Euro6 compliance

[johnny2007]

(And that's me leaving out all the government figures - which I'm assuming you'll just try to dismiss as some sort of "conspiracy"). You'll also notice I've taken a figure that's lower than some of those. That's because of this excellent analysis:

Winton Centre Cambridge

Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication

wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk

which points out the huge statistical uncertainty, and the fact that many of those would have died anyway, within a relatively short space of time. Although, even that last point is debatable. If you killed a 98 year old dear by running her over, I don't think you'd get very far in court, using the "but she would have died soon anyway" defence...

And, of course, not all of these deaths will be down to air pollution from road vehicles. (Just "most" of them....).

If you have figures that you regard as more accurate, I'm willing to see them.

No, I don't have figures because they don't exist.
Your "figures" are guesses and models which are totally fabricated.
Similarly to when in the 80s they were wrongly guessing that in 2010 London would be on the coast and with tropical climate.
At the time I remember seeing figures, graphs and statistics: all fabricated to fit the model.

I think you mean there's been one where the coroner has specifically mentioned it in his report? For the actual number, see above...

Actual number is what's recorded.
Unless you tell me that people who had their death recorded as covid, in reality died of something else, so doctors are liars.

Nope. Even today (never mind at the time of the ban) there are people who still don't think smoking is bad for you! (Just like, 20 or 30 years from now, there will be people who don't think vehicle emissions have any detrimental effect on health. It will just be small number who think that - just like it's a smaller number who think vehicle emissions are bad today, than it was 20 years ago. The only real difference, is that you have come to accept that smoking is bad for you, whereas you clearly haven't reached that point on vehicle emissions yet.

I think car pollution is bad, but I also consider pros and cons.
Poverty is bad as well.
Malnutrition is bad.
Being cold because there's no heating is bad.
Going to work whilst sick is bad.
Take your pick.

Might it just possibly be because air quality is only ONE factor in determining mortality?

BINGO!
Now strike a balance.

Who said anything about making people poorer? I'm about £200-£300 a month better off, running an EV. Now of course, I'm a special case because it's a company car, but then, nobody is telling you (or anyone else) that you have to go out and get an EV tomorrow. We all know they are expensive to buy, and will remain so, until the market matures. What we CAN see, however, is that they're coming down in price all the time. And, of course (as the anti-EV brigade loves to point out), they depreciate faster. So you can't have it both ways, I'm afraid. They can't be too expensive AND suffer terrible depreciation, because if that were really true, the second hand ones wouldn't be unaffordable

There you go.
You're one of them who don't care because it doesn't affect you personally.

 

[Avocet]

No, I don't have figures because they don't exist.
Your "figures" are guesses and models which are totally fabricated.
Similarly to when in the 80s they were wrongly guessing that in 2010 London would be on the coast and with tropical climate.
At the time I remember seeing figures, graphs and statistics: all fabricated to fit the model.

Actual number is what's recorded.
Unless you tell me that people who had their death recorded as covid, in reality died of something else, so doctors are liars.

I think car pollution is bad, but I also consider pros and cons.
Poverty is bad as well.
Malnutrition is bad.
Being cold because there's no heating is bad.
Going to work whilst sick is bad.
Take your pick.

BINGO!
Now strike a balance.

There you go.
You're one of them who don't care because it doesn't affect you personally.

There's little point in continuing this argument. My figures are wrong / lies / fabrications, etc, but you don't have any figures of your own - let alone even vaguely credible ones.

You think pollution is a problem, but clearly not something you're willing to do anything about if it inconveniences you, yet I'm the one who "doesn't care" because it doesn't affect me personally...

Okay...

 

[johnny2007]

There's little point in continuing this argument. My figures are wrong / lies / fabrications, etc, but you don't have any figures of your own - let alone even vaguely credible ones.

You think pollution is a problem, but clearly not something you're willing to do anything about if it inconveniences you, yet I'm the one who "doesn't care" because it doesn't affect me personally...

