rendelharris

Thanks for the suggestions - actually as it turned out my friends came dressed for the weather and were happy to sit outside with me, so hopefully no offence was caused to anyone.

Mallard Von Hannover Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can understand the point, but: > What about when someone is working on a car? To > diagnose faults the engine may need to running. > Also if anything if being powered by the battery > then without the alternator going it can all too > easily be run flat. Obviously not a reason to > *not* introduce much needed legislation to cut > emissions but a blanket ban could be annoying. > What if you pull over to quickly answer the phone > (as in stopped for 30 seconds) > What about the need to properly defrost the car on > a cold day before it is safe to drive off? > Again I agree with the idea, just suggestions as > to how it ought to be carefully introduced Well, re keeping the engine running for repairs, there is at present the option to disable the system from the dashboard (I don't know what it's like on all cars, on Mrs.H's this has to be reset every journey or it defaults to auto-stop). That option could be retained for repair purposes but placed somewhere (e.g. under the bonnet) where it wouldn't be convenient to keep disabling the system every trip. Re the battery use, the engine won't cut if a large draining application is being used - for example we were confused when Mrs.H first got her Smart as the stop-start didn't seem to work: on reading the manual we realised it was because we had the heater on, it wouldn't cut in until the cabin had reached the requested temperature. Clever, eh? Pulling over to answer the 'phone - well, on the Smart, and I assume it's the same for other makes, the cutoff doesn't work unless you're in neutral and the clutch is fully released, so you could just keep the clutch down to keep the engine running. Worth noting though that legally answering the 'phone with the engine running, even if you're parked up in a layby with the handbrake on, is still an offence! Defrosting the car: well that's maybe an example of how we've become a bit lazy (not you personally, I'm just as bad!). With a little foresight (e.g. placing newspaper sheets or a cover over the windscreen at night) and effort (a few minutes with the scraper certainly warms one up!) one doesn't have to use the engine to defrost the car, but we seem to have come to rely on it - to the extent that I understand luxury models can be remotely turned on from inside the house without even having to go outside! To have a car sitting in a driveway belching out fumes in order to do a job that could be done manually, or even avoided with pre-planning, seems to me the height of folly. I do understand your objections, but I think they're in no way insurmountable.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are problems with the headline figure that > 40,000 premature deaths are caused by air > pollution (and that's all air pollution, indoor > and out, and not just vehicle emissions) in that > it really refers to loss of life expectancy rather > than something as brutal as killing you. And that > loss of life expectancy for many of that 40,0000 > might only be a few days over a lifetime, which is > regrettable but not quite the impact of "kills > 40,000 people a year", which is what many people > interpret the phrase to mean. > > I'm all for reducing air pollution as it's clearly > been shown to be harmful, but I'm unhappy with > being potentially misleading with the statistics > just because it's for a perceived good reason. > > Yes I agree it can be overdramatised! It's well nigh impossible to quantify, the authors of Royal College of Physicians report put the number as roughly 450,000 years of life. But that could be 45,000 people dying ten years early, 450,000 people dying a year early, a million people dying six months early...the actual calculations are massively complex and impossible for a layman (well this layman, anyway) to understand. It's an average, not a definitive figure. Of course nobody can ever attribute this sort of death with absolute certainty, any more than one could say the seventy-year-old smoker who died of lung cancer definitely wouldn't have had lung cancer if she hadn't smoked. More worrying in its way I think is the relationship between pollution and asthma, obstructive pulmonary disease, child development etc. I'm not really bothered if I live to seventy-five or eighty-five (might change my mind nearer the time of course!) but I'm very bothered about children growing up with stunted lung capacity, asthma etc, and all the follow-on problems to which that can lead.

