VW in trouble over alleged US emission test manipulations

[tumble dryer]

Eight out of Ten in the 'OO-ya-fecker-scale-of-bh-slapping'.

[AW111]

gizlaroc said:

I disagree. They are setting up the car to get through the test, there is a big difference.

VW have said that they couldn't get their cars to pass the test, on budget, without cheating.

To me the test is causing real problems, because it is just not real world enough. Who drives downs the motorway at 33mph? No one. And whose doesn't need to let their car get up to temperature? Again no one.

Set the test to represent real world driving and let's see how polluting cars really are.

My bold.
They chose a price point, then cheated to meet it. Until they were caught, they had a cost advantage over their competitors.
Prices of cars are historically astonishingly low : if it cost an extra £200 per new car, the market would barely notice.

This is why the regulators are lining up to treat VW as a pinata - the fines for cheating have to discourage this sort of behaviour.

[heebeegeetee]

herewego said:

I expect there is plenty of data available on the web if you have time to find and read. e.g.
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/HIAi...

And we have an answer, flipping well done.

Haven't had time to read it yet though, have just scanned the first pages and have found on page 10:

>>Life-expectancy from birth (section 2.1.4.3 and 2.1.5.2): The mortality burden can also be
expressed as a loss of life expectancy from birth. This is calculated by assuming exposure to
2010 concentrations for a lifetime, for those born in 2010. <<

It the says that they reckon a loss of 294 days life expectancy for males, 270 days for females.

That's in London, I would presume the loss would be lower elsewhere in the UK.

One thing I do wonder about UK pollution - unlike just about everywhere else in Europe, the UK has Sunday trading. This means that in Europe on a Sunday (and indeed saturday afternoons also in some areas) the car parks of those shopping malls, retail parks, garden centres and large diy retail stores are empty, and so are the roads outside. In the UK they are full as are the roads outside, and we have 7-day week congestion traffic congestion levels.

Also in Europe for some 18 hours a week some 98% of hgv traffic has to stop, here it runs 24/7.

So I think the pollution caused by these differences must alone make the UK the dirtiest country in Europe.

So, how we separate the pollution from derv cars out of all that, and make statements such as Lord Drayson has made "diesel cars are definitely killing people" I'm really not sure.

[Redlake27]

I've just driven past an unfortunately named VW dealership: 'Trust Volkswagen'

[ORD]

heebeegeetee said:

And we have an answer, flipping well done.

Haven't had time to read it yet though, have just scanned the first pages and have found on page 10:

>>Life-expectancy from birth (section 2.1.4.3 and 2.1.5.2): The mortality burden can also be
expressed as a loss of life expectancy from birth. This is calculated by assuming exposure to
2010 concentrations for a lifetime, for those born in 2010. <<

It the says that they reckon a loss of 294 days life expectancy for males, 270 days for females.

That's in London, I would presume the loss would be lower elsewhere in the UK.

One thing I do wonder about UK pollution - unlike just about everywhere else in Europe, the UK has Sunday trading. This means that in Europe on a Sunday (and indeed saturday afternoons also in some areas) the car parks of those shopping malls, retail parks, garden centres and large diy retail stores are empty, and so are the roads outside. In the UK they are full as are the roads outside, and we have 7-day week congestion traffic congestion levels.

Also in Europe for some 18 hours a week some 98% of hgv traffic has to stop, here it runs 24/7.

So I think the pollution caused by these differences must alone make the UK the dirtiest country in Europe.

So, how we separate the pollution from derv cars out of all that, and make statements such as Lord Drayson has made "diesel cars are definitely killing people" I'm really not sure.

The HGV journeys on Sunday would otherwise have to take place during the rest of the week and in higher congestion, surely? That would increase, rather than decrease, pollution.

I can see a lot of sense in making HGVs all drive during the night as much as possible - that would make a huge difference.

[funkyrobot]

Redlake27 said:

I've just driven past an unfortunately named VW dealership: 'Trust Volkswagen to cheat'

[Mr2Mike]

FiF said:

Of course you may have been joking, your response was certainly laughable.

I stated that trees don't emit NOx, you disputed this and linked to papers that investigate the emission of NOx from soil (due primarily to microbial action). I'm now asking how these papers disprove my original statement.

In what way is this laughable? Is this just your coping mechanism for being shown to be wrong?

[FiF]

Mr2Mike said:

FiF said:

Of course you may have been joking, your response was certainly laughable.

I stated that trees don't emit NOx, you disputed this and linked to papers that investigate the emission of NOx from soil (due primarily to microbial action). I'm now asking how these papers disprove my original statement.

In what way is this laughable? Is this just your coping mechanism for being shown to be wrong?

