On 17/04/17 18:48, Huge wrote:
On 2017-04-17, Tim Watts wrote:
On 17/04/17 15:58, Andrew wrote:
On 17/04/2017 12:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/04/17 11:49, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:05:07 +0100, tim... wrote:

It'll be restricted to 10 YO cars

I also read that they might just restrict it to cars registered in
cities
with a pollution problem

Targeting the place of registration is not the same as targeting the
pollution in the cities; the London Mayor is targeting the actual
drivers by putting up the congestion charge for these polluting
vehicles. The sooner they are removed from our streets the better.

what a sanctimonious prick you are, to be sure.

The sooner people like you are removed from the gene pool, the better.


If you or anyone you knew was suffering from asthma or any sort of
lung problem then you might think otherwise.

Far better to slam another 30p on diesel fuel duty and use the
money to fix the potholes and compensate the real losers, those
with breathing issues.

That's fine by me and I drive diesels.

Given the **** state of the roads, I'd rather pay extra ON CONDITION the
money is ringfenced and goes directly to where it belongs.

What, on top of the net £30bn that motorists already "contribute" to the
Exchequer? **** that noise.



Which isn't ringfenced - the criminal *******s....

On 4/17/2017 11:15 AM, Richard wrote:
"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...

On 4/17/2017 10:51 AM, Huge wrote:
On 2017-04-17, Tim Watts wrote:
On 17/04/17 10:37, Huge wrote:
On 2017-04-17, Graeme wrote:
In message , Chris Hogg
writes

But particulate carbon isn't the only problem. Because of the hotter
combustion temperatures, diesels emit more NOx, which seems to be
the
main point of issue ATM. I gather there may be catalytic NOx
filters,
but the current fuss suggests they don't work very well.

Making a decision now is certainly difficult. We only manage 5-6,000
miles a year, minimum journey 10 miles, average 50 and, once a year,
500. All each way. I keep looking at the Dacia Duster, and have
spoken
to as many drivers as possible, and have not yet found anyone with
a bad
word to say about them, except that the diesel is preferable to the
petrol engine.

Very tempting, given the price.

I wouldn't buy a diesel at the moment. Not until the Government has
sorted
out what its attitude towards them is going to be. You might find
there are
a lot of place you're not allowed to take it.



I suspect all the places will be places I would never drive (eg centre
of massive cities like London).

Quite possibly, but the problem is that none of us know, as yet.


Exactly. How long before you won't be able to drive it to any city
centre hospital. (Because it is in a city centre, rather than because
it is a hospital).

The point is being missed. They don't want to ban them, merely charge
extra for you to drive in their ****ty centres.

The charge is not a fund raising exercise, it is an incentive to change
behaviour.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 17/04/17 13:07, tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Graeme wrote:
In message , Chris Hogg
writes

But particulate carbon isn't the only problem. Because of the hotter
combustion temperatures, diesels emit more NOx, which seems to be the
main point of issue ATM. I gather there may be catalytic NOx filters,
but the current fuss suggests they don't work very well.

Making a decision now is certainly difficult. We only manage 5-6,000
miles a year, minimum journey 10 miles, average 50 and, once a year,
500. All each way. I keep looking at the Dacia Duster, and have
spoken
to as many drivers as possible, and have not yet found anyone with a
bad
word to say about them, except that the diesel is preferable to the
petrol engine.

Very tempting, given the price.

If you do a small annual milage, the fuel costs may not be the major
one.

No

I don't know if it still true, but when I drove a diesel the more
frequent servicing requirements cost me more than I ever saved in fuel

I found servicing to be far less.

I havent.

Just a few filters every year. No plugs to speak of.

I havent replaced any filters at all apart from the one oil filter
in 10 years in my petrol Hyundai Getz, no plugs replaced at all.
Just the one battery too.

tim



--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.



--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
..I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

"Bill" wrote in message
...
In message , Richard
writes
"Bill" wrote in message ...

In message , Capitol
writes
Realistically, rule of thumb, a car loses 30% of its price on sale,
then a further 10% of it's price per 10K miles per annum. At 100K miles,
or 10 years, it is essentially worthless. If you pay more than this,
that's your loss.

