|
Post by scouse on May 2, 2018 10:51:10 GMT
I read something the other day that the Centre for Disease Control has a report that showed private gun ownership is responsible for preventing or stopping over 2 million crimes annually.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on May 2, 2018 10:57:47 GMT
I read something the other day that the Centre for Disease Control has a report that showed private gun ownership is responsible for preventing or stopping over 2 million crimes annually.
"You come near me with that nasty cold and I'll shoot you."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2018 11:55:59 GMT
That seems to be one of those stories with a life of its own. And lets bear in mind that logically speaking you can prove a crime perpetrated, but not prove that a single factor prevented one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2018 12:06:23 GMT
Why is the CDC promoting gun ownership? That country is seriously fucked up! As a comparison look at the way the Canadian cops dealt with that van killer. Even British police would've blown him away...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2018 14:42:27 GMT
I didn't spend long looking, but couldn't easily see a link to the official CDC report, just people referring to it (one suggesting he couldn't find the original either). It might exist, but it seems implausible to me that an official body would make sure a pronouncement. I think it's an oft-repeated fabrication, but will change my opinion (on the report's existence, not necessarily this purported conclusion) if I can actually read it first hand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2018 7:42:27 GMT
The thought occurs as well - if it did exist, the NRA would have arranged for it to be plastered to every flat surface in Christendom...
|
|
|
Post by johnc on May 5, 2018 5:57:17 GMT
Since this thread is about the unfathomable stupidity and blinkered or blind approach of Government, I thought this article was very appropriate. Obviously the motor trade are getting a bit pissed off being asked to drive quickly down a twisty road at dead of night with no headlights: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44008098
|
|
|
Post by Alex on May 5, 2018 6:15:39 GMT
I don’t get where their concern lies. The rumour is that the government will outlaw cars that can’t do at least 50miles on electric only. Currently most mid range plug ins (Prius etc) do about 30. But how many are really still going to be on the road in 22 years time? And surely if most models can do 30 today, they’ll probably be into the 50s and beyond within a decade. There will be a few of today’s cars knocking about in 2040 but I’m pretty sure most cars built in 1996 have by now been scrapped other than high end stuff and so most cars registered this year will also have been scrapped by 2040. On that basis something higher end today such as the Porsche 918 might be affected but I’m sure a software fix will be available to get it to run for longer.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on May 5, 2018 7:40:33 GMT
I think the concern is in the packaging and development. I'm no expert but to get a hybrid to do 50 miles instead of the maximum 30 miles they do just now, is presumably going to need a battery nearly twice as big as the current one and given that most hybrids lose half their boot space, they have a problem trying to fit the battery in when a hybrid has an engine, propshaft, rear axle and diff etc.
The car industry just want certainty about the direction they should go in when developing products. From the response I received when I wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport, it is quite clear the Government don't have a clue what they want or what they are doing other than ban petrol and diesel. Government's job is to provide solutions, not to create problems.
|
|
|
Post by Roadsterstu on May 5, 2018 13:52:47 GMT
Regardless of the range of electric vehicles, I'm more concerned by this relentless shift towards electric cars with practically no real discussin about home and distant charging infrastructure. That part of the picture seems to be beyond vague at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on May 5, 2018 15:55:50 GMT
I think the concern is in the packaging and development. I'm no expert but to get a hybrid to do 50 miles instead of the maximum 30 miles they do just now, is presumably going to need a battery nearly twice as big as the current one and given that most hybrids lose half their boot space, they have a problem trying to fit the battery in when a hybrid has an engine, propshaft, rear axle and diff etc.
Assuming no progress in battery technology over the next 20 years.
|
|
|
Post by PG on May 6, 2018 9:53:11 GMT
I agree that governments don't really understand anything enough to make sensible decisions. And until every country more or less says the same thing about (a) the date and (b) what can or cannot be sold after that date, there is bound to be confusion. But sadly, on this we are where we are. After dieselgate, methinks the motor industry doth protest too much. What the industry needs to do is stop complaining and start planning. In reality I can see four ways - on current technology and technology visible in the time window we are talking about - that they can meet that objective - PHEV - plug in hybrid - better battery technology will give more range with no more weight BEV - pure electric - again, battery technology changes should give more range and reduce the costs in that timeframe RE - range extender - No propshaft, drivelines, gearboxes. Just a battery and an efficient engine. Can cover everything from city cars to hypercars if the battery / engine combo is done right. Fuel cell - very early days and I can't see this being economic in the timeframe due to their being no hydrogen infrastructure. Of that lot, I think the most future proof are range extenders. I think this is a way better avenue to go down that PHEV. Jaguar had a working prototype way back in 2009 that I found on a google search - so I can't see why RE's have not become more common. www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/new-pictures-jaguar-limo-green
|
|
|
Post by PR on May 6, 2018 10:41:56 GMT
What the industry needs to do is stop complaining and start planning. The industry is planning, of course. But sales of current internal combustion cars are what's going to fund those plans into reality.
