Discussion:
London pollution monitoring
(too old to reply)
Recliner
2019-05-10 08:25:03 UTC
Permalink
Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how to clean your
air

<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454691>
Graeme Wall
2019-05-10 09:37:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how to clean your
air
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454691>
Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only measuring one type
of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic "cures" that only address part
of the problem. It was the same concentration on one pollutant and
ignoring the others that gave us the Diesel Disaster.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Recliner
2019-05-10 09:52:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how to clean your
air
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454691>
Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only measuring one type
of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic "cures" that only address part
of the problem. It was the same concentration on one pollutant and
ignoring the others that gave us the Diesel Disaster.
True, though particulates seem to be one of the main causes of urban
ill-health. That's now a much bigger factor than global warming, at least
as far as local regulations are concerned.
Graeme Wall
2019-05-10 12:33:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how to clean your
air
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454691>
Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only measuring one type
of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic "cures" that only address part
of the problem. It was the same concentration on one pollutant and
ignoring the others that gave us the Diesel Disaster.
True, though particulates seem to be one of the main causes of urban
ill-health. That's now a much bigger factor than global warming, at least
as far as local regulations are concerned.
My point was that there are several types of particulate, acknowledged
in the article. The exercise only monitored one of them. By
concentrating on one of them we run the risk of a simplistic "fix" at
best leaving the others as they are or at worst exacerbating the
problems caused by the others. Which is what happened with the diesel
disaster. By only addressing the CO2 problem they made the health
problem far worse.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Recliner
2019-05-10 15:17:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how to clean your
air
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454691>
Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only measuring one type
of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic "cures" that only address part
of the problem. It was the same concentration on one pollutant and
ignoring the others that gave us the Diesel Disaster.
True, though particulates seem to be one of the main causes of urban
ill-health. That's now a much bigger factor than global warming, at least
as far as local regulations are concerned.
My point was that there are several types of particulate, acknowledged
in the article. The exercise only monitored one of them. By
concentrating on one of them we run the risk of a simplistic "fix" at
best leaving the others as they are or at worst exacerbating the
problems caused by the others. Which is what happened with the diesel
disaster. By only addressing the CO2 problem they made the health
problem far worse.
Yes, that's true.
JNugent
2019-05-11 08:57:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how to clean your
air
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454691>
Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only measuring one type
of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic "cures" that only address part
of the problem.  It was the same concentration on one pollutant and
ignoring the others that gave us the Diesel Disaster.
To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel disaster"?

The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who followed
government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars rather than
petrol and are now being penalised for it?

It must be that.
Graeme Wall
2019-05-11 09:26:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how to clean your
air
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454691>
Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only measuring one
type of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic "cures" that only
address part of the problem.  It was the same concentration on one
pollutant and ignoring the others that gave us the Diesel Disaster.
To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel disaster"?
The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who followed
government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars rather than
petrol and are now being penalised for it?
It must be that.
That is a symptom, not the problem. The problem is by wanting a quick
political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact that diesels are
responsible for much greater general pollution even if the manufacturers
hadn't been cheating on the tests.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
John Williamson
2019-05-11 10:43:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who followed
government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars rather than
petrol and are now being penalised for it?
It must be that.
That is a symptom, not the problem. The problem is by wanting a quick
political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact that diesels are
responsible for much greater general pollution even if the manufacturers
hadn't been cheating on the tests.
At the time when the government were pushing for diesel cars, all the
green lobby were bemoaning how much more CO2 petrol cars emitted than
diesel, so all petrol cars must be replaced immediately by diesel ones.
When it was pointed out that petrol ones were cleaner in other ways than
diesel, they effectively just put their fingers in their ears "La, la,
la. I can't hear you. Got to reduce CO2 to save the planet"

Slightly related to this, I run a G-Wiz, and have worked out that using
the normal mix of generation in the UK, my CO2 emissions are equivalent
to a petrol car doing 40 MPG.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
b***@cl7lvq7xm.co.uk
2019-05-12 09:36:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 May 2019 11:43:06 +0100
Post by John Williamson
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who followed
government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars rather than
petrol and are now being penalised for it?
It must be that.
That is a symptom, not the problem. The problem is by wanting a quick
political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact that diesels are
responsible for much greater general pollution even if the manufacturers
hadn't been cheating on the tests.
At the time when the government were pushing for diesel cars, all the
green lobby were bemoaning how much more CO2 petrol cars emitted than
diesel, so all petrol cars must be replaced immediately by diesel ones.
When it was pointed out that petrol ones were cleaner in other ways than
diesel, they effectively just put their fingers in their ears "La, la,
la. I can't hear you. Got to reduce CO2 to save the planet"
CO2 is the important pollutant, all the others are irrelevent. If all traffic
stopped now the particulates and NOx would be gone in a day. The CO2 will still
be around for thousands of years to come.
Post by John Williamson
Slightly related to this, I run a G-Wiz, and have worked out that using
Why? Apart from having no crash protection they're small, slow and have a very
limited range. They're 1980s engineering.
Post by John Williamson
the normal mix of generation in the UK, my CO2 emissions are equivalent
to a petrol car doing 40 MPG.
That seems a bit pessimistic to me, especialy given UK generation has run
without coal now for a week.
John Williamson
2019-05-12 10:51:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@cl7lvq7xm.co.uk
Post by John Williamson
Slightly related to this, I run a G-Wiz, and have worked out that using
Why? Apart from having no crash protection they're small, slow and have a very
limited range. They're 1980s engineering.
My daily commute is two miles, all inside the 30 mph limit. That quickly
wrecks an internal combustion engine, so an electric vehicle makes
sense. It gets charged twice a week. Also, the most important piece of
safety equipment on any car is the squishy bit between the seat and the
steering wheel. If I had spent double what it cost me to buy,I could
save about a third of the energy, if I had spent five times more, I
could have a safer vehicle. I drive 25 miles a week or less in my
private car, and 200 to 400 miles a day at work.
Post by b***@cl7lvq7xm.co.uk
Post by John Williamson
the normal mix of generation in the UK, my CO2 emissions are equivalent
to a petrol car doing 40 MPG.
That seems a bit pessimistic to me, especialy given UK generation has run
without coal now for a week.
At the time I checked it, it was accurate,using live figures. If I were
charging it today, it would be about 80 mpg.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
tim...
2019-05-12 15:26:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Williamson
Post by b***@cl7lvq7xm.co.uk
Post by John Williamson
Slightly related to this, I run a G-Wiz, and have worked out that using
Why? Apart from having no crash protection they're small, slow and have a very
limited range. They're 1980s engineering.
My daily commute is two miles, all inside the 30 mph limit. That quickly
wrecks an internal combustion engine, so an electric vehicle makes sense.
walking or bicycle even more so

tim
John Williamson
2019-05-12 16:47:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by John Williamson
My daily commute is two miles, all inside the 30 mph limit. That
quickly wrecks an internal combustion engine, so an electric vehicle
makes sense.
walking or bicycle even more so
It's nice that you know more about my personal circumstances than I do,
so you can make better decisions about my lifestyle than I can.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
b***@pkubpw6pa5y6e_xdlq.com
2019-05-12 18:49:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 May 2019 11:51:05 +0100
Post by John Williamson
Post by b***@cl7lvq7xm.co.uk
Post by John Williamson
Slightly related to this, I run a G-Wiz, and have worked out that using
Why? Apart from having no crash protection they're small, slow and have a
very
Post by b***@cl7lvq7xm.co.uk
limited range. They're 1980s engineering.
My daily commute is two miles, all inside the 30 mph limit. That quickly
wrecks an internal combustion engine, so an electric vehicle makes
sense. It gets charged twice a week. Also, the most important piece of
safety equipment on any car is the squishy bit between the seat and the
That statement works if you're assuming crashes only happen when *you* make a
mistake and so try to avoid doing so. Often people are injured or killed
through no fault of their own when they're hit by another vehicle. In that
situation your chances in a G Wiz will be little better than being on a
motorbike.
Optimist
2019-05-12 20:26:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 May 2019 09:36:12 +0000 (UTC), ***@cl7lvq7xm.co.uk wrote:

[snipped]
Post by b***@cl7lvq7xm.co.uk
CO2 is the important pollutant, all the others are irrelevent. If all traffic
stopped now the particulates and NOx would be gone in a day. The CO2 will still
be around for thousands of years to come.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but far less potent in that respect than water vapour - but no-one suggests
trying to reduce emissions of water vapour! Neither gas is a pollutant, they are both essential for
photosynthesis without which all life would cease. Moreover, horticulturists deliberately increase
atmospheric CO2 concentrations in greenhouses and polytunnels to boost crop yields.
b***@pw2wsmelj4bkvlkv.net
2019-05-13 09:44:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 May 2019 21:26:55 +0100
Post by Optimist
[snipped]
Post by b***@cl7lvq7xm.co.uk
CO2 is the important pollutant, all the others are irrelevent. If all traffic
stopped now the particulates and NOx would be gone in a day. The CO2 will
still
Post by b***@cl7lvq7xm.co.uk
be around for thousands of years to come.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but far less potent in that respect than water vapour
- but no-one suggests
trying to reduce emissions of water vapour! Neither gas is a pollutant, they
I can't believe people are still rehashing this tired old excuse for not
cutting CO2 emissions.

https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-carbon-dioxide-isnt-t
he-most-important-greenhouse-gas/
Post by Optimist
are both essential for
photosynthesis without which all life would cease. Moreover, horticulturists
deliberately increase
atmospheric CO2 concentrations in greenhouses and polytunnels to boost crop yields.
*sigh*. You might as well state that because all plants require water why not
plant them underwater. Also there are different type of photosynthesis and
when the temperature goes up the most important one stops working properly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C3_carbon_fixation

"The C3 plants, originating during Mesozoic and Paleozoic eras, predate the C4 p
lants and still represent approximately 95% of Earth's plant biomass, including
important food crops such as rice, wheat, soybeans and barley."

"C3 plants cannot grow in very hot areas "

And just for you:

http://www.passmyexams.co.uk/GCSE/biology/carbondioxide-affecting-rate-of-photos
ynthesis.html
JNugent
2019-05-11 20:22:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how to clean your
air
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454691>
Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only measuring one
type of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic "cures" that only
address part of the problem.  It was the same concentration on one
pollutant and ignoring the others that gave us the Diesel Disaster.
To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel disaster"?
The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who followed
government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars rather than
petrol and are now being penalised for it?
It must be that.
That is a symptom, not the problem.  The problem is by wanting a quick
political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact that diesels are
responsible for much greater general pollution even if the manufacturers
hadn't been cheating on the tests.
Taking you at your word, that may be a problem.

But where is the "disaster"?

[By that, I mean other than the financial disaster which has befallen
anyone stuck with a running term of car finance and now having to find
an extra £62.50 a week - or more - simply to be where they were before
Khan stabbed them in the back. Obviously.]
Graeme Wall
2019-05-12 09:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how to clean your
air
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454691>
Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only measuring one
type of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic "cures" that only
address part of the problem.  It was the same concentration on one
pollutant and ignoring the others that gave us the Diesel Disaster.
To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel disaster"?
The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who followed
government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars rather than
petrol and are now being penalised for it?
It must be that.
That is a symptom, not the problem.  The problem is by wanting a quick
political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact that diesels are
responsible for much greater general pollution even if the
manufacturers hadn't been cheating on the tests.
Taking you at your word, that may be a problem.
But where is the "disaster"?
[By that, I mean other than the financial disaster which has befallen
anyone stuck with a running term of car finance and now having to find
an extra £62.50 a week - or more - simply to be where they were before
Khan stabbed them in the back. Obviously.]
The health problems it is causing.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
JNugent
2019-05-13 15:04:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how to
clean your air
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454691>
Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only measuring one
type of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic "cures" that only
address part of the problem.  It was the same concentration on one
pollutant and ignoring the others that gave us the Diesel Disaster.
To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel disaster"?
The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who followed
government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars rather than
petrol and are now being penalised for it?
It must be that.
That is a symptom, not the problem.  The problem is by wanting a
quick political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact that
diesels are responsible for much greater general pollution even if
the manufacturers hadn't been cheating on the tests.
Taking you at your word, that may be a problem.
But where is the "disaster"?
[By that, I mean other than the financial disaster which has befallen
anyone stuck with a running term of car finance and now having to find
an extra £62.50 a week - or more - simply to be where they were before
Khan stabbed them in the back. Obviously.]
The health problems it is causing.
There's a "...said to be..." missing there.

If the level of air pollution were as dangerous as claimed by some, none
of us would survive it. But the vast majority of us do manage to survive
it, somehow - even those of us born and bred in inner-city locations.

Extrapolating up from the odd case here and there is unimpressive.

Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with an
underlying agenda).

But you don't need me to tell you that.
Graeme Wall
2019-05-13 15:17:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how to
clean your air
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454691>
Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only measuring
one type of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic "cures" that
only address part of the problem.  It was the same concentration
on one pollutant and ignoring the others that gave us the Diesel
Disaster.
To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel disaster"?
The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who followed
government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars rather than
petrol and are now being penalised for it?
It must be that.
That is a symptom, not the problem.  The problem is by wanting a
quick political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact that
diesels are responsible for much greater general pollution even if
the manufacturers hadn't been cheating on the tests.
Taking you at your word, that may be a problem.
But where is the "disaster"?
[By that, I mean other than the financial disaster which has befallen
anyone stuck with a running term of car finance and now having to
find an extra £62.50 a week - or more - simply to be where they were
before Khan stabbed them in the back. Obviously.]
The health problems it is causing.
There's a "...said to be..." missing there.
If the level of air pollution were as dangerous as claimed by some, none
of us would survive it. But the vast majority of us do manage to survive
it, somehow - even those of us born and bred in inner-city locations.
Extrapolating up from the odd case here and there is unimpressive.
Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with an
underlying agenda).
But you don't need me to tell you that.
I'm intrigued to know what you think my "underlying agenda" is.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
JNugent
2019-05-13 18:27:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how to
clean your air
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454691>
Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only measuring
one type of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic "cures" that
only address part of the problem.  It was the same concentration
on one pollutant and ignoring the others that gave us the Diesel
Disaster.
To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel disaster"?
The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who followed
government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars rather than
petrol and are now being penalised for it?
It must be that.
That is a symptom, not the problem.  The problem is by wanting a
quick political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact that
diesels are responsible for much greater general pollution even if
the manufacturers hadn't been cheating on the tests.
Taking you at your word, that may be a problem.
But where is the "disaster"?
[By that, I mean other than the financial disaster which has
befallen anyone stuck with a running term of car finance and now
having to find an extra £62.50 a week - or more - simply to be where
they were before Khan stabbed them in the back. Obviously.]
The health problems it is causing.
There's a "...said to be..." missing there.
If the level of air pollution were as dangerous as claimed by some,
none of us would survive it. But the vast majority of us do manage to
survive it, somehow - even those of us born and bred in inner-city
locations.
Extrapolating up from the odd case here and there is unimpressive.
Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with an
underlying agenda).
But you don't need me to tell you that.
I'm intrigued to know what you think my "underlying agenda" is.
I didn't say you had one.