Well, I'm still in the market for a 10yo diesel automatic Disco.

Yes, essentially worthless, and I have the appropriate cash waiting.

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-sear...us=1500&postco
de=so151aa&onesearchad=Used&onesearchad=Nearly%2 0New&onesearchad=New&mak
e=LAND%20ROVER&model=DISCOVERY%203&year-from=2007&year-to=2007&fuel-type
=Diesel&transmission=Automatic

£7k for a 10 y o car doesn't spell worthless to me.

If the govt can get the price under £1k, I promise I'll never drive or
park in Central London again.

Interesting that the Kings College London guide to air pollution only says
"In recent years the average level of nitrogen dioxide within London has
not fallen as quickly as predicted.".

I can't see why urea injection couldn't be made cost effective and, having
been ordered to wash the car this weekend, I am more convinced than ever
before that tyres and brakes are the source of 10 times the particulates
produced by engines. Just look at the wheels and mudguards.

Sure, but those arent anything like as fine
as what can be in the worst diesel exhaust.

My bet is that we will have chaos and confusion and that pollution won't
fall.

It did, dramatically when lead was removed from petrol.

But the sooner Mrs May bans diesels from London Brum and Leeds, the
better.

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Bill" wrote in message
...
But the sooner Mrs May bans diesels from London Brum and Leeds, the
better.

My wife works in the centre of Leeds. Trains from where we live are
infrequent (once an hour) and public transport involves tedious changes.
So after trying everything else, she drives to the city centre and parks
in a multi-storey: at least then she can set off home as soon as she gets
out of a meeting instead of waiting for the next bus/train, and can divert
around traffic hold-ups.

But whereas her car meets the latest Euro emissions standard (6?), mine,
at nearly 9 years old, doesn't. So she'd never be able to take my car to
work (to give it a long run or to prevent accumulating quite so much
mileage on her car) unless she was prepared to pay the surcharge.

So, now that the multi-storey payment is due for renewal, and now that a
park and ride is finally about to open up on our side of Leeds, she's
going to use that instead: at least the P&R car park will hopefully be
outside the city-centre pollution boundaries.

I am very annoyed that the government has reversed its previous pro-diesel
stance. My car is old enough that the effect on the resale value is
negligible (the car is probably only worth a couple of hundred quid on the
second hand market). We no longer use the car as the main car (eg for
holidays and other long-distance journeys), so the better fuel economy is
less important.

But I *like* my diesel: it is a *much* easier car to drive because it has
the low-end torque to crawl in traffic with no accelerator, controlling
the speed entirely on the clutch,

Jeezus that certainly explains why you go thru clutches. I've never had to
ever replace one and I used the petrol Golf for 45+ years, using it every
day.

and it will pull in a higher gear, which means that you are not forever
having to change into second gear when accelerating out of a roundabout -
and it's much easier and smoother to change from 6th to 3rd than 6th to
2nd. Also the engine is quieter (despite being a diesel) because it runs
at a lower speed (2500 rpm rather than 4000 rpm at 70 mph), and the car
has plenty of 50-80 acceleration (for overtaking) which the equivalent
petrol model lacks.

Which car is that ?

If manufacturers could make a petrol engine that drove like a diesel, I'd
have the best of both worlds.

They do, its called an automatic.

"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:32:49 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

I hear an MP is suggesting a scrappage scheme for diesel cars.

If there are 31 million cars on the road and 38% of them are diesel,
does he really think a £100m scheme providing an average of £8/car is
going to cut it?

Why get rid of diesel and not petrol cars?

Because the pollution produced by the worst diesels
is much worse for your health than with petrol cars.

Diesel are more efficient.

Yes, but it isnt just about efficiency.

Apparently its trivial easy to determine at autopsy
from the lungs which non smokers have 'lived' in
the center of big cities.

