? 
I'm sorry but this is one of those things that society has to accept. We don't allow heating with coal anymore, we don't let people pour pollutants everywhere. And oldtimer cars is a niche that belongs to the museum. Or an old van on faire. Not only because of pollution but also for safety features.

Bob Pease was one of how many road users?

And there are plenty of people who do still use coal for heating.

[langwadt]

Not necessarily. My daughter's van doesn't.
https://www.gov.uk/historic-vehicles

Normal countries have this sensible rule that you are only allowed to drive your rust bucket oldtimer during the weekend, for limited distance. During dieselgate, we found out that there are cars that have 100x  the NOx emissions than normal petrol cars, and we honestly, shouldn't act like this is normal. Those cars are preserved for historical reasons, and entertainment, and not to be used on a daily basis.

It no big deal, since there are such a small number of cars that old on the road and the majority of them are not used on a daily basis anyway.

Keeping some old cars is good, for historical purposes. Hardly anyone uses electronics with glassware nowadays, but it doesn't mean they should all be destroyed because they're inefficient.

Do you remember Bob Pease? He was raving all the time that he has a VW Beetle. Several articles its mentioned, best car ever because he can fix it with a monkey wrench and a flathead screwdriver. Do you remember that he also died in a car accident? 
I'm sorry but this is one of those things that society has to accept. We don't allow heating with coal anymore, we don't let people pour pollutants everywhere. And oldtimer cars is a niche that belongs to the museum. Or an old van on faire. Not only because of pollution but also for safety features.

Bob Pease was one of how many road users?

And there are plenty of people who do still use coal for heating.

and as long as motorcycles are legal, car safety can't be used as an argument against old cars

[themadhippy]

If you know of a way of finding out where you can reliably get leaded petrol, she might be interested.

sorry cant help.I only know about gandertons in buckingham  as  passed it regularly, might be worth her giving them a shout to see if they can point her anywhere.

[tom66]

What was the cause of the accident? Stroke, heart attack, alcohol?

As always in life, don't sweat the small stuff: concentrate on big problems. Leaded petrol was once a big problem, but isn't any more.

Instead of burning coal in power stations, the UK now burns wood pellets from ancient forests - and gets a green subsidy for it. Is that better than burning coal? Or burning lignite in Germany?

Nobody can say for sure, but he came off the road on one of those winding mountain passes.  It's quite possible that he would have survived in a modern car; even if he had a heart attack for instance, cars have SOS call features that would alert first responders and they may have been able to reach him in time to deliver life saving treatment.  Airbags, stability control, ABS, la ne/road departure warning etc. none of which featured in a 60s Beetle, will all make an accident less likely even in the event a driver begins to lose consciousness or is otherwise impaired.  VW vehicles made from 2024 will be able to pull over in the event that a driver is determined to be unresponsive (test in real life, marketing video).

It is a noticeable trend in fatalities, cars are getting much safer for the driver.  The UK has seen a consistent fall in road fatalities,  in 1990, there were over 5,000 killed on UK roads, today, it is around 1,600.  This is despite population increasing ~20% in that time and average miles driven per person barely changing.

[tggzzz]

What was the cause of the accident? Stroke, heart attack, alcohol?

As always in life, don't sweat the small stuff: concentrate on big problems. Leaded petrol was once a big problem, but isn't any more.

Instead of burning coal in power stations, the UK now burns wood pellets from ancient forests - and gets a green subsidy for it. Is that better than burning coal? Or burning lignite in Germany?

Nobody can say for sure, but he came off the road on one of those winding mountain passes.  It's quite possible that he would have survived in a modern car;

Precisely; speculation is absolutely worthless.

It is quite possible he would have died in a modern car => without specific information your conjecture is, of course, content free.

even if he had a heart attack for instance, cars have SOS call features that would alert first responders and they may have been able to reach him in time to deliver life saving treatment.  Airbags, stability control, ABS, la ne/road departure warning etc. none of which featured in a 60s Beetle, will all make an accident less likely even in the event a driver begins to lose consciousness or is otherwise impaired.  VW vehicles made from 2024 will be able to pull over in the event that a driver is determined to be unresponsive (test in real life, marketing video).

Gizmos can just as easily cause accidents.

