Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

reddog

Will petrol / diesel motors more than 20 years old eventually be banned?

Recommended Posts

It felt like I almost got carbon monoxide poisoning today due to a 30ish year old car starting it's engine as I was walking near it.

 

I couldn't believe what it was belching out, but I think my expectations for clean air are a lot higher now than they would have been in say the 1980s.

 

I have noticed this a few other times recently, where an older car that the owner is obviously putting effort into maintaining cannot help but belch out fumes.

 

Eventually (like in the next 10-15 years) will it be decided that petrol / diesel engines over a certain age have to be banned from public roads even if they are classic Ferrari's?

 

(Desclaimer: I am actually a classic car enthusiasts, but I am trying to predict the future by looking through other people's eyes)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, voldemort said:

Either they will be banned or they will become so rare that people don't care enough to ban them.

I suspect the latter.

BUT to get to that stage, in the relatively short time frame of 20 years that you suggest, you can be sure there will be all manner of punitive measures imposed to slowly drive them (pun intended) out of widespread use and ownership.

As has been posted here before on this board by others, it is now crystal clear that, in Europe for now, there is an agenda to de facto remove IC driven vehicles from use.  I have no doubt that Peak Oil is the driving. Regardless of whatever pollution based excuses politicians may be telling us publicly to justify this move, you can be sure that those who actually make and formulate policy are fully aware of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They won't be banned; they'll just be priced off most roads, especially in cities. The T-charge in London will be £12 per day from April (on top of the congestion charge). 

There's an excellent report at rethinkx.com that shows how car ownership will have largely vanished in cities in the not-too-distant future. Worth a read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is that cars originally sold w/o seat belts don't legally need to have them. How this might or might not relate to hydrocarb autos I dunno.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doubt it. Not all that many cars of that age around anyway, so all you'll succeed in doing is p1ssing off some people for no practical gain (although the political effect of appeasing to the type of people who bray about being choked and poisoned because they once caught a bit of a smell of some fumes can't be discounted).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/02/2019 at 09:55, Orsino said:

There's an excellent report at rethinkx.com that shows how car ownership will have largely vanished in cities in the not-too-distant future. Worth a read.

And I've heard of a new technology that will obviate pointless searches online. Called HTML linking or some-such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Sledgehead said:

And I've heard of a new technology that will obviate pointless searches online. Called HTML linking or some-such.

It's on their homepage, but here you go:

Rethinkx Download

In essence it will be 3-4 times cheaper for an average US family to use an autonomous, electric, fleet-owed vehicle on demand than using their own car. That's equivalent to a 10% pay rise for the average US household. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/02/2019 at 05:16, Orsino said:

In essence it will be 3-4 times cheaper for an average US family to use an autonomous, electric, fleet-owed vehicle on demand than using their own car. That's equivalent to a 10% pay rise for the average US household. 

Because when people no longer have cars and have to rent them, the 'carlords' will totally, definitely not push up the price of renting to at least what people currently pay for a car. Totally won't happen.

Why would anyone possibly believe that a captive market like that won't be exploited to the greatest extent possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MarkG said:

Because when people no longer have cars and have to rent them, the 'carlords' will totally, definitely not push up the price of renting to at least what people currently pay for a car. Totally won't happen.

Why would anyone possibly believe that a captive market like that won't be exploited to the greatest extent possible?

How profitable a job is being a taxi driver?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MarkG said:

Because when people no longer have cars and have to rent them, the 'carlords' will totally, definitely not push up the price of renting to at least what people currently pay for a car. Totally won't happen.

Why would anyone possibly believe that a captive market like that won't be exploited to the greatest extent possible?

You could say the same about, well anything, for instance, growing tatties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/02/2019 at 17:28, reddog said:

It felt like I almost got carbon monoxide poisoning today due to a 30ish year old car starting it's engine as I was walking near it.

 

I couldn't believe what it was belching out, but I think my expectations for clean air are a lot higher now than they would have been in say the 1980s.

 

I have noticed this a few other times recently, where an older car that the owner is obviously putting effort into maintaining cannot help but belch out fumes.

 

Eventually (like in the next 10-15 years) will it be decided that petrol / diesel engines over a certain age have to be banned from public roads even if they are classic Ferrari's?

 

(Desclaimer: I am actually a classic car enthusiasts, but I am trying to predict the future by looking through other people's eyes)

Surely if that bad it shouldn't have passed the MOT.......some public transport buses and trains emit some really bad unhealthy fumes.......first things first.....lead by example.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Riedquat said:

How profitable a job is being a taxi driver?

It'll be a heck of a lot more profitable when everyone has sold their cars and has to take a taxi or bus to get around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MarkG said:

It'll be a heck of a lot more profitable when everyone has sold their cars and has to take a taxi or bus to get around.

Keep everyone renting everything.......megga ongoing profits to be made for some.😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. The whole 'self-driving taxi' thing is just another attempt to create a renter culture where people can be milked like cows by the fat-cats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are too many rich people with classic car collections for any countrywide tightening. Perhaps individual cities will do it, but I don't see the public support for a full ban, although it would be enjoyable to watch Jeremy Clarkson's spluttering reaction.

Half of London's emissions pollution is from non-road sources - boats, heavy vehicles, wood burners etc. 