On 17/04/2017 16:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/04/17 15:58, Andrew wrote:
On 17/04/2017 12:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/04/17 11:49, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:05:07 +0100, tim... wrote:

It'll be restricted to 10 YO cars

I also read that they might just restrict it to cars registered in
cities
with a pollution problem

Targeting the place of registration is not the same as targeting the
pollution in the cities; the London Mayor is targeting the actual
drivers by putting up the congestion charge for these polluting
vehicles. The sooner they are removed from our streets the better.

what a sanctimonious prick you are, to be sure.

The sooner people like you are removed from the gene pool, the better.


If you or anyone you knew was suffering from asthma or any sort of
lung problem then you might think otherwise.


I do suffer from astham wuite badly.

Oddly enough it was better when there was more pollution around

Far better to slam another 30p on diesel fuel duty and use the
money to fix the potholes and compensate the real losers, those
with breathing issues.

Except petrol engines are ultimately no better.

And the tax is on te car, nit the fuel isn't it? So high mileage rich
people dont suffer, just the poor elderly retired person who cant afford
a new car, gets stamped on for road tax on a vehicle he scarcely drives

I was diagnosed with asthma some years ago and then managed to add
pulmonary sarcoidosis to that. I have never had a problem standing,
waiting to cross at a junction where there is a queue of cars, both
petrol and diesel - I have however struggled for breath when a single
truck or bus is in that queue.

SteveW

On 17/04/2017 18:48, Rod Speed wrote:
Harry Bloomfield wrote
Chris Hogg wrote

Because of the hotter combustion temperatures, diesels emit more NOx,
which seems to be the main point of issue ATM.

Partially solved at low engine speeds by an EGR, problem is that the
EGR's on a diesel need to be regularly cleaned out and no manufacturer
has them on their service list to be cleaned.

Why not ?

The net result is a diesel engine with a choked up intake system.

There must be a reason no manufacturer has them on their service list to
be cleaned if it really was that simple.

Many of them are nigh on impossible to access for cleaning - my previous
car required various items removing, before remving the whole inlet
manifold to access it!

SteveW

On 17/04/2017 14:28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
NY wrote:
I'd not dream of driving to my local large hospital. Costs too much to
park there.

The problem is that if you need to take someone ill to hospital (maybe
even to A&E) there isn't really any alternative to driving there. The
patient is unlikely to be well enough to negotiate public transport.
And a taxi from a village or town to the city with the hospital would
be prohibitively expensive. Then when you get there you have to pay
extortionate over-a-barrel because-we-can parking charges, because the
NHS "free at the point of use" founding principle doesn't apply to
transport/parking.

Surely if someone is so unwell they need to travel many miles to a large
hospital, you'd call an ambulance?

When my son was ill with suspected heart problems, the local hospital
were concerned and referred him immediately to A&E at the children's
hospital in the centre of Manchester - their expectation was for me to
drive him there. It was eventually dimissed as murmur to be watched, but
not acting upon.

SteveW

On 17/04/2017 11:04, ARW wrote:
On 17/04/2017 10:37, Huge wrote:
On 2017-04-17, Graeme wrote:
In message , Chris Hogg
writes

But particulate carbon isn't the only problem. Because of the hotter
combustion temperatures, diesels emit more NOx, which seems to be the
main point of issue ATM. I gather there may be catalytic NOx filters,
but the current fuss suggests they don't work very well.

Making a decision now is certainly difficult. We only manage 5-6,000
miles a year, minimum journey 10 miles, average 50 and, once a year,
500. All each way. I keep looking at the Dacia Duster, and have spoken
to as many drivers as possible, and have not yet found anyone with a bad
word to say about them, except that the diesel is preferable to the
petrol engine.

Very tempting, given the price.

I wouldn't buy a diesel at the moment. Not until the Government has
sorted
out what its attitude towards them is going to be. You might find
there are
a lot of place you're not allowed to take it.


I've got a diesel. I hope that Blackpool bans them.

No. It is worth visiting Blackpool every so often, just to remind
yourself just how tacky things can be.

SteveW

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 23:19:46 +0100, wrote:



"James Wilkinson Sword" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:32:49 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote:

I hear an MP is suggesting a scrappage scheme for diesel cars.