Okay...

There are no figures, how can I possibly present them to you?
There are worse killers than pollution affecting people, so the key word is "priority".
Also, as mentioned, gaining 13 minute of life by imposing the ulez but living a miserable lifetime means that 99.9% of people would gladly give up those 13 minutes.
"Balance" is the other key word.
Similarly to having to go places: there's a risk of being run over, but you need to find a balance between being locked at home and running into the road blindfolded.
You simply minimise risk by finding a balance: pay attention when crossing the road.
Of course you don't care about all of this considering that it doesn't affect you, so you can stay on your high horse preaching to save the planet.
At the same time you scrap a car every year.

 

[Avocet]

There are no figures, how can I possibly present them to you?

Exactly. That's why I'm not taking you seriously. There are figures, they just don't reinforce your prejudices so you're doing everything you can to either ignore or discredit them.

There are worse killers than pollution affecting people, so the key word is "priority".

Some, but not that many, in our society. In any case, you seem to believe it's "either / or" - which is simply not the case. Imagine if the NHS decided that heart disease was a bigger problem than (say) cancer and decided therefore, to do nothing about cancer - would that be acceptable?

Also, as mentioned, gaining 13 minute of life by imposing the ulez but living a miserable lifetime means that 99.9% of people would gladly give up those 13 minutes.

The 13 minute figure is by no means true in all cases. The "one" death you seem to acknowledge, gave up a lot more than 13 minutes of her life, did she not? In any case, you also need to look at the quality of life in the years preceding the death. The NHS is getting very good at "postponing death", but can't actually cure most of these respiratory conditions, only manage them. (And as taxpayers, it costs us a shed-load of money too - which makes us all poorer... I know you care deeply about that...).

"Balance" is the other key word.

Similarly to having to go places: there's a risk of being run over, but you need to find a balance between being locked at home and running into the road blindfolded.
You simply minimise risk by finding a balance: pay attention when crossing the road.

It is indeed. And my preferred "balance" seems to be in a different place to yours. In fact, I'm not really sure where yours is? I don't think I ever seen you advocate ANY improvement in air quality whatsoever? Perhaps if you took a bit of time setting out your position, instead of trying to demolish someone else's we'd know where you stood?

Of course you don't care about all of this considering that it doesn't affect you, so you can stay on your high horse preaching to save the planet.

As I've said, it's an intriguing position to take? If I really didn't care, I wouldn't be advocating air quality improvements and driving an EV, would I? Are you claiming to care? If so, what are you doing about it?

At the same time you scrap a car every year.

Don't tell lies. You're never going to win anyone over to your point of view by telling lies...

 

[johnny2007]

There are figures, they just don't reinforce your prejudices so you're doing everything you can to either ignore or discredit them.

No, they're predictions, not figures.
Similar to the "figures" of covid victims if they hadn't injected almost everyone: pure fantasy.

Some, but not that many, in our society. In any case, you seem to believe it's "either / or" - which is simply not the case. Imagine if the NHS decided that heart disease was a bigger problem than (say) cancer and decided therefore, to do nothing about cancer - would that be acceptable?

No, of course not.
But making people bankrupt is not making them healthier.

The 13 minute figure is by no means true in all cases. The "one" death you seem to acknowledge, gave up a lot more than 13 minutes of her life, did she not? In any case, you also need to look at the quality of life in the years preceding the death. The NHS is getting very good at "postponing death", but can't actually cure most of these respiratory conditions, only manage them. (And as taxpayers, it costs us a shed-load of money too - which makes us all poorer... I know you care deeply about that...).

So, now the studies are no good for you?
You posted lots of these farcical "figures" but the one I posted is not following your narrative, so needs to be disregarded.

It is indeed. And my preferred "balance" seems to be in a different place to yours. In fact, I'm not really sure where yours is? I don't think I ever seen you advocate ANY improvement in air quality whatsoever? Perhaps if you took a bit of time setting out your position, instead of trying to demolish someone else's we'd know where you stood?

