Diesel engine cars

winkyincanada posted:

northpole posted:

Wicky

My beef is not to keep Diesel engined vehicles; more, it relates to the government misinformation which promoted them in the first place and prematurely killed off petrol lean burn development by major motor manufacturers back in the day.  That, plus perhaps more seriously, the lack of strong indicators that all the other pollutant discharging sources within cities are being afforded such attention.  No doubt because they would require more government rather than Joe Public digging into their pockets to fund a really significant improvement.

What I also find particularly galling is the London road network introducing bus and cycle lanes and re-engineered layouts which appear to have created significant bottle necks leaving very long queues of near stationary traffic.  Traffic which I can’t help think is discharging higher concentrations of pollution than before.  Simply increasing congestion charge tariffs makes little or no difference other than to the coffers of local authorities - the traffic remains.

My perspective is from that of a commuting cyclist.

Peter

Pitar,

Yes the UK government (and others) screwed the pooch on the misguided encouragement of diesels. Seems obvious with hindsight that considering the effects of all tailpipe emissions would have been a better policy. I think people who purchased diesels on the basis of reduced emissions have a right to be aggrieved. Many purchased on the basis of lower running cost, and those people perhaps have less to complain about, except the moving goal posts.

I terms of city congestion, road design in inner cities is not really intended to ease congestion, but to discourage driving. Causing/allowing congestion is actually one way of doing this. I know congestion discourages me from driving, and I make far fewer trips in the car than I would if traffic was free flowing (and that's in Vancouver, a city that does not really have much congestion at all). Yes the emissions in stalled traffic on a per vehicle-km driven basis may be higher, but total emissions may be lower due to the reduced number of vehicle trips taken.

Congested traffic is also safer for vulnerable road users due to the slower speeds. The current term used for roadway modification to reduce speeds is "road dieting". I am in a running battle with our council to ensure that road dieting implementation does not make things more dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. Some of their implementation is appalling in this respect.

The issue of using/allowing congestion (it inevitably becomes the default limit no matter what you do, once demand for roads reaches a certain level) to control behaviour is that it is very inefficient. The externalised costs/impact of my decision to drive on the journey time of others is not something I really consider. But I am at the mercy of others' decisions to drive in terms of their impact on my journey times. We're all negatively affected by each others' decisions to drive. It's a variation of the "tragedy of the commons" effect.

Road pricing, while generally unpopular (so are traffic jams), is an overall much-more efficient system for allocating the scarce resource of city (and other busy) roads. And congestion charges do inevitably work if they are high enough. There is an issue where we can get to point that "only the rich can drive" but that's a whole other issue within the greater discussion on income and wealth inequality. Only the rich can take private planes, too.

And that should also include motor bikes and peddle cycles.

But generally, I agree with much of what you say, to  the comments added by Peter as well.

I prefer to pedal my cycle. 

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

northpole posted:

Call them whatever you like, but the political world regards them as evil which must be taxed off the roads.  Manufacturers are in the process of responding and I suspect within 5 years buying a new diesel powered car will be a very rare behaviour in UK.

Peter

It's easy to dismiss a push-back against ICE-powered cars as "political" but less easy to dismiss the extensive epidemiology that links the emissions from our vehicles to poor health outcomes and reduced lifespans for city dwellers.

Move to the countryside. We live part-time up on the ridge between Vernon and Kelowna and our daughter lives out of town towards Lumby.

Ok, I imagine the prevailing westerly wind brings the contamination from your emissions in our direction, and we certainly recognised the smoke from widespread wildfire this summer, But I recon we are better off than living/working/cycling  in virtually any part of Vancouver.

Everyone "moving to the countryside" would be an unmitigated environmental disaster. Imagine how much driving everyone would have to do! Wait, you don't have to imagine. You live that "dream".

northpole posted:

 

As I mentioned, it is the lack of aggressive focus on other significant pollution generators eg commercial lorries, buses, taxis, trains by government which is unbalanced if they are serious about addressing polution esp in cities.

Agree that it is not just private vehicles.

 

Try explaining that to the lady I came across a few months back who lives in an area of London called Archway beside one of the main roads out of the city centre.  She was adamant that since the road remodelling around Archway, her asthma has become much worse. 

Has the number of cars passing her house increased because of congestion, or are they just going past more slowly?

Have to completely disagree with you here on the basis of behaviours in London.  The business drivers simply pay more and add the costs to their expenses.  They mostly drive into and out of town.  Within the congestion zone however, you find a huge diversity of people and incomes.  Working class folks with families are the ones who feel the need to drive their kids to and from school.  You can argue that they don't need to do this however, there is such paranoia these days about dangers to children, that until such times as these sociological concerns/ behaviours are addressed, parents will continue to feel compelled to drive in town.  They simply cannot afford to do so.  Back to my concern that much greater intelligence is needed to control traffic volumes - a simple pricing policy in a city with a working population as extraordinarily rich as London will achieve very little, other than help fund local authorities' budget coffers. Braver, stronger, more clever measures are urgently required to truly help our air quality.