If there are 31 million cars on the road and 38% of them are diesel,
does he really think a £100m scheme providing an average of £8/car is
going to cut it?

Why get rid of diesel and not petrol cars?

Because the pollution produced by the worst diesels
is much worse for your health than with petrol cars.

You don't believe that treehugging nonsense do you?

Diesel are more efficient.

Yes, but it isnt just about efficiency.

That's all I care about.

Apparently its trivial easy to determine at autopsy
from the lungs which non smokers have 'lived' in
the center of big cities.

Then they shouldn't live in cities.

--
I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence. -- Doug McLeod

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news
On 17/04/2017 18:48, Rod Speed wrote:
Harry Bloomfield wrote
Chris Hogg wrote

Because of the hotter combustion temperatures, diesels emit more NOx,
which seems to be the main point of issue ATM.

Partially solved at low engine speeds by an EGR, problem is that the
EGR's on a diesel need to be regularly cleaned out and no manufacturer
has them on their service list to be cleaned.

Why not ?

The net result is a diesel engine with a choked up intake system.

There must be a reason no manufacturer has them on their service list to
be cleaned if it really was that simple.

Many of them are nigh on impossible to access for cleaning - my previous
car required various items removing, before remving the whole inlet
manifold to access it!

But there must be a reason why they don't
design them properly so they are easy to clean.

In article , Tim Watts
wrote:
On 17/04/17 10:37, Huge wrote:
On 2017-04-17, Graeme wrote:
In message , Chris Hogg
writes

But particulate carbon isn't the only problem. Because of the hotter
combustion temperatures, diesels emit more NOx, which seems to be the
main point of issue ATM. I gather there may be catalytic NOx filters,
but the current fuss suggests they don't work very well.

Making a decision now is certainly difficult. We only manage 5-6,000
miles a year, minimum journey 10 miles, average 50 and, once a year,
500. All each way. I keep looking at the Dacia Duster, and have
spoken to as many drivers as possible, and have not yet found anyone
with a bad word to say about them, except that the diesel is
preferable to the petrol engine.

Very tempting, given the price.

I wouldn't buy a diesel at the moment. Not until the Government has
sorted out what its attitude towards them is going to be. You might
find there are a lot of place you're not allowed to take it.



I suspect all the places will be places I would never drive (eg centre
of massive cities like London).

waht about the taxis, delivery lorries, service buses, long distance
coaches, tourist coaches, railway locaomotives ? Are they all to be banned
as well?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
NY wrote:
I'd not dream of driving to my local large hospital. Costs too much to
park there.

The problem is that if you need to take someone ill to hospital (maybe
even to A&E) there isn't really any alternative to driving there. The
patient is unlikely to be well enough to negotiate public transport.
And a taxi from a village or town to the city with the hospital would
be prohibitively expensive. Then when you get there you have to pay
extortionate over-a-barrel because-we-can parking charges, because the
NHS "free at the point of use" founding principle doesn't apply to
transport/parking.

Surely if someone is so unwell they need to travel many miles to a large
hospital, you'd call an ambulance?

Some years ago, I'd taken my mother-in-law to the GP. The doctor came out
and said "can you tak her straight to the hospital? It will be a lot
quicker than getting an ambulance." So we got to A&E and it was over 2
hours before anybody saw her.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 17/04/17 15:58, Andrew wrote:
On 17/04/2017 12:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/04/17 11:49, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:05:07 +0100, tim... wrote:

It'll be restricted to 10 YO cars

I also read that they might just restrict it to cars registered in
cities
with a pollution problem

Targeting the place of registration is not the same as targeting the
pollution in the cities; the London Mayor is targeting the actual
drivers by putting up the congestion charge for these polluting
vehicles. The sooner they are removed from our streets the better.

what a sanctimonious prick you are, to be sure.

The sooner people like you are removed from the gene pool, the better.


If you or anyone you knew was suffering from asthma or any sort of
lung problem then you might think otherwise.

Far better to slam another 30p on diesel fuel duty and use the
money to fix the potholes and compensate the real losers, those
with breathing issues.

That's fine by me and I drive diesels.