I'm intrigued as to why you assumed I did say it. You certainly aren't
the first one to label a normal and unexceptional means of transport a
disaster.
Graeme Wall
2019-05-13 19:08:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how
to clean your air
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454691>
Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only measuring
one type of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic "cures" that
only address part of the problem.  It was the same concentration
on one pollutant and ignoring the others that gave us the Diesel
Disaster.
To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel disaster"?
The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who followed
government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars rather
than petrol and are now being penalised for it?
It must be that.
That is a symptom, not the problem.  The problem is by wanting a
quick political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact that
diesels are responsible for much greater general pollution even if
the manufacturers hadn't been cheating on the tests.
Taking you at your word, that may be a problem.
But where is the "disaster"?
[By that, I mean other than the financial disaster which has
befallen anyone stuck with a running term of car finance and now
having to find an extra £62.50 a week - or more - simply to be
where they were before Khan stabbed them in the back. Obviously.]
The health problems it is causing.
There's a "...said to be..." missing there.
If the level of air pollution were as dangerous as claimed by some,
none of us would survive it. But the vast majority of us do manage to
survive it, somehow - even those of us born and bred in inner-city
locations.
Extrapolating up from the odd case here and there is unimpressive.
Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with an
underlying agenda).
But you don't need me to tell you that.
I'm intrigued to know what you think my "underlying agenda" is.
I didn't say you had one.
So who is the line "Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit
hyperbole with an underlying agenda)." aimed at"?
Post by JNugent
I'm intrigued as to why you assumed I did say it. You certainly aren't
the first one to label a normal and unexceptional means of transport a
disaster.
I think you have badly missed the point.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
JNugent
2019-05-13 20:17:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how
to clean your air
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454691>
Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only measuring
one type of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic "cures" that
only address part of the problem.  It was the same
concentration on one pollutant and ignoring the others that
gave us the Diesel Disaster.
To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel disaster"?
The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who
followed government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars
rather than petrol and are now being penalised for it?
It must be that.
That is a symptom, not the problem.  The problem is by wanting a
quick political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact that
diesels are responsible for much greater general pollution even
if the manufacturers hadn't been cheating on the tests.
Taking you at your word, that may be a problem.
But where is the "disaster"?
[By that, I mean other than the financial disaster which has
befallen anyone stuck with a running term of car finance and now
having to find an extra £62.50 a week - or more - simply to be
where they were before Khan stabbed them in the back. Obviously.]
The health problems it is causing.
There's a "...said to be..." missing there.
If the level of air pollution were as dangerous as claimed by some,
none of us would survive it. But the vast majority of us do manage
to survive it, somehow - even those of us born and bred in
inner-city locations.
Extrapolating up from the odd case here and there is unimpressive.
Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with an
underlying agenda).
But you don't need me to tell you that.
I'm intrigued to know what you think my "underlying agenda" is.
I didn't say you had one.
So who is the line "Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit
hyperbole with an underlying agenda)." aimed at"?
Those who are behind the movement to (a) restrict mobility and (b) tax
people more - and are using the diesel excuse to facilitate it - and
coined the phrase.

You aren't a decision maker at the Mayor's office or TaL, are you?
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
I'm intrigued as to why you assumed I did say it. You certainly aren't
the first one to label a normal and unexceptional means of transport a
disaster.
I think you have badly missed the point.
I don't think so.
Graeme Wall
2019-05-13 20:27:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how
to clean your air
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454691>
Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only
measuring one type of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic
"cures" that only address part of the problem.  It was the
same concentration on one pollutant and ignoring the others
that gave us the Diesel Disaster.
To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel disaster"?
The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who
followed government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars
rather than petrol and are now being penalised for it?
It must be that.
That is a symptom, not the problem.  The problem is by wanting a
quick political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact that
diesels are responsible for much greater general pollution even
if the manufacturers hadn't been cheating on the tests.
Taking you at your word, that may be a problem.
But where is the "disaster"?
[By that, I mean other than the financial disaster which has
befallen anyone stuck with a running term of car finance and now
having to find an extra £62.50 a week - or more - simply to be
where they were before Khan stabbed them in the back. Obviously.]
The health problems it is causing.
There's a "...said to be..." missing there.
If the level of air pollution were as dangerous as claimed by some,
none of us would survive it. But the vast majority of us do manage
to survive it, somehow - even those of us born and bred in
inner-city locations.
Extrapolating up from the odd case here and there is unimpressive.
Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with an
underlying agenda).
But you don't need me to tell you that.
I'm intrigued to know what you think my "underlying agenda" is.
I didn't say you had one.
So who is the line "Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit
hyperbole with an underlying agenda)." aimed at"?
Those who are behind the movement to (a) restrict mobility and (b) tax
people more - and are using the diesel excuse to facilitate it -  and
coined the phrase.
You aren't a decision maker at the Mayor's office or TaL, are you?
Ah, a conspiracy theorist, nuff said.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
JNugent
2019-05-14 13:45:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube —
how to clean your air
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454691>
Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only
measuring one type of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic
"cures" that only address part of the problem.  It was the
same concentration on one pollutant and ignoring the others
that gave us the Diesel Disaster.
To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel disaster"?
The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who
followed government advice and incentives by buying diesel
cars rather than petrol and are now being penalised for it?
It must be that.
That is a symptom, not the problem.  The problem is by wanting
a quick political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact
that diesels are responsible for much greater general pollution
even if the manufacturers hadn't been cheating on the tests.
Taking you at your word, that may be a problem.
But where is the "disaster"?
[By that, I mean other than the financial disaster which has
befallen anyone stuck with a running term of car finance and now
having to find an extra £62.50 a week - or more - simply to be
where they were before Khan stabbed them in the back. Obviously.]
The health problems it is causing.
There's a "...said to be..." missing there.
If the level of air pollution were as dangerous as claimed by
some, none of us would survive it. But the vast majority of us do
manage to survive it, somehow - even those of us born and bred in
inner-city locations.
Extrapolating up from the odd case here and there is unimpressive.
Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with
an underlying agenda).
But you don't need me to tell you that.
I'm intrigued to know what you think my "underlying agenda" is.
I didn't say you had one.
So who is the line "Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit
hyperbole with an underlying agenda)." aimed at"?
Those who are behind the movement to (a) restrict mobility and (b) tax
people more - and are using the diesel excuse to facilitate it -  and
coined the phrase.
You aren't a decision maker at the Mayor's office or TaL, are you?
Ah, a conspiracy theorist, nuff said.
If you are claiming that there is no plan to restrict travel by car and
no plan to extract more money from those doing it, you are plainly wrong.

When something looks like a duck...
Graeme Wall
2019-05-14 14:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube —
how to clean your air
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454691>
Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only
measuring one type of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic
"cures" that only address part of the problem.  It was the
same concentration on one pollutant and ignoring the others
that gave us the Diesel Disaster.
To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel disaster"?
The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who
followed government advice and incentives by buying diesel
cars rather than petrol and are now being penalised for it?
It must be that.
That is a symptom, not the problem.  The problem is by wanting
a quick political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact
that diesels are responsible for much greater general
pollution even if the manufacturers hadn't been cheating on
the tests.
Taking you at your word, that may be a problem.
But where is the "disaster"?
[By that, I mean other than the financial disaster which has
befallen anyone stuck with a running term of car finance and
now having to find an extra £62.50 a week - or more - simply to
be where they were before Khan stabbed them in the back.
Obviously.]
The health problems it is causing.
There's a "...said to be..." missing there.
If the level of air pollution were as dangerous as claimed by
some, none of us would survive it. But the vast majority of us do
manage to survive it, somehow - even those of us born and bred in
inner-city locations.
Extrapolating up from the odd case here and there is unimpressive.
Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with
an underlying agenda).
But you don't need me to tell you that.
I'm intrigued to know what you think my "underlying agenda" is.
I didn't say you had one.
So who is the line "Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole
(albeit hyperbole with an underlying agenda)." aimed at"?
Those who are behind the movement to (a) restrict mobility and (b)
tax people more - and are using the diesel excuse to facilitate it -
and coined the phrase.
You aren't a decision maker at the Mayor's office or TaL, are you?
Ah, a conspiracy theorist, nuff said.
If you are claiming that there is no plan to restrict travel by car and
no plan to extract more money from those doing it, you are plainly wrong.
When something looks like a duck...
As I said, you've totally missed my point, but carry on duck hunting in
a turkey farm if it pleases you.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Robin9
2019-06-30 10:23:51 UTC
Permalink
Should Sadiq Khan, TfL or the London Borough of Waltham Forest
each be fined £ 100.00?