|
|
|
Post by PG on May 6, 2018 12:51:26 GMT
What the industry needs to do is stop complaining and start planning. The industry is planning, of course. But sales of current internal combustion cars are what's going to fund those plans into reality. Of course, sales of your current product are what fund the next product. I get that. But the industry spent too much money and too long milking current technology - especially diesels - and enjoying the profits. The Germans (especially VAG and Merc, at least BMW got the "i" models out to save face) just kept banging out turbo-diesel engines long after they ought to have moved on. That's why Tesla were such a shock to them all. Upstart people with no auto background embracing new technology and winning people's hearts and minds. People forgive the maybe shonky build as they believe in the product. Whoever decided that Jag would stop developing the limo-green concept needs a good kicking. If they had that prototype in 2009, that could be in production by now. An XE range extender would have been way more likely to break the German hold on the market than trying to beat them at their own game. I'm glad the next XJ is jumping the shark and going all electric - more power to their elbow.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on May 8, 2018 10:17:36 GMT
But the fall in sales has been massive and that is going to lead to closures and job losses. Government should be giving everyone a clear signal. They have already said that sales of new petrol and diesel only vehicles will end in 2040 and all they need to do now is to reiterate their support for the continued production of such vehicles and the phasing in of hybrids and full electric vehicles up to 2040.
Instead, Government have put fear into consumers that if they buy a diesel, they could be left with a worthless piece of metal well before 2040. Manufacturers also need longer to react than the time it takes for a Government Minister and a very anti-diesel BBC to put out the scare stories. Glasgow to Nottingham, door to door my car averaged 46.9mpg at an overall average speed of 66.4mph. Any petrol car that gave the same performance would be lucky to break 30mpg, so there is a significant saving in the usage of the world's scarce resources by driving a diesel. The NOx fiasco needs more investigation but the new Euro 6 diesels and the revised emission tests will undoubtedly lead to less nasties making it into the environment.
In this and many other respects , the Government appear to have a laissez faire attitude and like many bad bosses they have little input, then come along with an unworkable utterance and piss off again to create havoc elsewhere leaving no-one with any clear instructions.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on May 8, 2018 12:14:08 GMT
But the fall in sales has been massive and that is going to lead to closures and job losses. Government should be giving everyone a clear signal. They have already said that sales of new petrol and diesel only vehicles will end in 2040 and all they need to do now is to reiterate their support for the continued production of such vehicles and the phasing in of hybrids and full electric vehicles up to 2040.
Instead, Government have put fear into consumers that if they buy a diesel, they could be left with a worthless piece of metal well before 2040. Manufacturers also need longer to react than the time it takes for a Government Minister and a very anti-diesel BBC to put out the scare stories. Glasgow to Nottingham, door to door my car averaged 46.9mpg at an overall average speed of 66.4mph. Any petrol car that gave the same performance would be lucky to break 30mpg, so there is a significant saving in the usage of the world's scarce resources by driving a diesel. The NOx fiasco needs more investigation but the new Euro 6 diesels and the revised emission tests will undoubtedly lead to less nasties making it into the environment.
In this and many other respects , the Government appear to have a laissez faire attitude and like many bad bosses they have little input, then come along with an unworkable utterance and piss off again to create havoc elsewhere leaving no-one with any clear instructions.
Look at the ongoing Brexit fiasco - we're 9 or 10 months away from it and there's still no obvious way forward or even consensus among senior ministers so to expect any Government to have a cohesive plan for something happening in 20 years time is a stretch!
As for diesels being worth nothing, my thinking is that if I replace the 320 I might as well get something like a 335d with the intention of keeping it for 10 or more years.
Reality is going to have to bite the car market - there's already a measurable increase in CO2 with the move away from diesel so going petrol isn't a solution but actually there's no realistic alternative in a 2M units a year market. The upshot will surely be that people will drift back to diesel for the next 10 years or so, for company car users that could be 3 more diesels before they move to an alternative.
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on May 8, 2018 13:31:33 GMT
Come on: we'll all be working from home with robot slaves by 1999. Oh. Hang on....
There is no clear pathway that can be set by government when Parliament only lasts 5 years. Whatever the current lot say about cars and engine policy the ones in 2 or three parliaments time will be saying something utterly different based on whatever are other factual events in the interim, like the discovery of hyper-efficient PV cells that are wafer thin and weigh as much as a feather whilst chucking out several aH per square cm. As an example, I've just had a guy tell the wider team of the extension of a certain travel voucher popular in London which may or may not be named after a mollusc that is supposed to excite the libido to include towns in a wider arc. The work was delivered to a preceding minister's desires but just as the maths have been agreed, the premise agreed and justified the incoming minister (following a reshuffle a few months ago) has decided this all needs looking at again too make sure it's the right thing to do.
So in 20-odd years time whatever was said today will have been dictated by what the industry has decided they have developed. Remember things like seatbelts, airbags and ABS were things the car companies developed to mitigate the dangers associated with motoring and to address ministerial (across the world) concerns about the dangers of motoring killing off taxpayers and leaving a hole in the budget people and the tragedy that left behind then they became legislated for. CAT converters were a response to emissions concerns so in the 2040 case the legislators have said: "we want cars that can run further with no localised carbon burning" and the industry will develop EVs, fuel cells, PV cell, hugely complex clockwork mechanisms... whatever it takes to meet the suggestion of legislators.
Until something is done to stem the birthrate across the globe and stop people like me having 5 kids all breathing out and farting it's pretty pointless trying to stem this greenhouse gas effect anyway. If you're not over 6' with a big hooter you've had it.
|
|