That very nearly happened to me when driving a hire van where the M4 ends in London. It was dark, raining heavily, heavy traffic, and I was concentrating on what was in front. Just then an insistent buzzer sounded and an unfamiliar light flashed in my peripheral vision - which took my attention away from what was in front.

Eventually I worked out it was because someone in the adjacent lane had come up my nearside from behind and was (allegedly) too close. I couldn't safely have done anything to avoid that; there was traffic on my offside. Effin' dangerous, and the nearest I have come to causing an accident in half a century!

Fundamentally anything that distracts attention and causes heads-down behaviour is dangerous. I first came across that when an L1011 flew into the ground in the Everglades. I've since come across the issue w.r.t. FLARM in gliders. Classic last words on cockpit voice recorder: "what's it doing now?".

It is a noticeable trend in fatalities, cars are getting much safer for the driver.  The UK has seen a consistent fall in road fatalities,  in 1990, there were over 5,000 killed on UK roads, today, it is around 1,600.  This is despite population increasing ~20% in that time and average miles driven per person barely changing.

Correlation is not causation. Better driver training and (until recently ) better road markings have improved safety.

Of course the libertarian shared space "very dangerous is safe" cretins' ideology requires safety features are removed.

[Siwastaja]

Yes and that's fine.  But used ICE cars will slowly disappear from the market... cars do not have an unlimited lifespan.  The goal is to phase out ICE by 2045-2050 or so, not to totally eliminate it tomorrow. With the average lifespan of a car being around 15 years, if you stop selling them in 2030-2035, that will happen by natural attrition.  And then we will wonder why we drove those weird combustion powered cars around everywhere.

This is all true and in this grand scheme of things, anything a politician can do to artificially manipulate the market is to shift this 30-40-year time window by 2-3 years. In the end, if EVs were impractical or unworkable, no amount of politicizing would help, the whole card house would just collapse. And OTOH, if EVs work and make sense, they will replace ICE cars by free market rules. Which is what we are already seeing anyway. But right now we are in a transition period where politics can have an effect. But is it worth it, I don't know. Same end result would be achieved without manipulating the market.

[Zero999]

VW vehicles made from 2024 will be able to pull over in the event that a driver is determined to be unresponsive (test in real life, marketing video).

Bob Pease died in 2011.

[coppice]

Pretty sure there's an age limit on cars in the UK

nope,and if you know were to look you can even find leaded petrol to keep your old jalopy on the road

Old cars need to pass annual MOT testing, yes?

How often do old cars fail MOT and get sent to the scrapyard?

Old cars, inadequately maintained, generally get scrapped when its more expensive to fix them than replace them. MOTs don't change that very much. They just enforce that people don't let things get dangerously bad before taking action. Cars in generally good shape fail their MOT all the time, as a suspension bush may have excessive wear, or a brake disc may have excessive rust (usually the back ones). A car has to be really old, or perhaps very rare, for parts to be unavailable. It comes down to cost. Massive body rust can be a killer.

[nctnico]

Pretty sure there's an age limit on cars in the UK

nope,and if you know were to look you can even find leaded petrol to keep your old jalopy on the road

Old cars need to pass annual MOT testing, yes?

How often do old cars fail MOT and get sent to the scrapyard?

Old cars, inadequately maintained, generally get scrapped when its more expensive to fix them than replace them. MOTs don't change that very much. They just enforce that people don't let things get dangerously bad before taking action. Cars in generally good shape fail their MOT all the time, as a suspension bush may have excessive wear, or a brake disc may have excessive rust (usually the back ones). A car has to be really old, or perhaps very rare, for parts to be unavailable. It comes down to cost. Massive body rust can be a killer.

I agree. Unless the body is really rusted, you can replace an awfull lot. If new cars become very expensive, it is worthwhile to simply repair / refurbish older cars. Only downside is that fuel consumption is staying bad. I'm looking at buying a different car somewhere early 2025. My options are to either spend 5k euro on the same brand/model car I already have but a less old one with way less mileage or spend around 13k a Toyota hybrid. In the long run the Toyota hybrid will be cheaper due to lower fuel consumption; the difference is around 5k euro. Going for a BEV is way more expensive in my case (15k extra compared to the Toyota hybrid assuming 200k km / 8 years). The higher purchase price (30k for a use one) and charging costs just kills the BEV financially.