http://tinyurl.com/y2pe3yvd

There is no environmental difference between a car parked with
its engine running and a car needlessly stationery because
unnecessary traffic lights have been installed or because pavements
have been widened to prevent cars from overtaking a bus


--
Robin9
Roland Perry
2019-06-30 13:26:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin9
Should Sadiq Khan, TfL or the London Borough of Waltham Forest
each be fined £ 100.00?
http://tinyurl.com/y2pe3yvd
There is no environmental difference between a car parked with
its engine running and a car needlessly stationery
that envelopes a whole range of other issues.
Post by Robin9
because unnecessary traffic lights have been installed or because
pavements have been widened to prevent cars from overtaking a bus.
--
Roland Perry
MissRiaElaine
2019-06-30 14:55:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin9
Should Sadiq Khan, TfL or the London Borough of Waltham Forest
each be fined £ 100.00?
http://tinyurl.com/y2pe3yvd
There is no environmental difference between a car parked with
its engine running and a car needlessly stationery because
unnecessary traffic lights have been installed or because pavements
have been widened to prevent cars from overtaking a bus.
Most modern cars will shut off the engine if sitting at lights, etc.
Although this does rely on the driver selecting neutral and putting the
handbrake on, and how many people do that..? No, they just sit there in
front of you with their foot on the brake giving you full brake light
intensity, lovely at night, I don't think grrrr...

By the way, as a former bus driver, I am not keen on the way some people
overtake buses when they're at stops. I once had a car belt past me and
then do a sharp 90-degree left turn into the side road 6ft in front of
the bus, just as I had just started to pull away from a stop (and yes I
was indicating, and in plenty of time).

A young woman holding an 18-month old child lost her footing and the kid
banged his head on the luggage rack rails. I was there for over an hour
waiting for an ambulance and the police, fortunately the little boy
didn't sustain any serious injury.
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
tim...
2019-06-30 16:02:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by MissRiaElaine
Post by Robin9
Should Sadiq Khan, TfL or the London Borough of Waltham Forest
each be fined £ 100.00?
http://tinyurl.com/y2pe3yvd
There is no environmental difference between a car parked with
its engine running and a car needlessly stationery because
unnecessary traffic lights have been installed or because pavements
have been widened to prevent cars from overtaking a bus.
Most modern cars will shut off the engine if sitting at lights, etc.
probably less than 50% of cars on the road have start stop technology

It will be about decade before it reaches 95%
Post by MissRiaElaine
Although this does rely on the driver selecting neutral and putting the
handbrake on,
does it?

didn't know that

don't have one

Even when I do select neutral I rarely put the hand brake on if the road is
flat. what's the point?
Post by MissRiaElaine
By the way, as a former bus driver, I am not keen on the way some people
overtake buses when they're at stops. I once had a car belt past me and
then do a sharp 90-degree left turn into the side road 6ft in front of the
bus, just as I had just started to pull away from a stop (and yes I was
indicating, and in plenty of time).
So just because of one idiot, we all have to dawdle down the road waiting
behind the bus at every stop, just because you don't want us to overtake?

tim
Roland Perry
2019-06-30 16:58:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Even when I do select neutral I rarely put the hand brake on if the
road is flat. what's the point?
So you don't get pushed into whatever's in front, when someone rear-ends
you. In my case that was people crossing the road at a Pelican. It could
just as likely be another vehicle.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2019-06-30 18:29:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Even when I do select neutral I rarely put the hand brake on if the road
is flat. what's the point?
So you don't get pushed into whatever's in front, when someone rear-ends
and how often does that happen

once in a million

tim
Recliner
2019-06-30 19:16:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Even when I do select neutral I rarely put the hand brake on if the road
is flat. what's the point?
So you don't get pushed into whatever's in front, when someone rear-ends
and how often does that happen
once in a million
It's still good practice. I put my car in Park at traffic lights. No need
to use either foot or hand brake.
tim...
2019-07-01 10:54:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Even when I do select neutral I rarely put the hand brake on if the road
is flat. what's the point?
So you don't get pushed into whatever's in front, when someone rear-ends
and how often does that happen
once in a million
It's still good practice. I put my car in Park at traffic lights.
An automatic?

Aren't there different considerations there?
Post by Recliner
No need
to use either foot or hand brake.
as I said, on level ground, Neutral works just as well
Recliner
2019-07-01 11:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Even when I do select neutral I rarely put the hand brake on if the road
is flat. what's the point?
So you don't get pushed into whatever's in front, when someone rear-ends
and how often does that happen
once in a million
It's still good practice. I put my car in Park at traffic lights.
An automatic?
Aren't there different considerations there?
Why? It effectively puts the car in neutral and applies the brake, just
what I want.
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
No need
to use either foot or hand brake.
as I said, on level ground, Neutral works just as well
And as Roland correctly said, it's less safe. You should always have a
brake on when stationary.
tim...
2019-07-01 12:21:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Even when I do select neutral I rarely put the hand brake on if the road
is flat. what's the point?
So you don't get pushed into whatever's in front, when someone rear-ends
and how often does that happen
once in a million
It's still good practice. I put my car in Park at traffic lights.
An automatic?
Aren't there different considerations there?
Why? It effectively puts the car in neutral and applies the brake, just
what I want.
there you go then

it applies the brake

the same thing doesn't happen in a manual, so any discussions about whether
it is actually *necessary* to apply the brake with a manual can't be
compared with what an auto does
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
No need
to use either foot or hand brake.
as I said, on level ground, Neutral works just as well
And as Roland correctly said, it's less safe.
for a tiny possibility
Post by Recliner
You should always have a
brake on when stationary.
so you say

tim
Roland Perry
2019-07-01 12:54:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
as I said, on level ground, Neutral works just as well
And as Roland correctly said, it's less safe.
for a tiny possibility
Post by Recliner
You should always have a
brake on when stationary.
so you say
I hope it would be a driving test failure not to have any brake on.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2019-07-01 14:06:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
as I said, on level ground, Neutral works just as well
And as Roland correctly said, it's less safe.
for a tiny possibility
Post by Recliner
You should always have a
brake on when stationary.
so you say
I hope it would be a driving test failure not to have any brake on.
and who drives as per the test 40 years later?

tim
Roland Perry
2019-07-01 14:28:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
as I said, on level ground, Neutral works just as well
And as Roland correctly said, it's less safe.
for a tiny possibility
Post by Recliner
You should always have a
brake on when stationary.
so you say
I hope it would be a driving test failure not to have any brake on.
and who drives as per the test 40 years later?
In an important safety matter such as this?
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2019-07-01 14:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
as I said, on level ground, Neutral works just as well
And as Roland correctly said, it's less safe.
for a tiny possibility
Post by Recliner
You should always have a
brake on when stationary.
so you say
I hope it would be a driving test failure not to have any brake on.
and who drives as per the test 40 years later?
In an important safety matter such as this?
on the one in a million chance I'm going to be rear ended

get real

It's trivial compared to the number of times a week I might slip one or two
miles over the speed limit in a built up area