Making the behaviour you want to discourage more expensive is a valid, but not always perfect strategy for governments. The coffers need to be filled one way or another. Road pricing is a potentially efficient way of achieving that as it reduces the deadweight loss of congestion.

We're in 100% agreement with society's ill-informed and idiotic paranoia about stranger danger. Tragically and ironically, the real risk is that the children will be run down by the parents who are driving their own children to school. 

Braver and stronger would get my vote. De-motorise significant parts of the inner cities and make them friendly for pedestrians and (yes Don) cyclists. The one upside of the vehicular homicide that is seemingly becoming more popular is that this might actually happen. The real benefits would extend far beyond simply discouraging further violence.

Peter

 

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

northpole posted:

Call them whatever you like, but the political world regards them as evil which must be taxed off the roads.  Manufacturers are in the process of responding and I suspect within 5 years buying a new diesel powered car will be a very rare behaviour in UK.

Peter

It's easy to dismiss a push-back against ICE-powered cars as "political" but less easy to dismiss the extensive epidemiology that links the emissions from our vehicles to poor health outcomes and reduced lifespans for city dwellers.

Move to the countryside. We live part-time up on the ridge between Vernon and Kelowna and our daughter lives out of town towards Lumby.

Ok, I imagine the prevailing westerly wind brings the contamination from your emissions in our direction, and we certainly recognised the smoke from widespread wildfire this summer, But I recon we are better off than living/working/cycling  in virtually any part of Vancouver.

Everyone "moving to the countryside" would be an unmitigated environmental disaster. Imagine how much driving everyone would have to do! Wait, you don't have to imagine. You live that "dream".

For reasons that I don't fully comprehend, lots of people think it's a good idea to gather together at the same time, each day, to work. This gathering takes place in and around our towns and cities.

This is what leads to congestion and many of the problems outlined in this thread. Is it really necessary ?

Don, 

Are you retired?

It will be interesting to see what the emission figures for vehicles look like when they start real drive cycle emission testing shortly. I read a report earlier today saying that one of our best selling vehicles produces up to six times the EU Emission limit when tested during real driving conditions.

Having retired recently after spending over forty yers in the Motor Transport Industry I've always wondered like many why Emission Tests are carried out in a controlled laboratory environment and not in live driving conditions which would be far more accurate on what vehicles would achieve on the road.

Also being in the industry dealing with regulators in Brussels, they seem to feel making it more complicated and the regulation document, longer and longer each iteration is the solution. Many of the problems have been there is so much text that can be interpretated in different ways in each language. Read duck the regulation. I fear the lesson has not been learnt. The only saving grace is the VW issue will make companies more compliant in the short term.

Don Atkinson posted:

For reasons that I don't fully comprehend, lots of people think it's a good idea to gather together at the same time, each day, to work. This gathering takes place in and around our towns and cities.

This is what leads to congestion and many of the problems outlined in this thread. Is it really necessary ?

Commuting is not the cause of the congestion that I most often experience. The most traffic I experience is trying to get into town in the opposite direction to the commuting traffic in the evenings. My wife's worst experiences are caused by the school-run and daily tradesman exodus on the northshore in the mid-afternoon. She does everything to organise her day to avoid it. And as you know, I experience no congestion on my commute into Vancouver, except for the odd off-leash dog requiring evasive action.

"Reasons you don't comprehend"? Really? You don't get that the work that goes on in our cities is largely one of communication and organisation? I guess not. Whilst I can work from home for many functions, I know that face-to-face communications with my colleagues and our clients is not just more effective and efficient, it is also more satisfying. But maybe if I worked teaching flying, I could avoid the city. Any jobs going?

Tony Lockhart posted:

<snip>

but make sure I'm nowhere near you, as I struggle to cope with embarrassment.  

If you're really that much of a snowflake, then even my appearance will probably offend you!

Tony Lockhart posted:

Don, 

 

Are you retired?

No. It's five days a week but i'm self-emplyed, can choose when and how I work and am well past state-pension age.

I work mainly at Western Air as a CPL/IR flight instructor. It's a 60 mile round trip each day from where I live on the edge of town.

If we choose,, for recreation, we can walk from the house and within 50m be out in the open fields and countryside. However, we more often choose to go further afield, even on our local walks. Occasionally to the Brecons. My family roots are in Durham so we often drive to the NE and go hiking in the Pennines or over in the Lake District.

In Canada we live on a golf course. Plenty of local walks, but again, we often choose to go further afield. Our other "In-laws" live just outside of Banff, about 500km away. We often spend a week or so with them, hiking, skiing or backpacking in the Rockies.

My youngest daughter lives in Wimbledon and Mrs D was brought up in South London. We occasionally therefore go up to London. She loves it. I wouldn't bother if it weren't for this.

Basically, we live and work in the countryside. Forget the big cities that others choose to "enjoy"

Some others, not all!

In the U.K. at least companies do start at varying times. Ok, that's usually between 7am and 10am, excepting shift workers, but businesses often need to be aligned, and workers need a life outside of work. 