[tom66]

Gizmos can just as easily cause accidents.

That very nearly happened to me when driving a hire van where the M4 ends in London. It was dark, raining heavily, heavy traffic, and I was concentrating on what was in front. Just then an insistent buzzer sounded and an unfamiliar light flashed in my peripheral vision - which took my attention away from what was in front.

Eventually I worked out it was because someone in the adjacent lane had come up my nearside from behind and was (allegedly) too close. I couldn't safely have done anything to avoid that; there was traffic on my offside. Effin' dangerous, and the nearest I have come to causing an accident in half a century!

Fundamentally anything that distracts attention and causes heads-down behaviour is dangerous. I first came across that when an L1011 flew into the ground in the Everglades. I've since come across the issue w.r.t. FLARM in gliders. Classic last words on cockpit voice recorder: "what's it doing now?".

Sounds like the van had some kind of blind spot monitor.  It's a life saving function, as shoulder checks are often forgotten about.  Life saving for both the driver and the unfortunate victim that gets caught in the blind spot.  Modern systems can detect cyclists and motorcycles as well as cars.   The problem with rental vans is you don't have time to get fully acquainted with your vehicle but that doesn't make something like a BSM a bad function. 

And I am certain a function like in the VW video will have been extensively tested so that it does not engage in the wrong circumstances, like if the camera is obscured.  I'd still much rather have it than not, even if there is a small chance of the system not engaging when needed; better to have tried than not at all. 

Correlation is not causation. Better driver training and (until recently ) better road markings have improved safety.

Of course the libertarian shared space "very dangerous is safe" cretins' ideology requires safety features are removed.

No, it really is mostly down to car safety improvements.  Remember that cars in the early 90's rarely had airbags, ABS, or even significant crash safety structures, as none of these features were mandatory.

The libertarians lost the argument, and consumers flocked towards vehicles that offered good safety features, such that it is essentially impossible to purchase a car nowadays that does not have significant safety functionality.  Euro NCAP testing, or scoring highly on those tests, isn't actually mandatory -- so you can release a reasonably unsafe car (compared to other models on sale) but customers won't be as keen to buy that model.

[tszaboo]

Pretty sure there's an age limit on cars in the UK

nope,and if you know were to look you can even find leaded petrol to keep your old jalopy on the road

Old cars need to pass annual MOT testing, yes?

How often do old cars fail MOT and get sent to the scrapyard?

Old cars, inadequately maintained, generally get scrapped when its more expensive to fix them than replace them. MOTs don't change that very much. They just enforce that people don't let things get dangerously bad before taking action. Cars in generally good shape fail their MOT all the time, as a suspension bush may have excessive wear, or a brake disc may have excessive rust (usually the back ones). A car has to be really old, or perhaps very rare, for parts to be unavailable. It comes down to cost. Massive body rust can be a killer.

Exactly, the reason for MOT is because people are negligent and selfish. Old cars are not only dangerous to the driver, they are dangerous to everyone.

And there are plenty of people who do still use coal for heating.

You should double check that, because the UK banned coal heating last year. Welcome to the mid 20th century.

and as long as motorcycles are legal, car safety can't be used as an argument against old cars

They are effectively being banned. New emission regulations require manufacturers to invest into technologies that make the motorcycle very expensive, destroying the market. If that doesn't, noise limits will. Somehow someone thought that having 100x the noise limit of cars for motorcycles is reasonable.

[tggzzz]

And there are plenty of people who do still use coal for heating.

You should double check that, because the UK banned coal heating last year. Welcome to the mid 20th century.

You should double check that, because it didn't. Welcome to the mid 20s.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/selling-coal-for-domestic-use-in-england

[tggzzz]

Gizmos can just as easily cause accidents.

That very nearly happened to me when driving a hire van where the M4 ends in London. It was dark, raining heavily, heavy traffic, and I was concentrating on what was in front. Just then an insistent buzzer sounded and an unfamiliar light flashed in my peripheral vision - which took my attention away from what was in front.