My balance is in giving people time to adapt.
The midget gave us a few months which clearly is not enough.
If he had kept the date as 2027, nobody would've gone bankrupt because we knew it was coming and were preparing for it.
Instead the midget decided to make a million a day by charging poor people so to have a good retirement pot.

As I've said, it's an intriguing position to take? If I really didn't care, I wouldn't be advocating air quality improvements and driving an EV, would I? Are you claiming to care? If so, what are you doing about it?

What pollutes more, an ice car manufactured and kept for 30 years (my case) or changing EV every 1-2 or 3 years like you?
Forget about the exhaust pollution, manufacturing is the biggest polluter of all, not my euro 3 1998 car.

Don't tell lies. You're never going to win anyone over to your point of view by telling lies...

Where's the lie?
We're not in the playground where I call someone a liar to win a lost argument.

 

[Avocet]

No, they're predictions, not figures.

No, they're not predictions. Every single one of them is a death that has already happened. Can't you understand that?!

Similar to the "figures" of covid victims if they hadn't injected almost everyone: pure fantasy.

And this is the problem. it's like trying to argue with Trump. If he doesn't like something, he doesn't come up with any credible research or figures of his own to counter it, he just shouts "fake nooooos!" - and worse, there are people out there, stupid enough to give him credence for it!

No, of course not.

So you accept that we should be trying to improve air quality? OK, that's a good start. WHAT do you propose we do?

But making people bankrupt is not making them healthier.

Now of course, if I were to ask you for figures - hard evidence that the introduction of the ULEZ was causing bankruptcies, I wonder what I'd get...?

So, now the studies are no good for you?
You posted lots of these farcical "figures" but the one I posted is not following your narrative, so needs to be disregarded.

Sorry, not sure what you're wittering on about there? You made a pretty crass attempt at trying to play down the significance of the figures by insinuating that it was only people dying 13 minutes later than they otherwise would have done. I then threw the "only" example you acknowledge, back at you, pointing out that she died a darned site more than 13 minutes before she would naturally have done. But by some warped logic, that's supposed to mean that I don't believe the figures I already quoted?

Okay...

My balance is in giving people time to adapt.
The midget gave us a few months which clearly is not enough.
If he had kept the date as 2027, nobody would've gone bankrupt because we knew it was coming and were preparing for it.
Instead the midget decided to make a million a day by charging poor people so to have a good retirement pot.

Cobblers! They've been talking about the ULEZ for years. It has been through several challenges before being implemented. You just put your head in the sand and bet the farm on it not happening, and now that it has, you're sore about it. "Few months", my ar5e...

If he'd kept the date to 2027, the best part of another 100,000 people would have died prematurely. (Yet it's me that isn't supposed to care... right...)? Remember, "Euro 6" is a pretty low bar. There are lots of versions of Euro 6, and the earliest ones (thanks, VW!) aren't that clean. It's really only Euro 6d, that are significantly cleaner - which is diesels registered after about the end of 2020. But like you say, this is all about compromise. There has been lots of compromise, you just don't like the point at which it was set.

What pollutes more, an ice car manufactured and kept for 30 years (my case) or changing EV every 1-2 or 3 years like you?
Forget about the exhaust pollution, manufacturing is the biggest polluter of all, not my euro 3 1998 car.

Well, I could post up studies with answers to that, but I imagine you really wouldn't like them, and instead of coming up with a credible counter-argument, you'll just dismiss them as "fake news" / "conspiracies" / "population control" or somesuch, so I thought I'd save us both the bother?

Where's the lie?

At the same time you scrap a car every year.

There it is! Right there!

We're not in the playground where I call someone a liar to win a lost argument.

Yet that appears to be precisely what you are doing!

 

[ReganAndCarter]

My own car, I've kept for 25 years so far, and I didn't buy it new, I paid £600 for it,

Thought keeping my van for 17 years which I bought used was good going. Glad I'm not the only one who's tight as two coats of paint.