Or the number of times a week I see people jump the lights as they are
turning red. - I try not to do that, but now that I have moved much of my
travel to being a bus passenger I am amazed at the number of times the [1]
bus driver does this

tim

[1] that's not the same bus driver every time I use the bus, feel free to
correct my grammar here.
Roland Perry
2019-07-01 15:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
I hope it would be a driving test failure not to have any brake on.
and who drives as per the test 40 years later?
In an important safety matter such as this?
on the one in a million chance I'm going to be rear ended
get real
Presumably you dislike seatbelts and air bags, because they are for
one-in-a-million trips as well?
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2019-07-01 15:44:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
I hope it would be a driving test failure not to have any brake on.
and who drives as per the test 40 years later?
In an important safety matter such as this?
on the one in a million chance I'm going to be rear ended
get real
Presumably you dislike seatbelts and air bags, because they are for
one-in-a-million trips as well?
there are far more situations where these will be useful than the subject
under discussion

and it wasn't a million to one trips

it was a million to one stops

I suspect that there are a million seconds in the year when I might be hit
whilst moving, whereas a million incidents of stopping at a line takes a
lifetime (more or less)

tim
Roland Perry
2019-07-01 16:15:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
I hope it would be a driving test failure not to have any brake on.
and who drives as per the test 40 years later?
In an important safety matter such as this?
on the one in a million chance I'm going to be rear ended
get real
Presumably you dislike seatbelts and air bags, because they are for
one-in-a-million trips as well?
there are far more situations where these will be useful than the
subject under discussion
and it wasn't a million to one trips
it was a million to one stops
I suspect that there are a million seconds in the year when I might be
hit whilst moving, whereas a million incidents of stopping at a line
takes a lifetime (more or less)
We'll have to agree to disagree about your risk analysis.
--
Roland Perry
Marland
2019-07-02 16:00:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
I hope it would be a driving test failure not to have any brake on.
and who drives as per the test 40 years later?
In an important safety matter such as this?
on the one in a million chance I'm going to be rear ended
get real
Presumably you dislike seatbelts and air bags, because they are for
one-in-a-million trips as well?
there are far more situations where these will be useful than the
subject under discussion
and it wasn't a million to one trips
it was a million to one stops
I suspect that there are a million seconds in the year when I might be
hit whilst moving, whereas a million incidents of stopping at a line
takes a lifetime (more or less)
We'll have to agree to disagree about your risk analysis.
Even with the handbrake on I got rammed hard enough to also incur damage
between the vehicle I was in and to the one in front.
Fortunately it was a company car so once the situation was clear other
people whose job it was handled the insurance claims and counterclaims. It
took ages and apart from answering the odd question to confirm something
or that I was standing by my original statement I was glad not to be
involved.
If applying a parking brake halves that issue in many cases then it is well
worth while doing, isn’t just a case of pressing a button or switch on many
vehicles now? Don’t even have to physically pull a lever on those.

When Southampton still had a cross channel ferry service I saw the
aftermath of an incident where there had been a 3 car shunt, you could tell
they had just come off the ferry as the first vehicle was French registered
the middle Spanish and the third Belgian.
A copper was trying to sort things out and was on the receiving end of
excited continentals all shouting their version of events in their language
, he wore a very “ why did this happen on my watch “ expression.

I expect the insurance payouts took a while to get sorted .

GH
Recliner
2019-07-02 16:32:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marland
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
I hope it would be a driving test failure not to have any brake on.
and who drives as per the test 40 years later?
In an important safety matter such as this?
on the one in a million chance I'm going to be rear ended
get real
Presumably you dislike seatbelts and air bags, because they are for
one-in-a-million trips as well?
there are far more situations where these will be useful than the
subject under discussion
and it wasn't a million to one trips
it was a million to one stops
I suspect that there are a million seconds in the year when I might be
hit whilst moving, whereas a million incidents of stopping at a line
takes a lifetime (more or less)
We'll have to agree to disagree about your risk analysis.
Even with the handbrake on I got rammed hard enough to also incur damage
between the vehicle I was in and to the one in front.
Fortunately it was a company car so once the situation was clear other
people whose job it was handled the insurance claims and counterclaims. It
took ages and apart from answering the odd question to confirm something
or that I was standing by my original statement I was glad not to be
involved.
If applying a parking brake halves that issue in many cases then it is well
worth while doing, isn’t just a case of pressing a button or switch on many
vehicles now? Don’t even have to physically pull a lever on those.
Yup, on my car it's just a little lever, but you never have to use it — the
car does it itself. Put the car into Park and it applies both the parking
and the transmission brakes. Put it into R or D and it releases the parking
brake automatically.
Post by Marland
When Southampton still had a cross channel ferry service I saw the
aftermath of an incident where there had been a 3 car shunt, you could tell
they had just come off the ferry as the first vehicle was French registered
the middle Spanish and the third Belgian.
A copper was trying to sort things out and was on the receiving end of
excited continentals all shouting their version of events in their language
, he wore a very “ why did this happen on my watch “ expression.
I expect the insurance payouts took a while to get sorted .
Roland Perry
2019-07-02 17:12:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Marland
If applying a parking brake halves that issue in many cases then it is well
worth while doing, isn’t just a case of pressing a button or switch on many
vehicles now? Don’t even have to physically pull a lever on those.
Yup, on my car it's just a little lever, but you never have to use it — the
car does it itself. Put the car into Park and it applies both the parking
and the transmission brakes. Put it into R or D and it releases the parking
brake automatically.
You don't drive a high-volume car. The whole Jaguar range is 1.2% and
falling.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2019-07-02 19:38:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Marland
If applying a parking brake halves that issue in many cases then it is well
worth while doing, isn’t just a case of pressing a button or switch on many
vehicles now? Don’t even have to physically pull a lever on those.
Yup, on my car it's just a little lever, but you never have to use it — the
car does it itself. Put the car into Park and it applies both the parking
and the transmission brakes. Put it into R or D and it releases the parking
brake automatically.
You don't drive a high-volume car. The whole Jaguar range is 1.2% and
falling.
Sure, but my X350 model was first introduced back in 2003. That level of
tech may have been considered high-end and exotic back then, but it's
trickled down to volume cars since then. For example, the automatic
headlights and wipers in that car were fairly rare then, but are common
now. My car doesn't have auto-dipping LED headlights, but many modern cars
do. And voice control was rare then, but is much more common, and better,
in current cars.
Roland Perry
2019-07-03 07:57:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Marland
If applying a parking brake halves that issue in many cases then it is well
worth while doing, isn’t just a case of pressing a button or switch on many
vehicles now? Don’t even have to physically pull a lever on those.
Yup, on my car it's just a little lever, but you never have to use it — the
car does it itself. Put the car into Park and it applies both the parking
and the transmission brakes. Put it into R or D and it releases the parking
brake automatically.
You don't drive a high-volume car. The whole Jaguar range is 1.2% and
falling.
Sure, but my X350 model was first introduced back in 2003. That level of
tech may have been considered high-end and exotic back then, but it's
trickled down to volume cars since then. For example, the automatic
headlights and wipers in that car were fairly rare then, but are common
now. My car doesn't have auto-dipping LED headlights, but many modern cars
do. And voice control was rare then, but is much more common, and better,
in current cars.
I sincerely hope that less of this technology gets into cars, because
it's OK when it works, and disastrous when it doesn't.