Clearly you're looking for an argument. The article mentioned the Smokey Mountain Park, which is an area of forest. You chose to selectively point out that trees don't emit NOX. I did not dispute that, so you're wrong with that accusation, but gave links to academic studies which showed, for the purposes of context, that there are significant natural and anthropogenic NOX emissions in forested areas, which is relevant in my opinion and that of people who've studied this.

If you wish to continue to argue that your selective point about trees in isolation trumps everything then carry on but you will in the overall context of the point be misleading people. As I said it's posters like you with your attitude, that repeatedly ruins this place.

I'll just go and file you in the T drawer and ignore from hereon and waste no more time on this

[heebeegeetee]

ORD said:

1. The HGV journeys on Sunday would otherwise have to take place during the rest of the week and in higher congestion, surely? That would increase, rather than decrease, pollution.

2. I can see a lot of sense in making HGVs all drive during the night as much as possible - that would make a huge difference.

1. It would need the shops to shut on Sundays too and that ain't gonna happen, but I think the rest of europe manages just fine doing what they do and there's no reason we can't too. Its quite a sight to see the m'way services on a sunday, and seeing the same sight in four different countries.

If derv cars are definitely killing people, then so is Sunday trading, as is giving a freedom to the haulage industry that nobody else gives them.

2. Have you been on an m'way at night recently? Stroll on, I swear there are considerably more trucks running than there is by daytime, but certainly, those that are running by day are also doing so by night. 24/7.

[Pan Pan Pan]

tomjol said:

heebeegeetee said:

tomjol said:

This has been covered earlier in the thread, stop parroting it as though it's meaningful.

It hasn't been covered at all. There was a link to a coupe of documents published somewhere - hardly overwhelming proof of a supposed global problem.

The point has been made that you're asking for something which is practically impossible. You can't tie a particular death to a particular cause in that way, when the problems leading from it have a broad range of other causes and develop over a long period.

The comparison in the previous example was with smoking tobacco - surely you wouldn't argue that smoking tobacco isn't a serious health risk?

The effects of smoking, and passive smoking are of course a health risk, but smoking is an activity which `mainly' affects those who choose to smoke. Also people don't have to smoke, but they do have to be able to get around. I don't smoke but if others do that is their business, as long as it is done in accordance with laws on smoking.
With general air pollution one does not have much choice about what one breathes in, unless of course one chooses to stop breathing altogether, wears a mask of some kind, or chooses to live in a place where air pollution is reduced.
Of course emissions from diesel cars represent a health risk, but so do the emissions from petrol engined cars of which there are two thirds more than there are diesel cars. Add to this the health risk emissions from buses, taxis, HGV`s, oil fired plant, oil fired heating systems, factories, jet aircraft, shops, supermarkets, businesses using chemical compounds, VOCs in paint, furnishings etc. Such is volume of and diversity of health risk emissions, it is simply not possible to measure how much from each source might be responsible for any single death due to respiratory problems.
So attributing deaths from airborne emissions to diesel engined cars is about as reliable as the famous line from Black Adders `purest green' sketch.
Right! so lets get this straight, something you cannot quantify (because NO one reliably can) is a much greater health risk than lots of other things that you (and no one else) cannot quantify?
If we wanted to be sure that the contribution of diesel engined cars cause no deaths we would of course have to get them all off the roads, as some here have suggested. But what then of the pollution caused by all the other elements which affect air quality?
including petrol engined cars? It would seem we would have to rid ourselves of all of these too, if we are to achieve the air quality that some believe is possible.
I have, and have driven petrol, and latterly diesel engined cars all my life, many of them open cars so I have no axe to grind over whether a car is petrol or diesel engined, and my lungs are in pristine condition, as confirmed by the regular medicals I am obliged to take as a pilot. Conversely some asthmatics say that cold air is what affects their lungs the most, and that diesel exhaust has no effect on their breathing whatsoever.
So the problem seems to be not so much with the type of vehicle emission, but with the specific respiratory problem of a given individual.
In a country of approaching 70 million people, it will be inevitable that a proportion are afflicted with medical problems of various types, Unfortunate and tragic for those that are, But that is the way life on this planet works, whether we like it or not.
therefore to try to link premature deaths solely or in the main to diesel engine cars is frankly ridiculous.
Some have said they don't like the smell of diesel, fair enough, don't buy one, I have to live around diesel engined vehicles of various types, not least because I have one. Would I buy another" Yes in a heartbeat, because for `some' of the driving I have to do it is without doubt the best fuel type.
Would I not buy one because there are some who don't like the smell? hardly. Any more than they could force me to buy an unsuitable vehicle for my needs, just because `they' don't like the smell.

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Tuesday 6th October 12:54

Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Tuesday 6th October 13:17

[tomjol]

Pan, I haven't argued any of that. I was just talking about the idea of statistical evidence.

