Why buy new diesel cars?

[grober]

Passenger cars in the EU - Statistics Explained

 

[Dodgy]

In an attempt to diffuse the tension a little, here's some light reading:
Green group wins air pollution court battle - BBC News

Whatever we think of our diesels, there's a decent chance they're on their way out.

 

[ftb]

I don't mind diesels. The newer ones are a lot more refined and technologically advanced to the older diesels. This is a good thing as it helps manufacturers to innovate.

 

[Dippo]

In an attempt to diffuse the tension a little, here's some light reading:
Green group wins air pollution court battle - BBC News

Whatever we think of our diesels, there's a decent chance they're on their way out.

But nowhere does that article say that diesel engines are to be banned, or that current diesel engines do not comply with legislation. It simply says that air pollution in the UK exceeds EU standards.

If all diesel vehicles on the road today met the standards required for new vehicles, there would not be a problem. Why should we stop buying diesels today which meet all the emissions requirements simply because older diesels do not?

 

[Dodgy]

There have been some comments in this thread about not trusting statistics. It would be great to hear people actually arguing with the findings. Here's one to have a go at:
"By the 1990s, the pollution and mortality peaks linked to wintertime smog seemed consigned to history; the Clean Air Acts and the advent of natural gas heating had displaced solid fuel from our cities. In 1974, US scientists4 began following the lives of 8,111 people across six US cities. Of these people, 1,490 had died by 1991, but these deaths were not spread evenly. Having accounted for factors including smoking rates, education level, diabetes and workplace pollution exposure, the worst-affected city had a death rate around 30% greater than that of the least-affected city. Across the six cities, the difference in death rates was found to be associated with airborne particle pollution; this was not from air pollution experienced during short smog episodes, but rather from long-term exposure to everyday pollution concentrations. Although the pollution mixture had changed, long-term exposure to modern air pollution was exerting a heavy health burden, leading to the conclusion that modern pollutants needed better control, not just during smog episodes but every day.
Returning to the same people 8 years later, researchers5 were able to repeat and confirm the earlier findings with respect to particle pollution and survival, but with one important difference: those cities with improved air pollution saw improved survival rates, suggesting that at least part of the air pollution health effects might be reversible and that improvements in air pollution can lead to better city-wide health outcomes."

The full report is here: https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/file/2914/download?token=NZzDVymh

 

[Dodgy]

But nowhere does that article say that diesel engines are to be banned, or that current diesel engines do not comply with legislation. It simply says that air pollution in the UK exceeds EU standards.

If all diesel vehicles on the road today met the standards required for new vehicles, there would not be a problem. Why should we stop buying diesels today which meet all the emissions requirements simply because older diesels do not?

I didn't mean that the article said that diesels would be banned. It just feels like it's headed that way. Here's one example: Ultra low emission zone: New black taxis must run on electric batteries from 2018, TfL confirms | London Evening Standard. New taxis in London from next year will be electric with a petrol range extender.

 

[Dryce]

There have been some comments in this thread about not trusting statistics.

...... yeah. For good reason.

The full report is here: https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/file/2914/download?token=NZzDVymh

Grober already kindly provided this information back in post #37 of this thread.

Do keep up at the back!

 

[Dryce]

I didn't mean that the article said that diesels would be banned. It just feels like it's headed that way.

It does. I'm surprised after the VAG debacle that we're a year on and there hasn't been more of a reaction.

However ... as has already been pointed out it's not just cars. And any concerted attempt to deal with cars has to address the issue of buses in urban areas.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

But nowhere does that article say that diesel engines are to be banned, or that current diesel engines do not comply with legislation. It simply says that air pollution in the UK exceeds EU standards. If all diesel vehicles on the road today met the standards required for new vehicles, there would not be a problem. Why should we stop buying diesels today which meet all the emissions requirements simply because older diesels do not?

But we have seen that the standards are substantially lacking. Testing in laboratory conditions is totally different to real world conditions. As I pointed to in my very first link at the start of this thread, cars such as the CLA 2.1 litre diesel are 8 - 10 times the permitted levels when tested on the road. It's akin to, but far worse than, saying that everyone who has passed their driving test is an excellent driver. It ain't that simple.

 

[Dodgy]

...... yeah. For good reason.

Which part of the analysis do you disagree with? It's easy to sneer at statistics that you don't like, but it's pointless unless you can say what's wrong with them.