Most of us have a choice at some point in our lives, and I'd need to be offered an obscene amount to tempt me into doing the commute into London every day. I'm just not worth £150k to any company!

Tony, we ALL have choices. The choices might be limited and might boil down to (a) I have a job in the City v (b) I don't have a job, but I do live in the countryside.  Not much of a choice, I have to agree - and for some people that choice is the reverse !, In the end however, we all make whatever choice we can.

However, I wasn't really referring to individual choices. Many companies, both large and small set up very successful enterprises  in rural or semi-rural locations. Vodafone has its HQ on the outskirts of Newbury. KPMG have offices word-wide and they are not all in the centre of big cities - although many are. The CAA is predominantly based at Gatwick, but you can cross the road and be in the countryside in a minute or so. Dyson has his HQ in Malmsbury. Even Naim, in Salisbury are a bike ride away from the surrounding countryside ! Yes, I know i' being selective.........

And yes, as winky says,, it's advantageous to meet people face-to-face and be located in offices close to your clients and customers, but IMHO, we over-do this and wind up creating over-sized cities with pollution problems, life-style problems and transport problems.

And I know it's not easy to change. I made choices 50 years ago. Not necessarily the ones I wanted to make, more out of necessity than preference. So I do empathise strongly with people who feel as if they have little or no real choice.

And although I know I'm worth a lot more than £150k pa, i wouldn't work up in London for that piddling sum

Huge posted:

Tony Lockhart posted:

<snip>

but make sure I'm nowhere near you, as I struggle to cope with embarrassment.  

If you're really that much of a snowflake, then even my appearance will probably offend you!

Oh please don't use that dreadful Trumpism to describe anyone. We all know what's meant by diesel-engined vehicles and the use of any alternative names are unnecessarily pedantic and, in the real world, irrelevent.

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

For reasons that I don't fully comprehend, lots of people think it's a good idea to gather together at the same time, each day, to work. This gathering takes place in and around our towns and cities.

This is what leads to congestion and many of the problems outlined in this thread. Is it really necessary ?

Commuting is not the cause of the congestion that I most often experience. The most traffic I experience is trying to get into town in the opposite direction to the commuting traffic in the evenings. My wife's worst experiences are caused by the school-run and daily tradesman exodus on the northshore in the mid-afternoon. She does everything to organise her day to avoid it. And as you know, I experience no congestion on my commute into Vancouver, except for the odd off-leash dog requiring evasive action.

"Reasons you don't comprehend"? Really? You don't get that the work that goes on in our cities is largely one of communication and organisation? I guess not. Whilst I can work from home for many functions, I know that face-to-face communications with my colleagues and our clients is not just more effective and efficient, it is also more satisfying. But maybe if I worked teaching flying, I could avoid the city. Any jobs going?

The airlines are recruiting again. This past 3 months we have lost two of our part-time instructors to the airlines. So yes ! now is a good time to move out of coal-mining and into the open skies

Try Southern Interior Flight Centre in Kelowna. They are at the North end of the airfield, well out of town. Choice of southern outskirts of Vernon or Coldstream to live and with the old railway track along the west shore of Kal Lake now converted to a dedicated cycle route you could commute through beautiful scenery door-to-door (literally !) on your bike. Would make a change to Lions Gate Bridge and dangerous dogs .......

tonym posted:

Huge posted:

Tony Lockhart posted:

<snip>

but make sure I'm nowhere near you, as I struggle to cope with embarrassment.  

If you're really that much of a snowflake, then even my appearance will probably offend you!

Oh please don't use that dreadful Trumpism to describe anyone. <snip>

Firstly it's not actually a Trumpism, it long pre-dates the orange one's rise to power, it's usually applied to the delicate sensibilities of the 'millennial generation'.
Secondly I preceded the statement with "If you're really" making it a conditional, rather using the expression as a description.

The implied threat within the post to which I was responding was, I suspect, being used to create an overly dramatic effect as opposed to truly being meant; and this threat was expressed in a manner typical of the millennials, so I simply applied the description most appropriate to that approach, using their own parlance.

I sincerely hope the implied threat in the post wasn't intended to be taken seriously, and I hope people will consider my reference to the delicate sensibilities of the 'millennial generation' in light of this.

Huge posted:

Tony Lockhart posted:

<snip>

but make sure I'm nowhere near you, as I struggle to cope with embarrassment.  

If you're really that much of a snowflake, then even my appearance will probably offend you!

I said embarrassed, not offended. I am rarely offended by anything, especially if it's intended to offend me. And if I think you're a c***, I'll tell you. And guess what?

Tony Lockhart posted:

Huge posted:

Tony Lockhart posted:

<snip>

but make sure I'm nowhere near you, as I struggle to cope with embarrassment.  

If you're really that much of a snowflake, then even my appearance will probably offend you!

I said embarrassed, not offended. I am rarely offended by anything, especially if it's intended to offend me. And if I think you're a c***, I'll tell you. And guess what?

See previous reply to tonym.

Why the aggressive language?

Good grief