Briefly: - Diesel cars theoretically produce less Co2 than petrol cars, so are better for the global environment - that's why the government offered a tax break to buy them, as they were struggling to meet our EU obligations to reduce carbon emissions. However, recent studies ( https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/19/diesel-cars-may-be-be-worse-than-petrol-for-co2-emissions-report-claims ) have shown that in fact diesels may be as bad or worse for Co2, as their filters can clog (especially in urban driving) and they can be removed to increase performance. At the same time diesels produce No2 (nitrogen dioxide), which is basically a poison, and particulate matter which is what contributes to "on the ground" pollution causing breathing problems, developmental problems and premature deaths (around 40,000 per year in the UK). - It certainly used to be the case that diesels were more economical, as diesel fuel has a higher energy content and converts more of that energy into useful work. However, advances in petrol engine technology have cut back on that advantage until it's almost unnoticeable in ordinary urban driving. For longer motorway type driving diesels still generally have better economy. Conversely, in terms of performance, petrol cars were always faster but improvements in diesel technology have removed a lot of that advantage. In terms of financial economy, diesel's more expensive than petrol (more so here than in Europe) and may become more so still if proposed levies are brought in. With diesel cars being more expensive to buy and having greater depreciation petrol seems to be the choice for overall economy at the moment. - A proper scrappage scheme would be a good idea, i.e. one that would have some effect, but last I saw the government were proposing to offer to replace the 15,000 worst polluting diesel cars with electric or hybrids (actually only offering ?8,000 per vehicle to do this): given that there are over twelve million diesel cars in Britain, how they think this will have any more than a homeopathic effect is not entirely clear. It is unfair on diesel drivers who bought their cars in good faith when the government was encouraging their purchase as "green" vehicles, and better compensation should be offered to those who will lose out. But if we're going to have the slightest chance of improving the air quality in our cities (can you imagine anything else being allowed to cause 40,000 premature deaths and just be accepted as normal?) then diesels are going to have to go - that includes, of course, HGVs, buses and trains. ETA crossposted with Nigello - as s/he pointed out, taxis are a big problem as well, especially in London.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Seriously rendelharris are you completely > oblivious of what is going on in the building > trade? In what particular sense? And should we ignore a workable solution to make a sizeable cut to a major source of pollution which is easy to implement just because it's not the only source of pollution? Do you actually have an objection to plans for stationary vehicles being required to turn off their engines?

Strawbs Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The flying pig Cheers.

You say the boundaries favour Labour, but at the last election the Tories got one seat for every 34,234 people who voted for them, while Labour only got one for every 40,290 voters. Also, the new constituencies have been drawn up on the basis of the electoral register as of December 2015: this was after the Tories had introduced the new individual registration system (to replace the previous household registration system) which meant around 800,000 people dropped off the electoral register - a disproportionate number of them young, working class and from BME backgrounds - hardly the Tories' natural catchment. Since then, due to the referendum effect, two million new voters have registered, but the new constituencies won't reflect their distribution: for example it's estimated that the new Lewisham constituencies will be based on an electoral register missing around 20% of those currently registered to vote in them. By basing the size of the new constituencies on the number of people registered to vote in them, not the number of people actually living in them, the Tories have ensured a bias - not large, but a bias nonetheless - towards their own favoured middle class demographic. It is gerrymandering, really. You're quite right of course in saying no government should have a say in the process - I'm sure a Labour government would have got round to skewing things in its favour as well.

Well. My friends are extremely well brought up ladies and I'm sure are considerate as to where they blow their vapour. I did just ask whether there were any pubs where it was allowed...and thank you for the one actual response to the question. Ruskin re your daughter's employment potential, I'm pretty sure most pubs do ban it (I know Spooners have a blanket ban), that's why I asked.

Ah cheers, haven't been in there for years, about time for a revisit!

Have a couple of mates visiting who are "vapers" - as an addict of the old fashioned rollup I know I'll have to be outside, but are there any pubs in ED that are cool with vaping indoors? Thanks, Rendel

I know just what you mean - I don't drive but Mrs.H is assiduous about sticking to the limit (most of the time) and it does feel like it'd be quicker to get out and walk. But that's only because we've grown up with an expectation of the speed we should be doing, if it'd always been twenty we'd just think it was normal... People having a go at you for obeying the law are (expletive deleted)

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Speaking of providing content, were any of you > contacted by a Kiwi last year doing a thesis based > on this forum? Yes, nice chap - Henry Lyons, his name was - wonder how it turned out?

Cars may have massively improved, unfortunately drivers haven't - one could argue that given the massive increase in driver aids, brakes, handling etc it would be safe to increase the motorway speed limit to 120MPH, but would drivers have the skill to handle it? I can see an argument - though I don't agree with it - for not having a 20MPH limit. But if you have one, I can't really see why one would be so keen to exclude one road which, as above, might save about a minute on a journey. If all other roads are 20MPH it makes sense not to have exclusions I'd say, as in my experience people coming off a 30MPH road into a 20MPH zone don't immediately cut their speed, they tend to carry on as they were. Anyway, at the moment it's a de facto 30MPH road anyway as only about 10% of vehicles, if that, are obeying the law.