Grober already kindly provided this information back in post #37 of this thread.

Do keep up at the back!

Ah yes - I was distracted by the "PC liberal elite" introduction. It's easy to sneer at people who write things you don't like, but it's pointless unless you can say what it is about their report that's wrong.

 

[markjay]

The current situation is a direct result of our obsession with tests, standards, and targets.

These cause Pavlovian conditioning among organisations towards meeting the requirements instead of delivering a better product or service.

This is true for cars that have 5 star Euro NCAP rating and are not safe, local NHS trusts and police forces that meet their targets with flying colours but in real life provide poor service, and students who pass every exam and yet know very little about anything that matters.

In my uni years we were taught that the only thing that IQ tests measure reliably is the subject's ability to do well in IQ tests.

The point is obviously that we should not deal with issues simply by setting tests and standards.

Instead we should have an active monitoring and feedback system that checks the validity of our tests via alternative methods.

Local police force met 100% of their targets? Great. Run a survey and check if local residents are actually satisfied and feel safe, then bring in retired police officers from other forces to review the force's performance from the point if view of rank and file. You want to hit 100% correlation (or close to it) among all three every time so that you know that the targets are actually achieving better policing.

Otherwise we are waving a piece of paper showing test results or targets that have been met but in reality means nothing.

 

[wivenhoe]

But we have seen that the standards are substantially lacking. Testing in laboratory conditions is totally different to real world conditions. As I pointed to in my very first link at the start of this thread, cars such as the CLA 2.1 litre diesel are 8 - 10 times the permitted levels when tested on the road. It's akin to, but far worse than, saying that everyone who has passed their driving test is an excellent driver. It ain't that simple.

I think that is what it will all be about. To be seen to try to comply, first stage will be the new criteria to better reflect actual usage and when that is seen to be not enough they will tighten up even more with congestion charging in all major towns - its the easiest tax to collect. Whilst all diesel drivers will go 'ape' as they have been misled they won't be able to do anything as all political parties will adopt the policy.
I was (wrongly) convinced that congestion charging would come in earlier so switched from a CLS 350CDI to a C350e. I may be 5 years too early !

 

[TheFoX]

Everyone has been misled. First, we had leaded petrol which was killing our children, and now there is NOx which is responsible for the deaths of thousands.

The real issue is cows.

https://muchadoaboutclimate.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/how-much-methane-does-a-cow-actually-produce/

Blame Cows for Los Angeles Smog? : TreeHugger

Do Cow Farts Really Significantly Contribute to Global Warming?

Cow Farts Have ?Larger Greenhouse Gas Impact? Than Previously Thought; Methane Pushes Climate Change

If our Government want the next generation of kids to reach adulthood, then they should slaughter all the cow herds and stop us from drinking milk, eating cheese and spreading butter on our bread.

Another step our Government could make is to ban Celebrities. From Justin Bieber to Jimmy Saville, they have abused our younger generation in many different ways.

It does beg the question about death, and how life affects us. We could die from being crushed, electrocuted, poisioned, burned or many other reasons. We could die simply because of a poor decision by someone in authority.

The real question is not whether we are going to die, but how we die. Given a choice between being poisoned by my 3.0 litre diesel while enjoying driving, or listening to Justin Bieber for eternity, I know which one I would choose.

Besides, if they banned diesel, something else would kill us. We've been burning fossil fuels for hundreds of years now. Is it really too late to change the direction our society has taken?

 

[rockits]

The current situation is a direct result of our obsession with tests, standards, and targets.

These cause Pavlovian conditioning among organisations towards meeting the requirements instead of delivering a better product or service.

This is true for cars that have 5 star Euro NCAP rating and are not safe, local NHS trusts and police forces that meet their targets with flying colours but in real life provide poor service, and students who pass every exam and yet know very little about anything that matters.

In my uni years we were taught that the only thing that IQ tests measure reliably is the subject's ability to do well in IQ tests.

The point is obviously that we should not deal with issues simply by setting tests and standards.

Instead we should have an active monitoring and feedback system that checks the validity of our tests via alternative methods.

Local police force met 100% of their targets? Great. Run a survey and check if local residents are actually satisfied and feel safe, then bring in retired police officers from other forces to review the force's performance from the point if view of rank and file. You want to hit 100% correlation (or close to it) among all three every time so that you know that the targets are actually achieving better policing.

Otherwise we are waving a piece of paper showing test results or targets that have been met but in reality means nothing.