Eventually I worked out it was because someone in the adjacent lane had come up my nearside from behind and was (allegedly) too close. I couldn't safely have done anything to avoid that; there was traffic on my offside. Effin' dangerous, and the nearest I have come to causing an accident in half a century!

Fundamentally anything that distracts attention and causes heads-down behaviour is dangerous. I first came across that when an L1011 flew into the ground in the Everglades. I've since come across the issue w.r.t. FLARM in gliders. Classic last words on cockpit voice recorder: "what's it doing now?".

Sounds like the van had some kind of blind spot monitor.  It's a life saving function, as shoulder checks are often forgotten about.  Life saving for both the driver and the unfortunate victim that gets caught in the blind spot.  Modern systems can detect cyclists and motorcycles as well as cars.   The problem with rental vans is you don't have time to get fully acquainted with your vehicle but that doesn't make something like a BSM a bad function. 

ISTR it was a lane warning thingy.

But what it was is less important than the distraction it caused. Wouldn't it be nice if people didn't conveniently forget half century old knowledge, but did reapply the hard learned lessons?

And I am certain a function like in the VW video will have been extensively tested so that it does not engage in the wrong circumstances, like if the camera is obscured.  I'd still much rather have it than not, even if there is a small chance of the system not engaging when needed; better to have tried than not at all. 

If only

Finally various (plural) US transportation authorities are waking up to what they can see in yootoob vids and accident reports: many features aren't adequately tested.

Correlation is not causation. Better driver training and (until recently ) better road markings have improved safety.

Of course the libertarian shared space "very dangerous is safe" cretins' ideology requires safety features are removed.

No, it really is mostly down to car safety improvements.  Remember that cars in the early 90's rarely had airbags, ABS, or even significant crash safety structures, as none of these features were mandatory.

The libertarians lost the argument, and consumers flocked towards vehicles that offered good safety features, such that it is essentially impossible to purchase a car nowadays that does not have significant safety functionality.  Euro NCAP testing, or scoring highly on those tests, isn't actually mandatory -- so you can release a reasonably unsafe car (compared to other models on sale) but customers won't be as keen to buy that model.

Reference for the evidence about causation, please.

Car purchasers couldn't select to avoid the idiotic libertarian claims about road safety. I had to fight the proposed shared space street remodelling in my village.

[nctnico]

And there are plenty of people who do still use coal for heating.

You should double check that, because the UK banned coal heating last year. Welcome to the mid 20th century.

You should double check that, because it didn't. Welcome to the mid 20s.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/selling-coal-for-domestic-use-in-england

It says house coal is banned from being sold. Looking around it seems there are different kinds of coal and a stove / heater designed for house coal may not be suitable for burning other types of coal.

[coppice]

It says house coal is banned from being sold. Looking around it seems there are different kinds of coal and a stove / heater designed for house coal may not be suitable for burning other types of coal.

There have been controls on the types of coal and coke which may be used for heating since the late 1950s. This was how the famous London smogs were quickly brought under control. There has been no blanket ban.

[tggzzz]

And there are plenty of people who do still use coal for heating.

You should double check that, because the UK banned coal heating last year. Welcome to the mid 20th century.

You should double check that, because it didn't. Welcome to the mid 20s.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/selling-coal-for-domestic-use-in-england

It says house coal is banned from being sold. Looking around it seems there are different kinds of coal and a stove / heater designed for house coal may not be suitable for burning other types of coal.

Firstly read again. Traditional house coal is banned. That's the low quality stuff that used to be used to make town gas, by boiling the volatiles off to create coke.

Secondly anthracite is coal, pure and simple. It is the type that was exported from South Wales all over the world. That's why the world price of coal was set in this building https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Exchange

[tggzzz]

It says house coal is banned from being sold. Looking around it seems there are different kinds of coal and a stove / heater designed for house coal may not be suitable for burning other types of coal.

There have been controls on the types of coal and coke which may be used for heating since the late 1950s. This was how the famous London smogs were quickly brought under control. There has been no blanket ban.

Precisely.

TV in the 60s regularly had adverts for various types of smokeless coal. (And Esso Blue paraffin for heaters).

[tszaboo]

And there are plenty of people who do still use coal for heating.

You should double check that, because the UK banned coal heating last year. Welcome to the mid 20th century.