 

[johnny2007]

No, they're not predictions. Every single one of them is a death that has already happened. Can't you understand that?!

Except the one i mentioned of course

And this is the problem. it's like trying to argue with Trump. If he doesn't like something, he doesn't come up with any credible research or figures of his own to counter it, he just shouts "fake nooooos!" - and worse, there are people out there, stupid enough to give him credence for it!

Remember when they predicted global warming to the point that England was going more or less to be under water?
Same thing.
They start from the result they want and build up a model around it to reach that result.
It's been happening forever.

So you accept that we should be trying to improve air quality? OK, that's a good start. WHAT do you propose we do?

Gradually replace older vehicles with less polluting ones.
Your beloved midget himself said that over 90% of vehicles were already compliant before he imposed his new tax.
The halfwit imbecil could've let people keep their car and impose the restriction when they changed car at their will.
So, to be clear, you keep your car and when you change it you have to get a compliant one.
But this wouldn't make him any money.
Or, keep the date as 2027 as it was scheduled instead of cashing up earlier.
Fair for everyone.

Now of course, if I were to ask you for figures - hard evidence that the introduction of the ULEZ was causing bankruptcies, I wonder what I'd get...?

Just go on social media and YouTube and see how happy people are about the midget's tax.
Some of them have started committing crimes to get rid of cameras, that's how desperate people are.
Of course you can't and don't want to see or hear it because you don't live in London and have your brand new EV.

Sorry, not sure what you're wittering on about there? You made a pretty crass attempt at trying to play down the significance of the figures by insinuating that it was only people dying 13 minutes later than they otherwise would have done. I then threw the "only" example you acknowledge, back at you, pointing out that she died a darned site more than 13 minutes before she would naturally have done. But by some warped logic, that's supposed to mean that I don't believe the figures I already quoted?

Yes, my friend died at 19 and he was a smoker.
In your mind smoking killed him

Cobblers! They've been talking about the ULEZ for years. It has been through several challenges before being implemented. You just put your head in the sand and bet the farm on it not happening, and now that it has, you're sore about it. "Few months", my ar5e...

If he'd kept the date to 2027, the best part of another 100,000 people would have died prematurely. (Yet it's me that isn't supposed to care... right...)? Remember, "Euro 6" is a pretty low bar. There are lots of versions of Euro 6, and the earliest ones (thanks, VW!) aren't that clean. It's really only Euro 6d, that are significantly cleaner - which is diesels registered after about the end of 2020. But like you say, this is all about compromise. There has been lots of compromise, you just don't like the point at which it was set.

100.000 people...
So far one died, ONE.
Euro 6 a low bar???
It's 6 year old diesel vehicles.
I know you change car more often than underwear, but normal working people do that every 2 decades or longer (changing car)

Well, I could post up studies with answers to that, but I imagine you really wouldn't like them, and instead of coming up with a credible counter-argument, you'll just dismiss them as "fake news" / "conspiracies" / "population control" or somesuch, so I thought I'd save us both the bother?

Again, those studies start from the result and build up a model to suit.
Been happening since Roman times (or longer).
They're predictions and so far they never got it right.
Anyhow, you believe that changing EV every 1,2 or 3 years pollutes less than buying a petrol vehicle and keep it for 25-30 years.
Well done, you've won an award for the most stupid post of the decade.

There it is! Right there!

Where, I can't see it.

 

[Avocet]

Thought keeping my van for 17 years which I bought used was good going. Glad I'm not the only one who's tight as two coats of paint.

It's not that great a feat. The car does very few miles, and leads a pretty cushy existence these days. I imagine your van is still in daily use?

 

[Avocet]

Except the one i mentioned of course

If you're talking about Ella Kissi Debrah, I'm afraid she's as dead as the rest of them. You don't usually get coroners involved while someone is still alive...

Remember when they predicted global warming to the point that England was going more or less to be under water?
Same thing.

