When did diesel cars get complicated?

[carmanmemoranda]

Not playing your game any more.

20mph limits aren't the end of the world for me.

Are they always appropriate? No.

Various reasons for them. As I've explained slow moving traffic is often better than stop start traffic for various reasons.

Do I always agree with them? No

Do I always disagree with them? No.

But my point was about 20mph limits on their own, do not necessarily equal higher emissions.

Feel free to rant on, but without me. I'm out

 

[Wayners]

Re diesel.

They were cheaper to run with the fuel economy. More reliable and engines would last longer than petrol so became popular. Then the emissions controls came in making them not fit for purpose yet they were still riding the wave of being popular.
Now that popular wave has crashed.

 

[morqthana]

Are they always appropriate? No.

Why not?

Do you have that opinion because you don't understand all the reasons for them?

Nowhere have I said I agree with lower speed limits, but I can understand some of the arguments for them.

But I'm absolutely not "playing games" - if you believe that probably around 2/3rds of people could work out what speed to drive at for themselves you must have evidence to show that that's probably true. You must. Otherwise you're advocating a road safety regime based on nothing but your uninformed guesses.

If you say that limits should be "set at a speed fast enough to make efficient progress but slow enough to be safe for the circumstances" you must be able to define what "efficient progress" actually means. You must.

You must be able to define what "safe" for the circumstances actually means. You must.

You must be able to recognise that there's more involved than simply "efficient progress" and "safety". You must.

You must be able to recognise that there are other stakeholders than just drivers, including many who don't drive. You must.

It is not "playing games" to expect you to be able to do those things. Nor is it ranting to ask you.

And if you can't do those things, then any ideas you have on how we should control the speeds of motorised vehicles are, ipso facto, worthless, because they are not based on evidence, they are not properly thought through, and their focus is excessively narrow.

I'm out

It's hard to see that that is anything other than a perfectly understandable reaction to the realisation that even a cursory examination of your ideas shows them to be irretrievably full of holes.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Why not?

Do you have that opinion because you don't understand all the reasons for them?

If you want a discussion on speed limits start a new thread.

I've made my point about emissions.

I'm out

 

[morqthana]

They were cheaper to run with the fuel economy. More reliable and engines would last longer than petrol so became popular. Then the emissions controls came in making them not fit for purpose yet they were still riding the wave of being popular.
Now that popular wave has crashed.

They were never universally cheaper to run or fit for purpose. Yes, if you spent a lot of time doing long journeys, and kept it for a long (ish) time. No if you did short journeys, lowish annual mileage, and changed the car every 2-3 years.

 

[morqthana]

If you want a discussion on speed limits start a new thread.

I've made my point about emissions.

Oh - sorry - thought you were talking about speed limits.

My bad?

And what's a "low" speed limit?

Simply put. Progress versus risk

That means nothing.

What is "progress"? How much "progress"? How is it measured? Is there an acceptable range? Who decides these things? How do they decide these things?

What is "risk"? How much "risk"? How is that measured? Is there an acceptable range? Who decides these things? How do they decide these things?

And was that an answer to both of my questions?

I can see how you might have thought it was worth trying to get away with it as an answer to "what's a low speed limit?", but as an answer to "which arguments for them do you not understand?" ?

No such thing as an ideal speed limit.

But common sense would dictate that it is set at a speed fast enough to make efficient progress but slow enough to be safe for the circumstances.

Probably around 2/3rds of people could work that speed out for themselves. But because of the others we have limits imposed. And yes I agree they are essential. It's the same old argument, 20 mph outside a school at kicking out time is much more dangerous than a motorway at 80 in the middle of summer in the middle of the night. But we don't have flexy limits

Oh, no, apparently not my bad.

I'm out

It's hard to see that that is anything other than a perfectly understandable reaction to the penny dropping for you that even a cursory examination of your ideas shows them to be irretrievably full of holes.

 

[morqthana]

But my point was about 20mph limits on their own, do not necessarily equal higher emissions.

So why not unequivocally be in favour of them, if they cost nothing?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Start a new thread or continue arguing to yourself. I've made my point, as have others.

Yes, your bad.

 

[morqthana]

What you call "making your point" is actually stating opinions with no basis in reality, no logic, and which crumble to dust when subjected to any pressure of intelligent analysis.

I didn't ask you what a "low" speed limit was out of the blue, I asked you because you said "Too many would also try to travel at excessive speeds for the circumstances, so we all get saddled with the easiest, cheapest control, low speed limits."

I didn't ask you what you meant about progress or risk out of the blue, I asked you because you wrote "Progress versus risk."

I didn't ask you what you meant about "efficient progress" out of the blue, I asked you because you wrote "But common sense would dictate that it is set at a speed fast enough to make efficient progress but slow enough to be safe for the circumstances."

I didn't ask you to prove that most people can work out for themselves how fast they should drive out of the blue, I asked you because you wrote "Probably around 2/3rds of people could work that speed out for themselves."

If what you'd said had been defensible, if you did have answers to the questions you reasonably should have, you would have presented your defence and answered the questions.

Instead, after making a number of statements about speed limits which had nothing to do with emissions, all of a sudden you went running away saying you'd made your point about emissions. Shameful, cowardly, and dishonest.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

What don't you understand?

 

[morqthana]

I don't understand why you, having introduced topics of speed limits, and "making progress", and balancing risk, and assertions that a majority of drivers could be trusted to drive at the right speed without the need for limits, think you ought to be allowed to get away with saying you're not going to talk about those things any more once your views have been shown to be flaky, insufficiently thought through, lacking a basis in evidence etc.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

What don't you understand?

Start a new thread if you want.

I think all the points made on the reason for this thread have been made

I don't think anybody is stopping you arguing with yourself