I think unfortunately this is the crazy society we live in. As long as you have done as you have been asked or ticked all the boxes or met all criteria or adhered to regulations all is well.

When actually in the real world this could mean little, can result in a poor outcome or result or performance. Statistics get massaged all over the place to make bad look good.

When will we ever learn. Just get it all out in the open...warts and all. Then deal with it properly and do a good honest job. Simple but effective. Applies to pretty much all things and works surprisingly pretty well.

Then what do I know. I'm not an academic or well educated. Just an honest hard working simpleton that sees most things simply rather than making them overly complex for no good reason.

 

[grober]

As usual in these debates we are confounding two related but separate issues. When faced with the issue of climate change due to the production of greenhouse gases by the burning of fossil fuels we were faced with the choice of reducing CO2 emissions by adopting diesel engined vehicles or those powered by electric or hybrid vehicles. In terms of the major vehicle producing nations the Far east and Americas chose the electro hybrid route whereas Europe chose diesel. To my mind this was heavily influenced by the major vehicle producers in France [ blame General de Gaule] and Germany [ the British owned car industry being a mere shadow of its former self] Inevitably because of the immense financial and employment implications European governments sought to collaborate with vehicle manufacturers in this endeavour. Here is where things begin to go wrong for several reasons. One, in the main our legislators [ at least in this country ] are technically illiterate with a few exceptions meaning they rely on others to advise them. Two, vehicle manufacturers are guilty of either naive optimism that their technology could indeed provide the answer and certainly actively concealing the failure of same when it failed to deliver. So the adoption of diesel as a primary fuel for cars is a story of the road to hell paved with good intentions. Like some powerful drug diesel did deliver the reduction in CO2 to some extent but with some very unpleasant localised side effects.
And this comes back to the original point at issue. This is not a global problem, its a specific problem localised to urban areas with high concentrations of people and diesel powered vehicles. The evidence is pretty clear. Does this mean people who bought diesel powered cars in the past are socially irresponsible- no. Does it mean that people who wish to use their new car primarily in an urban environment should chose diesel in the light of this new evidence- that's between them and their conscience. And spare me the cop out of cows belching, old buses , jet airliners super tankers , dodgy statistics and the like. As an individual you have little influence on most of these things but you can chose to be part of the problem or part of the solution when you buy that next car.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

The current situation is a direct result of our obsession with tests, standards, and targets. These cause Pavlovian conditioning among organisations towards meeting the requirements instead of delivering a better product or service. This is true for cars that have 5 star Euro NCAP rating and are not safe, local NHS trusts and police forces that meet their targets with flying colours but in real life provide poor service, and students who pass every exam and yet know very little about anything that matters. In my uni years we were taught that the only thing that IQ tests measure reliably is the subject's ability to do well in IQ tests. The point is obviously that we should not deal with issues simply by setting tests and standards. Instead we should have an active monitoring and feedback system that checks the validity of our tests via alternative methods. Local police force met 100% of their targets? Great. Run a survey and check if local residents are actually satisfied and feel safe, then bring in retired police officers from other forces to review the force's performance from the point if view of rank and file. You want to hit 100% correlation (or close to it) among all three every time so that you know that the targets are actually achieving better policing. Otherwise we are waving a piece of paper showing test results or targets that have been met but in reality means nothing.

I couldn't agree more. I'm completely happy for this thread to start drifting off the immediate subject in this way, albeit from the core of the issue, because I believe so strongly on this matter.

Another area where I see tests, standards and targets taking over to the detriment of the main function is in education. My opinion on this goes way back to when I was doing my MSc and had to cut it short when nearly complete because of pressures at home. When those pressures were resolved I had many people unable to understand why I didn't just go back and do the extra little bit to complete my MSc and get the recognition my efforts deserved. My argument was that I'd learnt a lot in the process and having a piece of paper to prove it didn't make me any more knowledgeable. I probably would have progressed further in my career with that piece of paper, but I wouldn't have been any better myself. That was what mattered to me.