No, I don't remember that, actually? Maybe you could post up something to remind me? I do remember something about predictions of sea level rising, and more coastal flooding as a result. That does, indeed, seem to be happening. I also remember a few confused, bitter and ignorant climate change deniers, setting up ridiculous strawmen, saying that scientists were predicting that England was going to be more or less underwater, but I don't remember any scientific predictions saying that...

They start from the result they want and build up a model around it to reach that result.
It's been happening forever.

Of course... I can't remember whether it was the Bilderbergers, Illuminati, WEF, or Elvis who told them to do that, though. I'm sure you'll be able to illuminate me...

Gradually replace older vehicles with less polluting ones.
Your beloved midget himself said that over 90% of vehicles were already compliant before he imposed his new tax.
The halfwit imbecil could've let people keep their car and impose the restriction when they changed car at their will.
So, to be clear, you keep your car and when you change it you have to get a compliant one.
But this wouldn't make him any money.
Or, keep the date as 2027 as it was scheduled instead of cashing up earlier.
Fair for everyone.

well... except those who have to breathe the toxic cr4p... But who cares about them, so long as you're not disadvantaged?

Just go on social media and YouTube and see how happy people are about the midget's tax.
Some of them have started committing crimes to get rid of cameras, that's how desperate people are.
Of course you can't and don't want to see or hear it because you don't live in London and have your brand new EV.

Is that the best you've got, then? I give you several pieces of research, for internationally respected universities, to back up my claims, but when I ask you for evidence of these claimed bankruptcies, the best you can come up with is a suggestion to look on YouTube?! Really...?

If I lived in London, I'm not sure I'd need a car, but if I did need one, I've already said that I wouldn't be able to afford a new EV. I'd probably get a 2nd hand EV, or maybe a Euro 4 petrol car - both of which can be had for a few £grand these days. I certainly wouldn't be crying my backside off about going bankrupt, but if I lacked the wit to find myself a compliant car, I'd probably deserve to.

Yes, my friend died at 19 and he was a smoker.
In your mind smoking killed him

No, I've no idea what killed your friend (or indeed, even that you had friends). Don't go putting words into my mouth.

100.000 people...
So far one died, ONE.

(Yawn....) we've been through this already. If you want to pretend that there has only ever been one death as a result of poor air quality, there's nothing I can do to stop you, but you are making something of a tit of yourself...

Euro 6 a low bar???
It's 6 year old diesel vehicles.

Yes... and...? In emissions terms, that's still a low bar. I'm beginning to think you don't understand the differences between the various levels of Euro 6? If the ULEZ meant that people could ONLY have Euro 6 diesels, then I'd have a lot more time for your position, but the reality is that people can have Euro 6 diesels OR Euro 4 petrols OR 40+ year old cars running on whatever they like, OR electric vehicles.

I know you change car more often than underwear, but normal working people do that every 2 decades or longer (changing car)

You really are full of it, aren't you? What part of "My own car, I've kept for 25 years so far, and I didn't buy it new" are you struggling to understand? As far as the EV is concerned, I don't get a say in when that gets changed, but I've had it over a year so far. And no, don't talk cr4p. the average age of a car at scrappage in the UK is just under 15 years so normal working people (or indeed, the majority of ANY sort of people) don't keep their cars for 20 years...

Again, those studies start from the result and build up a model to suit.
Been happening since Roman times (or longer).
They're predictions and so far they never got it right.

ZZzzzzzz.....

Anyhow, you believe that changing EV every 1,2 or 3 years pollutes less than buying a petrol vehicle and keep it for 25-30 years.
Well done, you've won an award for the most stupid post of the decade.

I see you haven't any evidence to back that one up either...

Where, I can't see it.

Better go to Specsavers then - or maybe some sort of adult literacy class? (Or you could just stop telling lies, I suppose....)

 

[Deluks]

Clean air, clean water, clean food, clean bottoms, what's not to like?

