Talk Morgan Forums Community The Malvern Arms Car Market in 2017

Howard, I see political incompetence as follows.

The consumer was pushed into diesel ownership on a massive scale. We're now being told that this was a bad move. The science was available and the government didn't exercise due diligence. That's incompetent. Hell, even Top Gear highlighted the poor air quality in London was directly related to Diesel vehicles and that was years ago.

Despite this, used diesel cars, which are now considered undesirable, retain their tax breaks. That's incompetence.

The criteria for measuring and categorising motor vehicles have long been known to be almost without merit. The figures which are used to tax or even ban certain vehicles are known to be wildly inaccurate and yet they've remained in place for years. That's incompetent.

The government hasn't addressed, or even clarified, how diesel cars are to be treated in the short and long terms. That's directly responsible for the uncertainty in the market and the major slump in sales. That's incompetent.

Manufacturers are allowed to claim environmental benefits using "scrappage" schemes. There is no legislation that I know of,that requires these claims to be verified. I would doubt very much if there's any overall environmental benefit in scrapping a perfectly good five year old car and building a new one.

Unfortunately the great British public seem increasingly keen to jump on whichever bandwagon rolls past.

So you're suggesting that politicians are incompetent?

Not just politicians Dave, but the "great British public" in general and all those pressure groups spouting BS just for their own ends, whether rooted in fact or just misguided "enthusiasm".

But we are all the 'great British public'. We are all subject to the same opportunities to find out the 'facts'. We all equally suffer from confirmation bias and so only tend to positively weight material which supports our views.

All we can do is to try to expose ourselves to as much contra-indicatory material* as we can to head off the effects or to stick to truly independent peer-reviewed science which always references its sources.

*Which is bloody difficult at times. Have you tried wading through the insane bollocks spouted by some of the loonier fringe?

Thats simply wrong. Show me one advert from the government telling us to buy diesel rather than petrol.

The reality is that Joe Public bought diesels because they were inherently cheaper to run. Now Joe Public is panicking and dragging down second hand car prices unnecessarily. How many of us ever need to drive into London in a diesel car older than 2006 ie more than 11 years old.

The London ban is pointless affecting just 15% or cars which in turn affect just 25% of pollution but I dont know whether you would call that po9litical incompetence or politicians recognising the public on a bandwagon and reacting accordingly.

The whole thing smacks of then unholy and ridiculously expensive rush to so called "clean energy".

Yes Tim, but how many actually bother?
I gave up trying to get people spouting part of a "these are the facts" scenario, when they were clearly reciting from a limited "hymn sheet" to further research their subject. Not loonier fringe people either (I usually just tell them to go forth... ).

The unprecedented rise in diesel-engined car sales was a direct result of government policy.I don't think there's much doubt about that. The tax breaks given to diesel cars was the driving force.

The rest I pretty much agree with you.

Unfortunately the lunatics have very much taken over the asylum and I doubt we have any chance of getting a meaningful energy policy in the short to medium term.

I think we have two issues with diesel cars.

The first is fine carbon particles. Diesels do contribute to this problem but they are not the only source of carbon particles. Tyres also contribute quite a lot as do oil heating systems, fuel fires of various types, and so on. In times when there is not much rain simply washing the streets with water wagons would help but that is probably considered too expensive. What can be done is to insist that all vehicles that enter the greater metropolitan areas be equipped with particle filters. (a particle filter led economic recovery )

It seems that carbon particles are generated by locally rich pockets of fuel droplets. Without a doubt car manufacturers and fuel makers are well aware of this problem. With my old car, which did not have a particle filter, I returned to the dealer very quickly to complain about the clouds of black smoke that appeared under hard acceleration. I discovered that the Q8 Hi Perform Diesel (also called Hi Q) hardly produced any smoke at all, even under the hardest acceleration. OK it cost more but it shows that it can be done. Very simply a similar approach to the introduction of lead free is required here.

The second problem is NOx. Certainly that is more difficult to resolve. Here we have conflicting requirements. Lean burn technology produces more NOx. Diesels are all lean burn engines. To retrofit AdBlue to vehicles not equipped to use it is probably impossible.

At the end of the day the government, of all metropolises, needs to work to provide adequate public transport. Look at Tokyo for a good example. Virtually no private cars enter the city area during peak periods. Public transport is sufficient for the number of passengers (pushing passengers into carriages is a thing of the past), clean, efficient, and on time.

The funding which will be blown away on HS2 should be spent on upgrading the current system into cities outside London. It would make far more sense, but when did common sense ever happen in Westminster.

I see the state of play at Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and Nottingham on a regular basis. All could be improved with more investment, including extended electrification and longer trains.

You clearly have never worked with computerised systems, just imagine the fun that can be had remotely with so called autonomous systems! It may make Russian roads slightly safer though!