Given the **** state of the roads, I'd rather pay extra ON CONDITION the
money is ringfenced and goes directly to where it belongs.

It's also fair: more duty paid = user doing higher milage and/or a low
efficiency vehicle.

The only thing it does not address is particulate emissions that could
be anywhere from practically zero (new vehicle) to clouds of black smoke.

If you want to see black smoke - go to Paddington station.

Scrap VED at the same time.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"newshound" wrote in message
...

On 4/17/2017 11:15 AM, Richard wrote:
"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...


Exactly. How long before you won't be able to drive it to any city
centre hospital. (Because it is in a city centre, rather than because it
is a hospital).

The point is being missed. They don't want to ban them, merely charge
extra for you to drive in their ****ty centres.

The charge is not a fund raising exercise, it is an incentive to change
behaviour.

Just like speed cameras then. As soon as the revenue drops, they introduce
bus lanes, etc.

On Monday, 17 April 2017 22:44:10 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 4/17/2017 11:15 AM, Richard wrote:
"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...

On 4/17/2017 10:51 AM, Huge wrote:
On 2017-04-17, Tim Watts wrote:
On 17/04/17 10:37, Huge wrote:
On 2017-04-17, Graeme wrote:
In message , Chris Hogg
writes

But particulate carbon isn't the only problem. Because of the hotter
combustion temperatures, diesels emit more NOx, which seems to be
the
main point of issue ATM. I gather there may be catalytic NOx
filters,
but the current fuss suggests they don't work very well.

Making a decision now is certainly difficult. We only manage 5-6,000
miles a year, minimum journey 10 miles, average 50 and, once a year,
500. All each way. I keep looking at the Dacia Duster, and have
spoken
to as many drivers as possible, and have not yet found anyone with
a bad
word to say about them, except that the diesel is preferable to the
petrol engine.

Very tempting, given the price.

I wouldn't buy a diesel at the moment. Not until the Government has
sorted
out what its attitude towards them is going to be. You might find
there are
a lot of place you're not allowed to take it.



I suspect all the places will be places I would never drive (eg centre
of massive cities like London).

Quite possibly, but the problem is that none of us know, as yet.


Exactly. How long before you won't be able to drive it to any city
centre hospital. (Because it is in a city centre, rather than because
it is a hospital).

The point is being missed. They don't want to ban them, merely charge
extra for you to drive in their ****ty centres.

The charge is not a fund raising exercise, it is an incentive to change
behaviour.

To what?

On Monday, 17 April 2017 16:48:16 UTC+1, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
On 17/04/17 11:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Huge wrote:

The (proposed) scrappage scheme is geographically based, so your figures
are irrelevant.

So to be even vaguely worthwhile (a grand or two) it will need to be
highly selective, applying to 0.5 to 1% of all cars?

Presumably these will be in marginal constituencies, then ...

It will be the usual mess. Based on age or whatever, rather on the worst
polluting vehicles. Which aren't always going to be the oldest.


Shouldn't we _not_ be rewarding car manufacturers with opportunities to
make more sales of vehicles? They themselves should be funding the
scrappage, not the tax payer.

Should all tax payers _not_ be subsidising those lucky enough to be in
the situation of nearly buying a new car? It's like Solar panels and FIT.

Scrappage is a discount of a *new* vehicle, the type of purchase that
devalues by a similar or worse amount in days when first driven off the
forecourt.

As a lot of folks are a bit wiser than that, I'd rather something was
done on secondhand trades. Was it? I wasn't watching the 2009 scrappage
thing that closely.

A new equivalent for my 2004 diesel lump with similar fuel/pulling
performance would be a smaller engine with a necessary turbo charger.
Sod it, I'll be going electric...

... and ten years time, will be the electric vehicle scrappage event.
Car electromagnetic field emissions seriously harming the directional
finding abilities of Pigeons we'll be told ...


--
Adrian C

Be warned.
Nobody can fix electric/hybrid cars should it go wrong.

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 23:49:57 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote:



I've got a diesel. I hope that Blackpool bans them.

No. It is worth visiting Blackpool every so often, just to remind
yourself just how tacky things can be.