You should double check that, because it didn't. Welcome to the mid 20s.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/selling-coal-for-domestic-use-in-england

It says house coal is banned from being sold. Looking around it seems there are different kinds of coal and a stove / heater designed for house coal may not be suitable for burning other types of coal.

Firstly read again. Traditional house coal is banned. That's the low quality stuff that used to be used to make town gas, by boiling the volatiles off to create coke.

Secondly anthracite is coal, pure and simple. It is the type that was exported from South Wales all over the world. That's why the world price of coal was set in this building https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Exchange

Congratulations, you won, your country is more like a 3rd world country than we hoped for.

[coppice]

Congratulations, you won, your country is more like a 3rd world country than we hoped for.

Have you seen the state of the UK's economy? Its not just like a 3rd world country.

[SiliconWizard]

I wonder if you're allowed to burn your own, uh, dejections in your stove, or if that's also banned.

[tom66]

Congratulations, you won, your country is more like a 3rd world country than we hoped for.

Have you seen the state of the UK's economy? Its not just like a 3rd world country.

  I really hate this needless bashing of the UK.  It's kinda tiring because it really has no basis in fact.  The UK is the 6th wealthiest country in the world, and 2nd in Europe (only behind Germany).  Our GDP per capita is in the top 10% in the world.

Yes, we're not as rich as the USA or as independently wealthy as the Swiss or Luxembourgians, but we're certainly not doing badly.  And in growth terms we've consistently outpaced all other well-developed European nations of comparable size.

[themadhippy]

The UK is the 6th wealthiest country in the world, and 2nd in Europe (only behind Germany).

All that proves is how badly everybody else is doing

[coppice]

Congratulations, you won, your country is more like a 3rd world country than we hoped for.

Have you seen the state of the UK's economy? Its not just like a 3rd world country.

  I really hate this needless bashing of the UK.  It's kinda tiring because it really has no basis in fact.  The UK is the 6th wealthiest country in the world, and 2nd in Europe (only behind Germany).  Our GDP per capita is in the top 10% in the world.

Yes, we're not as rich as the USA or as independently wealthy as the Swiss or Luxembourgians, but we're certainly not doing badly.  And in growth terms we've consistently outpaced all other well-developed European nations of comparable size.

The snag is if you separate out London, the rest of the country is way down the global ranking. Even with London included we aren't just poorer than the US, we are poorer than the poorest state in the US.

[thm_w]

There wasn't anything I would disagree with.

You heard one side of an argument, without bothering to research otherwise, of course you'd agree.
- Only unionized manufacturers were invited to the EV meeting. Whether you agree or disagree with that reasoning.
- 7.5 billion has not been "spent" its been allocated. The VW charging network was a bit of a disaster so they'd want safeguards in place preventing that from happening again.

Think about who benefits from keeping EV competition out and keeping workers non-unionized..

Right, so you can always find an excuse if you look hard enough.
Arguing about semantics also doesn't help either. It only means that they didn't misappropriate or steal the funds, they are just incompetent, and failed their goals completely. How is that any better?

This is not "semantics" or "finding excuses".
Its you lapping up facts from a CEO whose bests interests are that of his company and his wealth, coming here to show off your knowledge, being told a lot of the information is not accurate or misrepresented, and refusing to acknowledge or research further.

Its not nearly as bad as thunderfoot, but it shows the same lack of processing.

[Andy Chee]

Pretty sure there's an age limit on cars in the UK

nope,and if you know were to look you can even find leaded petrol to keep your old jalopy on the road

Old cars need to pass annual MOT testing, yes?

How often do old cars fail MOT and get sent to the scrapyard?

Old cars, inadequately maintained, generally get scrapped when its more expensive to fix them than replace them. MOTs don't change that very much. They just enforce that people don't let things get dangerously bad before taking action. Cars in generally good shape fail their MOT all the time, as a suspension bush may have excessive wear, or a brake disc may have excessive rust (usually the back ones). A car has to be really old, or perhaps very rare, for parts to be unavailable. It comes down to cost. Massive body rust can be a killer.

The MOT failure rate is effectively a de facto fleet turnover rate.  It may not be an explicit vehicle age limit, but it effectively forces old, potentially higher polluting cars from the road.