I had to help someone with a Honda Jazz which we couldn't get out of the
garage to jump-start, because without battery charge it was impossible
to release the automatic parking brake.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2019-07-03 09:27:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Recliner
Post by Marland
If applying a parking brake halves that issue in many cases then it is well
worth while doing, isn’t just a case of pressing a button or switch on many
vehicles now? Don’t even have to physically pull a lever on those.
Yup, on my car it's just a little lever, but you never have to use it — the
car does it itself. Put the car into Park and it applies both the parking
and the transmission brakes. Put it into R or D and it releases the parking
brake automatically.
You don't drive a high-volume car. The whole Jaguar range is 1.2% and
falling.
Sure, but my X350 model was first introduced back in 2003. That level of
tech may have been considered high-end and exotic back then, but it's
trickled down to volume cars since then. For example, the automatic
headlights and wipers in that car were fairly rare then, but are common
now. My car doesn't have auto-dipping LED headlights, but many modern cars
do. And voice control was rare then, but is much more common, and better,
in current cars.
I sincerely hope that less of this technology gets into cars, because it's
OK when it works, and disastrous when it doesn't.
I've just scrapped a perfectly servable car because some peripheral
electronic component failed and cost more to repair that the car is worth

tim
Roland Perry
2019-07-03 09:44:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
I sincerely hope that less of this technology gets into cars, because
it's OK when it works, and disastrous when it doesn't.
I've just scrapped a perfectly servable car because some peripheral
electronic component failed and cost more to repair that the car is worth
I've been there - a $10 part that the main dealer charges £1000 to fit,
and because it was 'electronically keyed' to the engine, independents
can't do it. Another common issue is engine management systems giving
up the ghost, and costing more to buy a new one than the car is worth.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2019-07-03 10:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
I sincerely hope that less of this technology gets into cars, because
it's OK when it works, and disastrous when it doesn't.
I've just scrapped a perfectly servable car because some peripheral
electronic component failed and cost more to repair that the car is worth
I've been there - a $10 part that the main dealer charges £1000 to fit,
and because it was 'electronically keyed' to the engine, independents
can't do it. Another common issue is engine management systems giving up
the ghost, and costing more to buy a new one than the car is worth.
It was a sensor

probably no more than 5 pounds in value

but the inaccessibility of it - 500 pounds to fit, please!

Or not!!!

tim
Roland Perry
2019-07-02 17:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marland
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
I hope it would be a driving test failure not to have any brake on.
and who drives as per the test 40 years later?
In an important safety matter such as this?
on the one in a million chance I'm going to be rear ended
get real
Presumably you dislike seatbelts and air bags, because they are for
one-in-a-million trips as well?
there are far more situations where these will be useful than the
subject under discussion
and it wasn't a million to one trips
it was a million to one stops
I suspect that there are a million seconds in the year when I might be
hit whilst moving, whereas a million incidents of stopping at a line
takes a lifetime (more or less)
We'll have to agree to disagree about your risk analysis.
Even with the handbrake on I got rammed hard enough to also incur damage
between the vehicle I was in and to the one in front.
With the handbrake off, and the car merely in neutral, much worse I
expect.
Post by Marland
If applying a parking brake halves that issue in many cases then it is well
worth while doing, isn’t just a case of pressing a button or switch on many
vehicles now? Don’t even have to physically pull a lever on those.
FSVO "many". I've yet to sit in or drive such a car.
--
Roland Perry
Marland
2019-07-02 18:17:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Marland
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
I hope it would be a driving test failure not to have any brake on.
and who drives as per the test 40 years later?
In an important safety matter such as this?
on the one in a million chance I'm going to be rear ended
get real
Presumably you dislike seatbelts and air bags, because they are for
one-in-a-million trips as well?
there are far more situations where these will be useful than the
subject under discussion
and it wasn't a million to one trips
it was a million to one stops
I suspect that there are a million seconds in the year when I might be
hit whilst moving, whereas a million incidents of stopping at a line
takes a lifetime (more or less)
We'll have to agree to disagree about your risk analysis.
Even with the handbrake on I got rammed hard enough to also incur damage
between the vehicle I was in and to the one in front.
With the handbrake off, and the car merely in neutral, much worse I
expect.
Post by Marland
If applying a parking brake halves that issue in many cases then it is well
worth while doing, isn’t just a case of pressing a button or switch on many
vehicles now? Don’t even have to physically pull a lever on those.
FSVO "many". I've yet to sit in or drive such a car.
I haven’t driven one, but sat in a couple and one van. The trickledown down
from top end market to more everyday cars seems to be happening quite fast,
one of the cars was a Vauxhall Astra about 3 years old and the other a
Volkswagen Golf now about 5 years old and more typical,of what many people
drive than a Range Rover or top end Mercedes . The van was a well specced
Ford Transit about six months old.
I would not be surprised if they will rapidly become more common as models
come up for replacement or revamp as getting rid of a big mechanical lever
in favour of a discreet button or flap switch gives designers the chance to
make the interior look a little tidier ,spacious or room for another cup
holder.

GH
tim...
2019-07-03 09:30:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marland
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Marland
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
I hope it would be a driving test failure not to have any brake on.
and who drives as per the test 40 years later?
In an important safety matter such as this?
on the one in a million chance I'm going to be rear ended
get real
Presumably you dislike seatbelts and air bags, because they are for
one-in-a-million trips as well?
there are far more situations where these will be useful than the
subject under discussion
and it wasn't a million to one trips
it was a million to one stops
I suspect that there are a million seconds in the year when I might be
hit whilst moving, whereas a million incidents of stopping at a line
takes a lifetime (more or less)
We'll have to agree to disagree about your risk analysis.
Even with the handbrake on I got rammed hard enough to also incur damage
between the vehicle I was in and to the one in front.
With the handbrake off, and the car merely in neutral, much worse I
expect.
Post by Marland
If applying a parking brake halves that issue in many cases then it is well
worth while doing, isn’t just a case of pressing a button or switch on many
vehicles now? Don’t even have to physically pull a lever on those.
FSVO "many". I've yet to sit in or drive such a car.
I haven’t driven one, but sat in a couple and one van. The trickledown down
from top end market to more everyday cars seems to be happening quite fast,
one of the cars was a Vauxhall Astra about 3 years old and the other a
Volkswagen Golf now about 5 years old and more typical,of what many people
drive than a Range Rover or top end Mercedes . The van was a well specced
Ford Transit about six months old.
I would not be surprised if they will rapidly become more common as models
come up for replacement or revamp as getting rid of a big mechanical lever
in favour of a discreet button or flap switch gives designers the chance to
make the interior look a little tidier ,spacious or room for another cup
holder.
some years ago I bought a 10 YO Fiesta Ghia

It was less well speced than the then-current GL model

but because it was a "Ghia" was in a higher insurance group

tim
Post by Marland
GH
Roland Perry
2019-07-03 09:46:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
some years ago I bought a 10 YO Fiesta Ghia
It was less well speced than the then-current GL model
but because it was a "Ghia" was in a higher insurance group
The model is a proxy for the demographic of the people who tend to buy
them, and your insurance company had decided that on balance people
buying the Ghia were worse drivers than those buying the GL. They'll
have some stats to back that up, of course.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2019-07-03 10:30:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
some years ago I bought a 10 YO Fiesta Ghia
It was less well speced than the then-current GL model
but because it was a "Ghia" was in a higher insurance group
The model is a proxy for the demographic of the people who tend to buy
them, and your insurance company had decided that on balance people buying
the Ghia were worse drivers than those buying the GL. They'll have some
stats to back that up, of course.
New perhaps

10 years old, you just get what's available that week

(that how I ended up with the Micra)

tim
Post by Roland Perry
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2019-07-03 11:15:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
some years ago I bought a 10 YO Fiesta Ghia
It was less well speced than the then-current GL model
but because it was a "Ghia" was in a higher insurance group
The model is a proxy for the demographic of the people who tend to
buy them, and your insurance company had decided that on balance
people buying the Ghia were worse drivers than those buying the GL.
They'll have some stats to back that up, of course.
New perhaps
10 years old, you just get what's available that week
(that how I ended up with the Micra)
Their stats must show that the effect doesn't completely wear off, for
the average buyer (which I doubt anyone will accuse you of being).
--
Roland Perry
John Williamson
2019-07-04 08:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marland
I expect the insurance payouts took a while to get sorted .
Motorists in all three countries mentioned carry a "Constat Aimable",
which is almost entirely graphic, and lets the insurance companies work
out who owes how much to whom quite quickly and easily.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
Marland
2019-07-04 20:39:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Williamson
Post by Marland
I expect the insurance payouts took a while to get sorted .
Motorists in all three countries mentioned carry a "Constat Aimable",
which is almost entirely graphic, and lets the insurance companies work
out who owes how much to whom quite quickly and easily.
Sounds sensible, would it have been around in the 1980’s and more pertinent
perhaps would it have been known about by the British Policeman surveying
the scene in the 4th county mentioned ?
If not perhaps his attempts to sort things out was making things worse and
he would have been better to let them get on with it.