And it overflows into the hinterland. Doesn't Pounder with his
plastic butterflies live around there in the Preston area.



G.Harman

On Monday, 17 April 2017 16:48:16 UTC+1, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
On 17/04/17 11:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Huge wrote:

The (proposed) scrappage scheme is geographically based, so your figures
are irrelevant.

So to be even vaguely worthwhile (a grand or two) it will need to be
highly selective, applying to 0.5 to 1% of all cars?

Presumably these will be in marginal constituencies, then ...

It will be the usual mess. Based on age or whatever, rather on the worst
polluting vehicles. Which aren't always going to be the oldest.


Shouldn't we _not_ be rewarding car manufacturers with opportunities to
make more sales of vehicles? They themselves should be funding the
scrappage, not the tax payer.

Should all tax payers _not_ be subsidising those lucky enough to be in
the situation of nearly buying a new car? It's like Solar panels and FIT.

Scrappage is a discount of a *new* vehicle, the type of purchase that
devalues by a similar or worse amount in days when first driven off the
forecourt.

As a lot of folks are a bit wiser than that, I'd rather something was
done on secondhand trades. Was it? I wasn't watching the 2009 scrappage
thing that closely.

A new equivalent for my 2004 diesel lump with similar fuel/pulling
performance would be a smaller engine with a necessary turbo charger.
Sod it, I'll be going electric...

... and ten years time, will be the electric vehicle scrappage event.
Car electromagnetic field emissions seriously harming the directional
finding abilities of Pigeons we'll be told ...


--
Adrian C

Even if true (unlikely), they canbe shielded against.

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 06:32:58 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article , Tim Watts
wrote:
On 17/04/17 10:37, Huge wrote:
On 2017-04-17, Graeme wrote:
In message , Chris Hogg
writes

But particulate carbon isn't the only problem. Because of the hotter
combustion temperatures, diesels emit more NOx, which seems to be the
main point of issue ATM. I gather there may be catalytic NOx filters,
but the current fuss suggests they don't work very well.

Making a decision now is certainly difficult. We only manage 5-6,000
miles a year, minimum journey 10 miles, average 50 and, once a year,
500. All each way. I keep looking at the Dacia Duster, and have
spoken to as many drivers as possible, and have not yet found anyone
with a bad word to say about them, except that the diesel is
preferable to the petrol engine.

Very tempting, given the price.

I wouldn't buy a diesel at the moment. Not until the Government has
sorted out what its attitude towards them is going to be. You might
find there are a lot of place you're not allowed to take it.



I suspect all the places will be places I would never drive (eg centre
of massive cities like London).

waht about the taxis, delivery lorries, service buses, long distance
coaches, tourist coaches, railway locaomotives ? Are they all to be banned
as well?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

Railway locomotives could be electric & could do a lot of the above.

In article , harry
wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 06:32:58 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article , Tim Watts
wrote:
On 17/04/17 10:37, Huge wrote:
On 2017-04-17, Graeme wrote:
In message , Chris
Hogg writes

But particulate carbon isn't the only problem. Because of the
hotter combustion temperatures, diesels emit more NOx, which
seems to be the main point of issue ATM. I gather there may be
catalytic NOx filters, but the current fuss suggests they don't
work very well.

Making a decision now is certainly difficult. We only manage
5-6,000 miles a year, minimum journey 10 miles, average 50 and,
once a year, 500. All each way. I keep looking at the Dacia
Duster, and have spoken to as many drivers as possible, and have
not yet found anyone with a bad word to say about them, except
that the diesel is preferable to the petrol engine.

Very tempting, given the price.

I wouldn't buy a diesel at the moment. Not until the Government has
sorted out what its attitude towards them is going to be. You might
find there are a lot of place you're not allowed to take it.



I suspect all the places will be places I would never drive (eg
centre of massive cities like London).

waht about the taxis, delivery lorries, service buses, long distance
coaches, tourist coaches, railway locaomotives ? Are they all to be
banned as well?

-- from KT24 in Surrey, England

Railway locomotives could be electric & could do a lot of the above.

pray, how do electric railway locomotives do most of the above without the
tracks being converted to provide power and then laid through all the city
streets? I suppose you could call them trams .......