No sensible person would argue against such things, but the air quality and the need to drive less polluting vehicles isn't the problem for me, its the way it's been implemented.
Khan, when asked, said that he had no plans to expand the original ULEZ zone.....then he got reelected and.... suprise suprise!

He represents everything I hate about politicians, he's certainly no worse than a Tory.

He is a lying, sneaky POS, if he really cared about air quality he would've just banned the older vehicles outright. We are supposed to be worrying about the health of the little kiddies, the same ones who spend all their time sucking on vapes, hanging around fast food shops and stabbing each other? There are other priorities!

There are so many ways they could have done this, road space rationing would probably reduce daily emissions just by reducing the amount of time that vehicles spent sitting idle in traffic. The ULEZ expansion certainly hasn't reduced congestion on London roads.

He could've given a decent timeframe for ULEZ to come into place, less than a year is not long enough for people to replace their older vehicles, all it did was drive up the price of second hand cars!
A three year window and a more generous scrappage scheme would've been much less traumatic.

People were and are paying silly money for ULEZ compliant but high mileage vehicles, that will probably need replacing sooner rather than later. This whole scheme has become very expensive for the motorist, and very wasteful. Perfectly good condition and well maintained vehicles getting crushed, for a fraction of their original value. Madness! (Not to mention all those expensive cameras that have been cut down and chucked in the river....raise a glass for the blade runners )

I won't even go into the air quality on the London Underground...

 

[johnny2007]

Clean air, clean water, clean food, clean bottoms, what's not to like?

No sensible person would argue against such things, but the air quality and the need to drive less polluting vehicles isn't the problem for me, its the way it's been implemented.
Khan, when asked, said that he had no plans to expand the original ULEZ zone.....then he got reelected and.... suprise suprise!

He represents everything I hate about politicians, he's certainly no worse than a Tory.

He is a lying, sneaky POS, if he really cared about air quality he would've just banned the older vehicles outright. We are supposed to be worrying about the health of the little kiddies, the same ones who spend all their time sucking on vapes, hanging around fast food shops and stabbing each other? There are other priorities!

There are so many ways they could have done this, road space rationing would probably reduce daily emissions just by reducing the amount of time that vehicles spent sitting idle in traffic. The ULEZ expansion certainly hasn't reduced congestion on London roads.

He could've given a decent timeframe for ULEZ to come into place, less than a year is not long enough for people to replace their older vehicles, all it did was drive up the price of second hand cars!
A three year window and a more generous scrappage scheme would've been much less traumatic.

People were and are paying silly money for ULEZ compliant but high mileage vehicles, that will probably need replacing sooner rather than later. This whole scheme has become very expensive for the motorist, and very wasteful. Perfectly good condition and well maintained vehicles getting crushed, for a fraction of their original value. Madness! (Not to mention all those expensive cameras that have been cut down and chucked in the river....raise a glass for the blade runners )

I won't even go into the air quality on the London Underground...

Finally some sense in this thread.

 

[Munroast]

It’s a noble idea kez but you’ll need adblue with all of its equipment to do that......not to mention ECU programming and so on.
Best look for a replacement vehicle unfortunately.
John

If you were to convert your old car to some euro6 spec. who would you go to to get it signed off and the dlva reg plate updated to clean? or would that even be possible

and what would happen if someone bunged a 1990's diesel in a new car, would you have to tell someone you were now euro(-3)

 

[johnny2007]

If you were to convert your old car to some euro6 spec. who would you go to to get it signed off and the dlva reg plate updated to clean? or would that even be possible

and what would happen if someone bunged a 1990's diesel in a new car, would you have to tell someone you were now euro(-3)

Can't do the first and yes, you can do the other but you won't pass mot.

 

[Munroast]

Can't do the first and yes, you can do the other but you won't pass mot.

so would you hhave to have it reclassified as something? I'm sure you must be able to t a new motor in

years ago I helped a mate put a perkins diesel in an old landrover - that sort of thing must be still do-able