Is it really that important though? From top to bottom Sydenham Hill is 1.26 miles, so if you had a perfect run through at 30MPH you'd save about one minute fifteen seconds compared to driving it at 20MPH. In the real world you've got zebra crossings, bus stops, the roundabout, all of which will eat into that tiny advantage. If you're cool with 20MPH anywhere else then there's not much point getting hetup about the forty seconds or so, is there? It's nothing out of your day, keeps to the law and lessens your chance of being in an accident - and if you are, dramatically lessens the chance of that accident having serious consequences. Why not? Anecdote: when I was doing motorcycle training, my instructor made me stop and asked me why I'd slowed to 20MPH through a school zone. Because that's the limit I replied, somewhat puzzled. Exactly, she said, it's the limit, doesn't mean you have to do it. Why not slow to 10MPH, it'll cost you about ten seconds and make it almost certain you won't have an accident. Stuck with me, that did.

sally buying Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do you have an accurate speedometer on your bike > or is it just guesswork from you? Yep, GPS linked all bells and whistles etc.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sorry, phone typo, "wary". I was thinking you lucky bloody devil, I wish I'd had a chance to get weary of any sort of girls, red-sweatered or not, when I was a teenager... Why were these young ladies in red to be avoided?

singalto Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If people drive at the correct speed, it doesn't > matter whether or not there are speed cameras, > surely? Nail on the head with a solid bang there singalto - don't break the law, you won't have to worry about being caught breaking the law! Sydenham Hill is clearly marked out with the twenty limit...yet cycling along there at twenty I can guarantee being overtaken - fast and close! - by at least a dozen cars out of rush hour.

Oh the irony...and the hypocrisy...

It's very sad - one can only assume you are so devoid of companionship that any human interaction, even it's just the contempt you've gathered on here, is welcome to you.

Oh dear, I thought your threat that you would depart was probably untrue. Is that the best you've got? If so, why bother?

Borky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think I will depart now. > > It is quote shocking how uninspired the responses > are these days. "These days"? You've only been on here since last September! Departing for good? Hope so. Re the actual point, I am the total opposite of a monarchist, nor do I find Prince Philip's supposedly hilarious remarks anything but damned rude. However there is no denying that he served gallantly throughout WWII in some of its most dangerous naval arenas and continued to serve as a naval officer right up until the Queen's accession. Your assertion that he'd never done a day's work was therefore clearly utter tosh, then when someone posted a link proving you wrong you tried to denigrate the source, then whined about "political discussion" (how was this thread even a political discussion?) becoming binary, then started to chuck out random insults and finally flounced off trying to characterise yourself as a big bad webel. You've made rather an arse of yourself, I fear.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Over half of new cars have stop start technology > that switches the engine off when stationary after > a certain time, it takes a few days to get used > to then you can just enjoy saving money and saving > the environment. Yet many turn the technology off > fueled by the popular press and some of the > motoring websites that report that it ruins > batteries and wears the starter motor out. It > doesn't. It's a no brainer. Mrs.H's new Smart does this, it's brilliant. I can't actually believe the option to turn it off is available - why? If you're somewhere you need to make a quick getaway you can keep the engine running just by keeping the accelerator very slightly depressed - in hers at least the engine doesn't cut until it's at a complete stop, braked and no gas applied. The only regular trip I make with her is to take her mother in Croydon her shopping, usually on a Saturday afternoon. Nightmare journey, I reckon at least 60% of the journey time is spent stationary, so this technology pretty much halves the emissions. The difference when all vehicles have it (and hopefully no opt-out option) will be tremendous.

Good on you for making the effort sir.

I don't have an "obvious sensitivity" on immigration matters (a stupid and tasteless remark), I just don't like pointless inappropriate immigrant scapegoating such as you and others on here enjoy. As noted above your "detailed information" is disputed even within the organisations which provide the figures. This issue of remittances is a minor side issue which you and others have leapt on to portray immigration in a negative light - there are 8.7 million foreign born people in the UK, do you think their labour, taxes, expertise and contribution to society might outweigh the fact that some of them send money back home occasionally?

Duvaller Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > According to the World Bank Bilateral Remittances > Matrix the estimated remittances from the UK by > migrants is ?16.5 Bn with the biggest recipient > countries being Nigeria and India. > > I trust you will accept the World Bank's figures. That's migrants, you were bizarrely banging on about illegal immigrants having to pay their people traffickers. And that sum, large as it is, is still a drop in the ocean (approximately 0.06%) of our GDP, so the contention that migrants sending money home has any serious effect on our economy still does not hold water. ETA and you need to be a bit careful bandying figures about so confidently: as this Oxford University report notes, different arms of the World Bank give different estimates for UK remittance outflow, ranging from 1.5BN through 7BN to your 16.5BN. Not, maybe, as reliable as you'd like to believe. http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrant-remittances-to-and-from-the-uk/