GH
John Williamson
2019-07-04 21:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marland
Sounds sensible, would it have been around in the 1980’s and more pertinent
perhaps would it have been known about by the British Policeman surveying
the scene in the 4th county mentioned ?
If not perhaps his attempts to sort things out was making things worse and
he would have been better to let them get on with it.
GH
I can't remember a time when I've not carried one in mainland Europe,
but I only started driving there professionally in the mid 1980s.

It may well have been better for the policeman to leave well alone, but
if there were problems being caused for other road users, he'd be bound
to do his best to sort it out.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
JNugent
2019-07-01 15:38:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
as I said, on level ground, Neutral works just as well
And as Roland correctly said, it's less safe.
for a tiny possibility
Post by Recliner
You should always have a
brake on when stationary.
so you say
I hope it would be a driving test failure not to have any brake on.
and who drives as per the test 40 years later?
In an important safety matter such as this?
on the one in a million chance I'm going to be rear ended
get real
It's trivial compared to the number of times a week I might slip one or
two miles over the speed limit in a built up area
Or the number of times a week I see people jump the lights as they are
turning red.  -  I try not to do that, but now that I have moved much of
my travel to being a bus passenger I am amazed at the number of times
the [1] bus driver does this
So common is this now that there is good reason to suspect that TaL
bus-drivers have been informally advised that TaL will not prosecute
them for going through traffic lights within x seconds after the light
has turned red for the direction from which they were travelling.
Post by tim...
tim
[1] that's not the same bus driver every time I use the bus, feel free
to correct my grammar here.
Graeme Wall
2019-07-01 14:38:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Even when I do select neutral I rarely put the hand brake on if the road
is flat.  what's the point?
So you don't get pushed into whatever's in front, when someone rear-ends
and how often does that happen
once in a million
It's still good practice. I put my car in Park at traffic lights.
An automatic?
Aren't there different considerations there?
Why?  It effectively puts the car in neutral and applies the brake, just
what I want.
there you go then
it applies the brake
the same thing doesn't happen in a manual, so any discussions about
whether it is actually *necessary* to apply the brake with a manual
can't be compared with what an auto does
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
No need
to use either foot or hand brake.
as I said, on level ground, Neutral works just as well
And as Roland correctly said, it's less safe.
for a tiny possibility
You should always have a
brake on when stationary.
so you say
So does every driving instructor. Easy test fail.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.
Roland Perry
2019-07-01 07:13:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Even when I do select neutral I rarely put the hand brake on if the
road is flat. what's the point?
So you don't get pushed into whatever's in front, when someone rear-ends
and how often does that happen
once in a million
Just like every other traffic accident. But that's still a few thousand
people a year needlessly put into danger (out of 500+ billion road/km a
year in the UK).
--
Roland Perry
MissRiaElaine
2019-06-30 19:20:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
So just because of one idiot, we all have to dawdle down the road
waiting behind the bus at every stop, just because you don't want us to
overtake?
I don't mind people overtaking, as long as they don't execute dangerous
manoevres as they're doing so. I prefer not to have passengers injured
on my bus (or rather I did, I'm now retired so have oodles of time to
spend on Usenet..!)
--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]
D A Stocks
2019-06-30 18:00:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by MissRiaElaine
Most modern cars will shut off the engine if sitting at lights, etc.
Although this does rely on the driver selecting neutral and putting the
handbrake on, and how many people do that..? No, they just sit there in
front of you with their foot on the brake giving you full brake light
intensity, lovely at night, I don't think grrrr...
Strangely, with the only start-stop implementation I've driven (Alfa Romeo)
the engine cut when the car was stopped with the footbrake. If you then
selected neutral and applied the handbrake the engine restarted when you
took your foot off the footbrake.

I decided to bypass start-stop altogether on my latest car by buying a full
hybrid, where the engine has stopped long before the car comes to a rest,
and the car can be moved for short distances in heavy traffic without
starting the engine at all. However, the parking brake on this car is
electric and is quite hard to apply manually - it is applied automatically
when you shift the transmission to Park. The car has a brake hold feature
which leaves the footbrake applied after coming to a stop. The brake
releases when you press the accelerator to move off. This works fairly well,
but it doeas keep the brake lights on while you're stopped.

--
DAS
Roland Perry
2019-07-01 07:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by D A Stocks
Post by MissRiaElaine
Most modern cars will shut off the engine if sitting at lights, etc.
Although this does rely on the driver selecting neutral and putting
the handbrake on, and how many people do that..? No, they just sit
there in front of you with their foot on the brake giving you full
brake light intensity, lovely at night, I don't think grrrr...
Strangely, with the only start-stop implementation I've driven (Alfa
Romeo) the engine cut when the car was stopped with the footbrake. If
you then selected neutral and applied the handbrake the engine
restarted when you took your foot off the footbrake.
I decided to bypass start-stop altogether on my latest car by buying a
full hybrid, where the engine has stopped long before the car comes to
a rest, and the car can be moved for short distances in heavy traffic
without starting the engine at all. However, the parking brake on this
car is electric and is quite hard to apply manually - it is applied
automatically when you shift the transmission to Park. The car has a
brake hold feature which leaves the footbrake applied after coming to a
stop. The brake releases when you press the accelerator to move off.
This works fairly well, but it doeas keep the brake lights on while
you're stopped.
I find all this gadgetry is fine on a reasonably level road. But trying
to do a hill-start in heavy traffic in an unfamiliar car with quite so
many individual quirks is a nightmare.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
2019-07-01 07:40:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by D A Stocks
Post by MissRiaElaine
Most modern cars will shut off the engine if sitting at lights, etc.
Although this does rely on the driver selecting neutral and putting
the handbrake on, and how many people do that..? No, they just sit
there in front of you with their foot on the brake giving you full
brake light intensity, lovely at night, I don't think grrrr...
Strangely, with the only start-stop implementation I've driven (Alfa
Romeo) the engine cut when the car was stopped with the footbrake. If
you then selected neutral and applied the handbrake the engine
restarted when you took your foot off the footbrake.
I decided to bypass start-stop altogether on my latest car by buying a
full hybrid, where the engine has stopped long before the car comes to
a rest, and the car can be moved for short distances in heavy traffic
without starting the engine at all. However, the parking brake on this
car is electric and is quite hard to apply manually - it is applied
automatically when you shift the transmission to Park. The car has a
brake hold feature which leaves the footbrake applied after coming to a
stop. The brake releases when you press the accelerator to move off.
This works fairly well, but it doeas keep the brake lights on while
you're stopped.
I find all this gadgetry is fine on a reasonably level road. But trying
to do a hill-start in heavy traffic in an unfamiliar car with quite so
many individual quirks is a nightmare.
As with any automatic, hill starts should surely be easy?