From a London mayor 2017 press release:

Quote

Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM) such as diggers and bulldozers are currently the second largest source of ultra-fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions in London and the fifth largest source of oxides of Nitrogen (NOx). This is likely to grow as traffic related emissions decline and as construction increases across London.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/02/2019 at 17:30, winkie said:

Surely if that bad it shouldn't have passed the MOT.......some public transport buses and trains emit some really bad unhealthy fumes.......first things first.....lead by example.;)

Quantity though - how much time do you spend hanging around trains and buses? And give me a train with a bit of exhaust compared to the fvcking mess of electrification (battery trains would be fine though).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/02/2019 at 17:49, MarkG said:

Yes. The whole 'self-driving taxi' thing is just another attempt to create a renter culture where people can be milked like cows by the fat-cats.

When you fly you rent a plane seat. You don't have to buy a plane. Why you travel by train you rent a train seat. You don't have to buy a locomotive. Transport is full of examples of people paying for access rather than the hassle and cost of ownership. 

One major issue is that people use their cars approximately 4% of the time (US average). A fleet-owned autonomous vehicle is predicted to be used about 40% of the time. The cost per mile is therefore dramatically less for autonomous vehicles on demand. They will also be able to cover far more miles during the lifetime of the vehicle. They can be mandated to be far better maintained than many clapped-out privately owned vehicles we see today. And of course we will need far fewer vehicles for the same number of journeys so our streets won't be cluttered with parked private vehicles unused for 96% of the time.

One economic imperative is that these vehicles must be autonomous. A driver is a huge part of the cost of running a conventional taxi and the vehicle fleets need to innovate the driver (and their associated human error) out of the financial equation for this to really work, but they're making very rapid progress. Market forces can be designed to maximize the benefits for everyone. We shouldn't let the abject failure of market forces in the property market cloud our optimism for an excellent transport solution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO there's something seriously messed up with a system that regards removing people from doing things as a worthwhile goal in its own right, unless the job is significantly unpleasant or dangerous. Your plane and train comparison is more meaningfully compared to buses and taxis - things that already exist.

Really the financial costs of running a car - which most people appear to be able to handle, aren't something that should be influencing this. If they get prioritised to produce a system where cars are spending more time on the roads running without anyone in them, adding to traffic levels and consumption of power (probably electric for autonomous cars although the technology could work on any, short of steam traction engines) then we're barking up the wrong tree. Autonomous cars offer very few meaningful advantages and would be another significant negative step pushed forward by those who are blinded by the idea that more technology == good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a clear economic reason for wanting autonomous taxis rather than having a human drive them. The idea that we should block the technology to maintain employment for taxi drivers (and associated cost for passengers) is a basic, blanket argument against most types of technological innovation. Which jobs should also be protected? Secretaries? Typists? Farriers?

As I mentioned in a previous post, the shift to autonomous vehicles on demand is calculated to make savings for the average US household equivalent to a 10% pay rise. That's money they can spend elsewhere in the economy rather than a rapidly depreciating lump of metal in the driveway. 

These driver-less vehicles will not be clogging up the roads empty. In fact, one way such vehicles could earn money while not in use is to be plugged into the energy grid to regulate demand (making our energy system more efficient too). And of course because they are more efficiently used, there is a need for far fewer vehicles-on-demand than traditional owned cars.

Technological innovation is disruptive and that creates winners and losers. It may also raise ethical questions too. We need to consider and mitigate those effects.

I've always argued that autonomous vehicles will affect road freight first, primarily on major long-distance highways. (Actually the UK's geography isn't particularly well suited to this innovation). In the future, truck drivers will be located in a logistics centre and will remotely drive the vehicles the last few miles to their destination. Maybe that's one for another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "plugged in to the grid" argument is one for electric cars, it's nothing specific to autonomous ones. If there are indeed fewer of them then that leaves less to balance the grid than if everyone had their own private electric car. It's also rather counter to your argument about them being used more often.

The economic arguments about removing people just point to the socially damaging nature of prioritising economic reasons over all others. Technological advancements that might enable us to do things we couldn't before can be good. Ones that simply kick people out of the loop are not, and in any case I hate the idea of a world where human beings are increasingly irrelevant and untrusted and regard those trying to promote and develop such a world as a serious menace.

"That's money they can spend on something else" - why does it matter for the sake of the economy what they spend it on?  Besides, since mileage rather than age is the key factor in the lifespan of modern cars where's the saving? You're not paying anyone to drive your own car for you and the maintenance costs will be the same per mile (again, don't mix benefits of electric cars and claim they're benefits of autonomous ones). That comparison should be made with renting vs buying cars currently.

The long distance freight position is an interesting one; IMO trains work best for that sort of movement. Maybe someone will come up with a road-rail lorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one welcome our electric autonomous car overlords. Driving is a shag and the sooner I can give it up the better. 

There's an interesting argument (an extended Trolley Problem) in Version Control by Dexter Palmer around the ethics of self-driving vehicles and accident calculations. Should the cars be coded to save the occupant at the cost of others, or to minimise damage all around? And who is liable?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I welcome electric cars - they're the sort of technological development worth pursuing - but being a passenger is usually even duller than doing the driving. Autonomous cars can take me home from the pub, the rest of the time I'd rather drive.

On the ethics question are there valid comparisons with other safety systems, of which there have been some in some shape or form for a long time? The railways must've had to deal with the case of what happens with a runaway train (OK that wouldn't have been an automatic system, but I think similar considerations might apply).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/02/2019 at 15:19, Riedquat said:

.. being a passenger is usually even duller than doing the driving..

If we are prepared to pay enough for the development, manufacture, maintenance and cleaning.  This:
Image result for passenger seat

Will be replaced by this:

Singapore-Airlines-NG-JCL-Seat.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well whatever you build would have to meet crashworthiness standards, seatbelts etc. It'll also up the price a great deal, you could do something similar for passengers now if you were prepared to pay enough (and put up with even larger vehicles). Anyway that's just finding distractions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 295 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.