[Pan Pan Pan]

tomjol said:

Pan, I haven't argued any of that. I was just talking about the idea of statistical evidence.

Absolutely agreed. My point was that there are some here who want other drivers cars taken off the roads, because of its fuel type (because `they' don't like the smell FFS) and putting up spurious arguments, which as you say can never be confirmed and verified regarding their effects on health, whilst at the same time trying to kid people that the emissions from the vehicles types they use are not a problem?????
When in reality ALL emissions may be a problem, and problems in particular for those with respiratory / health issues.

[housen]

VW CEO Mueller Says EU6.5B Provision in 3Q Won't Be Enough

[heebeegeetee]

tomjol said:

Pan, I haven't argued any of that. I was just talking about the idea of statistical evidence.

But don't you want some evidence of that statistical evidence? Something, anything, anything at all, or will you accept nothing and just blindly do as you're told?

[otolith]

heebeegeetee said:

But don't you want some evidence of that statistical evidence? Something, anything, anything at all, or will you accept nothing and just blindly do as you're told?

This is a review of the data relating to NO2 and health. Note that most of the doubt revolves around the difficulty of separating the effects of particulates from the effects of NO2 - which is a moot point, because diesels are disproportionately large contributors of particulates compared to petrols.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

So, which conclusions would you like to take issue with? Everything is referenced, you can read the primary literature if you wish to check the methodology and data.

[tomjol]

heebeegeetee said:

tomjol said:

Pan, I haven't argued any of that. I was just talking about the idea of statistical evidence.

But don't you want some evidence of that statistical evidence? Something, anything, anything at all, or will you accept nothing and just blindly do as you're told?

Well, to an extent, no. If I bothered to go and find evidence of every single scientific claim, I'd have no time left to do anything else.

I'm not suggesting that we all just believe what we're told like good little drones, but there's a balance to be found. More importantly, we all need to understand the kind of evidence that there is, and what it means, instead of making unrealistic demands.

Pan Pan Pan said:

tomjol said:

Pan, I haven't argued any of that. I was just talking about the idea of statistical evidence.

Absolutely agreed. My point was that there are some here who want other drivers cars taken off the roads, because of its fuel type (because `they' don't like the smell FFS) and putting up spurious arguments, which as you say can never be confirmed and verified regarding their effects on health, whilst at the same time trying to kid people that the emissions from the vehicles types they use are not a problem?????
When in reality ALL emissions may be a problem, and problems in particular for those with respiratory / health issues.

Full disclosure: I bloody hate being behind stinky diesel cars (not all are stinky, I accept), I'd much rather there were fewer around. That's no basis whatsoever for legislation.

However, there is a difference between "can never be confirmed" and "can only be 'confirmed' indirectly via statistical analysis", which is what I was getting at. Just as you say people put up spurious arguments against diesel, it seems that there are others putting up spurious arguments against legislating against diesel - arguments such as "you can't find one individual who has definitely absolutely 100% died purely from exposure to diesel emissions", which are frankly ridiculous.

I know that lots of people struggle with statistics, I'm not fantastic with them myself, but the kind of evidence which is being debated is absolutely valid. Whether or not such evidence actually exists and whether or not it stands up to scrutiny are separate issues.

[Ali_T]

housen said:

VW CEO Mueller Says EU6.5B Provision in 3Q Won't Be Enough

Ouch! Though, where does the money go? To the owners or to the EPA?

[The Hypno-Toad]

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/new-vw-...

“We will review all planned investments, and what isn’t absolutely vital will be cancelled or delayed. I will be completely clear: this won’t be painless.”

I would guess that pretty much confirms what I suggested a few pages back.

Bye-Bye Bugatti.

Bye-Bye Red Bull F1 deal.

Bye-Bye Audi or Porsche Le Mans teams. (possibly both.)

Bye-Bye.

[Devil2575]

Mr2Mike said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

For people that believe the 'diesels are killing x thousand a year' nonsense, here is something that might educate you, it's specifically about EPA ozone limits - but the same concepts/fallacies/dishonesty apply to all 'pollutant' death claims/limits.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/04/new-climate-...

There are some good articles on wattsup...

No, it's bullst blog filled with lots of opinions not back up with proper science.

It's a perfect demonstration of psuedoscience.

Whenever someone links to a site like that when they wish to discuss science rather than an actual scientific source I am always skeptical.

[mollytherocker]

ORD said:

The HGV journeys on Sunday would otherwise have to take place during the rest of the week and in higher congestion, surely? That would increase, rather than decrease, pollution.

I can see a lot of sense in making HGVs all drive during the night as much as possible - that would make a huge difference.

Er....they already do! Most companies double shift their fleet, its the only way to compete.