Much more recently I've witnessed first hand the negative impact of this obsession. I was the Community Governor at our local primary school and had to endure the ramifications of Ofsted. Seeing it all from the inside was frightening. Leading up to and during inspections the school went into meltdown to ensure that compliance were full in place. Every member of staff concentrated on ensuring the plethora of prescribed documentation was complete and that nothing had been overlooked. They were all in a state of panic fearing they may get marked down for using the wrong coloured pencil or something else equally ridiculous. When the Ofsted inspectors arrived they spent more time checking the paperwork than in class observing how well the children were getting on. They all had their check sheets to tick off, marking the completeness of the Health & Safety Policy was far easier than looking into the special difficulties experienced by children in and out of school and how those difficulties were being handled and overcome by the school. Meanwhile, all the teachers' efforts were being directed away from where they should have been. And all because of our obsession with targets and comparisons.

At a far less significant level we see it in this forum where members are convinced that the qualities of their cars are simply a measure of bhp, torque and fuel consumption. Too much playing Top Trumps as kids where the figures were all that mattered?

 

[Deleted member 65149]

As usual in these debates we are confounding two related but separate issues. When faced with the issue of climate change due to the production of greenhouse gases by the burning of fossil fuels we were faced with the choice of reducing CO2 emissions by adopting diesel engined vehicles or those powered by electric or hybrid vehicles. In terms of the major vehicle producing nations the Far east and Americas chose the electro hybrid route whereas Europe chose diesel. To my mind this was heavily influenced by the major vehicle producers in France [ blame General de Gaule] and Germany [ the British owned car industry being a mere shadow of its former self] Inevitably because of the immense financial and employment implications European governments sought to collaborate with vehicle manufacturers in this endeavour. Here is where things begin to go wrong for several reasons. One, in the main our legislators [ at least in this country ] are technically illiterate with a few exceptions meaning they rely on others to advise them. Two, vehicle manufacturers are guilty of either naive optimism that their technology could indeed provide the answer and certainly actively concealing the failure of same when it failed to deliver. So the adoption of diesel as a primary fuel for cars is a story of the road to hell paved with good intentions. Like some powerful drug diesel did deliver the reduction in CO2 to some extent but with some very unpleasant localised side effects. And this comes back to the original point at issue. This is not a global problem, its a specific problem localised to urban areas with high concentrations of people and diesel powered vehicles. The evidence is pretty clear. Does this mean people who bought diesel powered cars in the past are socially irresponsible- no. Does it mean that people who wish to use their new car primarily in an urban environment should chose diesel in the light of this new evidence- that's between them and their conscience. And spare me the cop out of cows belching, old buses , jet airliners super tankers , dodgy statistics and the like. As an individual you have little influence on most of these things but you can chose to be part of the problem or part of the solution when you buy that next car.

Beautifully put.

 

[400ixl]

But like many of these tests knighterrant you focus on what you believe to be the problem and not on the bigger picture.

You have a real fascination on the NOx levels produced by diesels, which is good as it is one of the main issues. However, as it has been pointed out, if you take a look at all of the outputs from either petrol or diesel engines you will find that this is not the most dangerous to humans and they health. This head int he sand mentality is what had the government concentrating on CO2 in the first place and now NOx as they are seen as global issues. Whilst they are, the combustion engine in cars is not a big contributor on the global scale.

In cities where they are more in direct contact with the public, it is the hydrocarbons which are produced which are the most harmful to human health. So maybe instead of focussing on the 2nd and 3rd factors, maybe concentrate on the real issue which is going under the radar and is not on the current testing agenda as it is not news.

Or does that not fit your agenda as the biggest culprit for these lethal gasses is the larger petrol engine. You keep avoiding the topic.

Personally I am not that much of a diesel fan, it just suited my overall need and was more human friendly than a larger engined petrol when you really know the facts on what is harmful. Our other car was deliberately a smaller capacity more lean burning turbo petrol as actually of all this is the most all round health friendly of the combustion engines.

In the future I will definitely be looking at electric as it becomes more affordable and has the longer range / quicker charging capabilities.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

But like many of these tests knighterrant you focus on what you believe to be the problem and not on the bigger picture. You have a real fascination on the NOx levels produced by diesels ...

No I don't. My CONCERN is with the EMISSIONS from diesels. I can't detect the NOx, so leave those figures to the testers, but I can smell the pollutants and I can see the soot. Where I've just referred to NOx it's been my laziness for not banging on about all the other pollutants, pollutants that are all too obvious. Of course there are harmful pollutants from other sources, including petrol engines. As has been well said by a couple of others here, we can't influence everything but we can chose to influence some.

 

[400ixl]

So to sum that up. This thread is a diesel witch hunt, not about highlighting the worst poisons coming out of combustion engines and looking to do something about it.