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

charles wrote:

In article , Tim Watts
wrote:
On 17/04/17 10:37, Huge wrote:
On 2017-04-17, Graeme wrote:
In message , Chris Hogg
writes

But particulate carbon isn't the only problem. Because of the hotter
combustion temperatures, diesels emit more NOx, which seems to be the
main point of issue ATM. I gather there may be catalytic NOx filters,
but the current fuss suggests they don't work very well.

Making a decision now is certainly difficult. We only manage 5-6,000
miles a year, minimum journey 10 miles, average 50 and, once a year,
500. All each way. I keep looking at the Dacia Duster, and have
spoken to as many drivers as possible, and have not yet found anyone
with a bad word to say about them, except that the diesel is
preferable to the petrol engine.

Very tempting, given the price.

I wouldn't buy a diesel at the moment. Not until the Government has
sorted out what its attitude towards them is going to be. You might
find there are a lot of place you're not allowed to take it.



I suspect all the places will be places I would never drive (eg centre
of massive cities like London).

waht about the taxis, delivery lorries, service buses, long distance
coaches, tourist coaches, railway locaomotives ? Are they all to be banned
as well?

It is possible (and easy from the DVLC database by ANPR) to identify and
penalise diesel cars, and the authorities have no reason whatever to be
consistent in their treatment of other static and vehicular diesel
engines. They can rationalise their policy if they want to, and the
rationalisation may even make sense. I've no idea what proportion of
diesel pollution comes from cars, but I am pretty sure it would harder
for a railway locomotive to be converted from diesel to petrol or
batteries than for a car.


--

Roger Hayter

On 16/04/2017 18:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/04/17 18:32, Andy Burns wrote:
I hear an MP is suggesting a scrappage scheme for diesel cars.

If there are 31 million cars on the road and 38% of them are diesel,
does he really think a £100m scheme providing an average of £8/car is
going to cut it?

Virtue signalling is about concepts, not sums.

I save more than that *per week* by having a diesel car even in the UK
where ridiculously diesel fuel is more expensive than petrol.

If they put hard constraints on driving in some inner cities then I
simply won't drive there. Normally I take park and ride or buses into
major cities anyway since parking there is expensive and/or impossible.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 18/04/2017 09:43, charles wrote:
waht about the taxis, delivery lorries, service buses, long distance
coaches, tourist coaches, railway locaomotives ? Are they all to be
banned as well?

-- from KT24 in Surrey, England

Railway locomotives could be electric & could do a lot of the above.

pray, how do electric railway locomotives do most of the above without the
tracks being converted to provide power and then laid through all the city
streets? I suppose you could call them trams .......

Trams on streets? The cyclists would never allow it!

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 11:37:40 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

One proposal from the Mayor of London is within the boundaries of the
North and South circular roads. And an awful lot of people live within
those.

So? All that area has very good public transport. The vast majority
of people in that area have no real need to own a car. Taxi for the
weekly shop (or shock horror just walk more often) for groceries,
hire for the occasional longer journey. With a car costing around
40p/mile to run (fuel, insurance, maintenace, depreciation, etc) the
£2000 that 5,000 miles/year costs buys quite a few taxi trips and
hires...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 14:28:01 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Surely if someone is so unwell they need to travel many miles to a large
hospital, you'd call an ambulance?

And wait the hour it'll take to arrive?

The local retained(*1) Ambulance will probably arrive in 10 minets or
so but I don't think they are allowed to transport a patient the 30+
miles to hsopital. If only because it would mean no ambulance cover
for the 2 hours (plus waiting time at A&E...) that it would be away
for. Serious cases would be transported by the air ambulance,
assuming the weather will allow it and it's not dark(*2).

(*1) Ambulance crewed by properly trained volunteers, a bit like the
retained fire stations. I think it's the only such crewed ambulance
in the country.