In my car, the parking brake is also automatic. It's applied whenever you
stop, and released automatically when you're out of P mode. The doors lock
as soon as you start moving.
Roland Perry
2019-07-01 08:06:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Roland Perry
Post by D A Stocks
I decided to bypass start-stop altogether on my latest car by buying a
full hybrid, where the engine has stopped long before the car comes to
a rest, and the car can be moved for short distances in heavy traffic
without starting the engine at all. However, the parking brake on this
car is electric and is quite hard to apply manually - it is applied
automatically when you shift the transmission to Park. The car has a
brake hold feature which leaves the footbrake applied after coming to a
stop. The brake releases when you press the accelerator to move off.
This works fairly well, but it doeas keep the brake lights on while
you're stopped.
I find all this gadgetry is fine on a reasonably level road. But trying
to do a hill-start in heavy traffic in an unfamiliar car with quite so
many individual quirks is a nightmare.
As with any automatic, hill starts should surely be easy?
I had an Audi inflicted on me as a hire car (I had ordered a Passat),
and over the week I had it couldn't work out how to do a hill start
using the gadgetry rather than the old-fashioned way. Part of the
problem being that nevertheless it would keep stalling [more than half
the time] as soon as it got under way (irrespective of the amount of
throttle).

Reported this as a fault to the hire car people, but they said in effect
"it's supposed to work like that". But they could have been just
covering up.

One of the reasons I bought a rather more simple-minded vehicle
recently, which works fine.
--
Roland Perry
Basil Jet
2019-07-06 13:42:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
In my car, the parking brake is also automatic. It's applied whenever you
stop, and released automatically when you're out of P mode. The doors lock
as soon as you start moving.
So how are you supposed to drive it off a cliff and escape at the last
moment?
--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
Banyan - 1997 - Banyan
Marland
2019-07-06 13:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Recliner
In my car, the parking brake is also automatic. It's applied whenever you
stop, and released automatically when you're out of P mode. The doors lock
as soon as you start moving.
So how are you supposed to drive it off a cliff and escape at the last
moment?
Sunroof.


GH

tim...
2019-06-30 15:57:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin9
Should Sadiq Khan, TfL or the London Borough of Waltham Forest
each be fined £ 100.00?
http://tinyurl.com/y2pe3yvd
There is no environmental difference between a car parked with
its engine running and a car needlessly stationery because
unnecessary traffic lights have been installed or because pavements
have been widened to prevent cars from overtaking a bus.
ITYF pavements are widened to make it easier for disabled to get on and of
the bus

tim
John Williamson
2019-06-30 16:10:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
ITYF pavements are widened to make it easier for disabled to get on and
of the bus
In most cases, widening at stops is to allow the bus to pull away from
the stop without having to wait to be let out by another driver, as well
as making it easier for the bus to get close to the kerb.

The DDA bit is the high kerb, which makes it easier for disabled people
and buggy users to get on and off. Wheelchair users still need to use
the ramp, but buggies can be lifted over the small step, and it's easier
for people with limited mobility to get on and off, so they can avoid
having to ask for the ramp to be deployed. Almost all TfL stops have the
high kerb, and the projections are mostly on routes through residential
areas, where the residents park on the road, and tend to block easy
access to the stop by buses.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
Recliner
2019-05-13 22:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how
to clean your air
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454691>
Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only measuring
one type of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic "cures" that
only address part of the problem.  It was the same
concentration on one pollutant and ignoring the others that
gave us the Diesel Disaster.
To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel disaster"?
The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who
followed government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars
rather than petrol and are now being penalised for it?
It must be that.
That is a symptom, not the problem.  The problem is by wanting a
quick political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact that
diesels are responsible for much greater general pollution even
if the manufacturers hadn't been cheating on the tests.
Taking you at your word, that may be a problem.
But where is the "disaster"?
[By that, I mean other than the financial disaster which has
befallen anyone stuck with a running term of car finance and now
having to find an extra £62.50 a week - or more - simply to be
where they were before Khan stabbed them in the back. Obviously.]
The health problems it is causing.
There's a "...said to be..." missing there.
If the level of air pollution were as dangerous as claimed by some,
none of us would survive it. But the vast majority of us do manage
to survive it, somehow - even those of us born and bred in
inner-city locations.
Extrapolating up from the odd case here and there is unimpressive.
Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with an
underlying agenda).
But you don't need me to tell you that.
I'm intrigued to know what you think my "underlying agenda" is.
I didn't say you had one.
So who is the line "Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit
hyperbole with an underlying agenda)." aimed at"?
Those who are behind the movement to (a) restrict mobility and (b) tax
people more - and are using the diesel excuse to facilitate it - and
coined the phrase.
You aren't a decision maker at the Mayor's office or TaL, are you?
TaL? What's that?
Basil Jet
2019-05-13 22:17:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
TaL? What's that?
Transport Against London
--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
400 Blows - 1984 - ...If I Kissed Her I'd Have To Kill Her First...
JNugent
2019-05-14 13:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how
to clean your air
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454691>
Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only measuring
one type of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic "cures" that
only address part of the problem.  It was the same
concentration on one pollutant and ignoring the others that
gave us the Diesel Disaster.
To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel disaster"?
The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who
followed government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars
rather than petrol and are now being penalised for it?
It must be that.
That is a symptom, not the problem.  The problem is by wanting a
quick political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact that
diesels are responsible for much greater general pollution even
if the manufacturers hadn't been cheating on the tests.
Taking you at your word, that may be a problem.
But where is the "disaster"?
[By that, I mean other than the financial disaster which has
befallen anyone stuck with a running term of car finance and now
having to find an extra £62.50 a week - or more - simply to be
where they were before Khan stabbed them in the back. Obviously.]
The health problems it is causing.
There's a "...said to be..." missing there.
If the level of air pollution were as dangerous as claimed by some,
none of us would survive it. But the vast majority of us do manage
to survive it, somehow - even those of us born and bred in
inner-city locations.
Extrapolating up from the odd case here and there is unimpressive.
Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with an
underlying agenda).
But you don't need me to tell you that.
I'm intrigued to know what you think my "underlying agenda" is.
I didn't say you had one.
So who is the line "Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit
hyperbole with an underlying agenda)." aimed at"?
Those who are behind the movement to (a) restrict mobility and (b) tax
people more - and are using the diesel excuse to facilitate it - and
coined the phrase.
You aren't a decision maker at the Mayor's office or TaL, are you?
TaL? What's that?
Transport against London.

They like to pretend they're in favour of transport for London, but
behave as though restricting transport is their job. They must know
their own business best.
Arthur Conan Doyle
2019-05-11 13:03:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel disaster"?
The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who followed
government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars rather than
petrol and are now being penalised for it?
It must be that.
Exactly. Because government sponsored social engineering always works out so
well.
JNugent
2019-05-11 20:25:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Conan Doyle
Post by JNugent
To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel disaster"?
The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who followed
government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars rather than
petrol and are now being penalised for it?
It must be that.
Exactly. Because government sponsored social engineering always works out so
well.
Does that mean that the government* is always right, even when it holds
serial contrary views?

Or does it mean that the victims were silly for believing Brown and co?

[* "Government" here meaning the regime under Blair and Brown who
rejigged the car taxation system so as to incentivise the purchase of
diesel cars and latterly, Khan in London, who effectively has swingeing
taxation powers over people who are not allowed to vote for or
(especially) against him.]
Recliner
2019-05-12 12:37:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Arthur Conan Doyle
Post by JNugent
To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel disaster"?
The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who followed
government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars rather than
petrol and are now being penalised for it?
It must be that.
Exactly. Because government sponsored social engineering always works out so
well.
Does that mean that the government* is always right, even when it holds
serial contrary views?
Whoosh!
Post by JNugent
Or does it mean that the victims were silly for believing Brown and co?
[* "Government" here meaning the regime under Blair and Brown who
rejigged the car taxation system so as to incentivise the purchase of
diesel cars and latterly, Khan in London, who effectively has swingeing
taxation powers over people who are not allowed to vote for or
(especially) against him.]
Loading...