(*2) They may now have night flying qualifications and equipment. IF
they do it's a fairly recent addition to the GNAAS capabilties.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article ,
charles wrote:
I suspect all the places will be places I would never drive (eg centre
of massive cities like London).

waht about the taxis, delivery lorries, service buses, long distance
coaches, tourist coaches, railway locaomotives ? Are they all to be
banned as well?

And how about those who live there? Are they to be denied owning a car?

--
*Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
Hardly NO2, though, is it? And "visible smoke" is an MoT failure, so
he's already illegal. (I'd favour automated enforcement of that
rule, over speeding.)

Pretty well every diesel seems to smoke if you accelate hard after a
period of gentle use. You'll see that at the start of the M4 at London
where it becomes a 70 mph limit, and uphill.

--
*Errors have been made. Others will be blamed.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article l.net,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 11:37:40 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

One proposal from the Mayor of London is within the boundaries of the
North and South circular roads. And an awful lot of people live within
those.

So? All that area has very good public transport. The vast majority
of people in that area have no real need to own a car. Taxi for the
weekly shop (or shock horror just walk more often) for groceries,
hire for the occasional longer journey. With a car costing around
40p/mile to run (fuel, insurance, maintenace, depreciation, etc) the
£2000 that 5,000 miles/year costs buys quite a few taxi trips and
hires...

Not quite sure how having things delivered by a diesel van or using a
diesel taxi is going to help pollution?

And running costs are entirely dependant on the vehicle.

One thing that seems to be ignored by the politicians. Some of the highest
pollution readings are obtained in Oxford Street - where private cars are
banned.

--
*Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Pretty well every diesel seems to smoke if you accelate hard after a
period of gentle use.

My non-DPF honda used to smoke under hard acceleration, the easiest time
to tell is when someone is following you up a motorway on-ramp at night
with their headlights on. My DPF Audi certainly does not smoke.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Capitol" wrote in message
...
Bill wrote:
£7k for a 10 y o car doesn't spell worthless to me.

To me it spells wild optimism on the part of the seller!

except that there were dozens of them

Capitol is likely only talking about the cars he knows about. A 10 year
old Lada my well be worthless. Even a new one.

is there such a thing?

tim



--
*One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"Capitol" wrote in message
...
Bill wrote:
£7k for a 10 y o car doesn't spell worthless to me.

To me it spells wild optimism on the part of the seller!

except that there were dozens of them

Capitol is likely only talking about the cars he knows about. A 10 year
old Lada my well be worthless. Even a new one.

is there such a thing?

Yes.

--
*Save the whale - I'll have it for my supper*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 13:44:36 +0100, NY wrote:

the NHS "free at the point of use" founding principle doesn't
apply to transport/parking.

Or to dental treatment or opticians...

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 11:57:58 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Pretty well every diesel seems to smoke if you accelate hard after a
period of gentle use.

My non-DPF honda used to smoke under hard acceleration, the easiest time
to tell is when someone is following you up a motorway on-ramp at night
with their headlights on. My DPF Audi certainly does not smoke.

How is it on NOX?

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 11:56:24 +0100,
lid wrote:

I had a diesel 10 years ago that had a cat and didn't emit much in the
way of NOx...

How would you know?

mechanic wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

My non-DPF honda used to smoke under hard acceleration, the easiest time
to tell is when someone is following you up a motorway on-ramp at night
with their headlights on. My DPF Audi certainly does not smoke.

How is it on NOX

I could give you a 'paper' answer, but you'll say the test was rigged,
so I'll simply say that I don't particularly care ...

On 18/04/2017 18:56, mechanic wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 11:56:24 +0100,
lid wrote:

I had a diesel 10 years ago that had a cat and didn't emit much in the
way of NOx...

How would you know?


Because I had the reports from the tester.

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 18:11:02 +0100, Bill wrote:

Are all the gas power stations needed for electric vehicles NOx
free?

They aren't in city centres!

On 18/04/17 19:50, mechanic wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 18:11:02 +0100, Bill wrote:

Are all the gas power stations needed for electric vehicles NOx
free?

They aren't in city centres!

The whole principle of a city is to be a total parasite on the
countryside where all the food is grown, water is collected, **** is
dealt with and power is generated.

They should all be nuked


--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx