London Considers Banning Older Diesel Models From the Roads

Here's a crazy idea: Implement realistic emissions testing, that actually measures the actual emissions, under actual use!

That way, it doesn't matter if you drive a diesel or a gasser, old or new. If your car pollutes, then you, sir, have a problem.

Of course we need to ensure that the manufacturers sell only those vehicles that pass the new standards, rather than lying about it and passing the problem onto the consumer.

TheSteve, I usually find what you say be be loaded with common sense. Your crazy idea is beyond ridiculous.

First of all, to the point of the article we must look at the effect of banning older diesels. (1) Are there enough of them to be significant or is just the Liberal Socialist Fascists pretending to do something and punishing poor people in the process? Moreover, what impact does it have on the owners who are probably driving the old diesels because that's all they can afford?

And, yes, if you read what you wrote, you advocated punishing the owners for the effects of implementing a non-pre-exisiting (sic) law holding their vehicles to a new standard.

Now let's get to your preposterous idea: implementing "realistic" emissions testing and punishing owners for something beyond their control. First of all, laboratory emissions testing is "realistic" emissions testing with a legally defined protocol.

Real-world testing is not realistic, ironically.

One question: How do you propose to control the variables present in real-world testing so as to make it realistic? The answer is that you can't control the variables. Thus, you cannot do "realistic" emissions testing in real-world situations.

Beyond that, requiring cars to meet emissions for a year other than what was legal the year of manufacture is again aimed directly at punishing poor people who are not driving older cars because they are vintage, but because that's what they can afford.

And yes, you are advocating a new standard by redefining the protocol after the date of manufacture.

As an owner/buyer/seller of vintage I would hate to see your moral vanity ("just pass a law and make the fuckers pay who drive cars that pollute more than my new car because I can afford to drive a car that meets emissions.") mentality.

Banning or re-regulating older cars is a direct violation to the rights of the citizens who legally own them.

MDarringer wrote "...And, yes, if you read what you wrote, you advocated punishing the owners for the effects of implementing a non-pre-exisiting (sic) law holding their vehicles to a new standard..."

Hmmm. What part of "Of course we need to ensure that the manufacturers sell only those vehicles that pass the new standards, rather than lying about it and passing the problem onto the consumer" do you not understand? Unless, of course, you ASSUMED that I advocate the new laws should be applied retroactively to existing vehicles that were made before the laws came into effect, and they would hold the vehicle-owner accountable... which I don't.

Assumptions are bad juju. Attributing one's own assumptions to someone else, even worse.

While I agree with much of what you said about testing- Matt - there is one thing that simply is not true - THERE IS NO SUCH RIGHT to drive a car you own ANYWHERE. I doubt you will find that one defined in any world constitution. Nor in fact - is there a right to own a car - and nations and states regularly apply requirements to own a car.(fees among them). Indeed - while poorer people may drive older cars that do not meet requirements - just because they don't have the money to drive a newer car - does not suggest that they have a right to drive their older one anywhere.

There are poor people who cannot afford to buy, register, and insure any car. Older cars that fail inspections are not able to be driven unless they are brought to standards again -and your ability to pay for the repairs is not a consideration . Implying that those standards cannot change for a car - once the car is sold - is nonsense. I have several old Televisions that - when the USA changed its Broadcast system for TV - became dumpster fodder. AND yes - while there was a way to update some of them to receive current broadcasts - their screen configuration is hardly optimal for that. Only certain "classic" cars were exempt from the change in laws requiring seat belts - and people were required to have them installed in their older cars in some states. ANd today - you need a license to and special recycling equipment to work on air-conditioning systems - even though ANYONE was able to do so for years before.

And - the ability to LEGALLY own a car is not being affected - it is only where you can drive it that is as well.

Sorry - in a perfect world you might THINK that you have such a right - but in reality there is NO such thing.

@TheSteve you can believe in juju or xenu or whatever in hell you want to believe in, but my response to you on your rhetoric stands. You can't refute what I wrote because I nailed what you were implying, so your only response is "juju"? Really?

You said two things: (1) punishing owners of older cars with arbitrarily imposed new standards done retroactively and (2) you did an "oh yeah" make sure the manufacturers meet the law.

@TomM as usual you pontificate, but you DO NOT know the law.

If you have a driver's license and a car that is licensed for the road you most certainly have a right to drive it. That is inherent in motor vehicle and driver licensing.

For someone that professes to have wrenched on cars since the dawn of time, you are stunningly unaware of the law.

American (federal and state) emissions law has consistently been that a vehicle can only be held accountable to the emissions law of the year of its production for a non-modified car.

If the car is modified with a different engine, the law requires the emissions to conform either with the year of the production of the car OR the engine, whichever is more stringent.

Thus, the 1983 TVR Tasmin that we just finished with a 2.3 Ecoboost from a crashed Mustang must meet 2016 emission standards (the year of the production of the engine). The rest of the car must conform to 1983 standards.

Your comparison of cars to televisions is a sign that dementia is setting in, but it is the typical apples-to-oranges illogic that Liberals think is logical.

The laws for seat belts AGAIN go with year of production. Cars made before 1966 are exempt federally from seat belts. In California, pre-1966 cars are "suggested" to have seat belts if they are daily drivers. Though most classic car owners install lap belts, the belts are not required.

Sorry--in your world TomM you may think you're right, but you just aren't.

Matt, one observation. At least in the US, you do NOT have a RIGHT to drive a vehicle. If you are properly licensed and the vehicle properly registered, you have the PRIVILEGE of driving on public roads. There is no RIGHT to drive in this country, and the courts often revoke someone's driving privilege based on various issues, most often because of their driving ability, or lack thereof.

Sorry Matt - BUT you are the wrong one here

It is YOU who have dimentia - Matt. THe ability to own a car has NEVER been supported by any law that says you have the right to drive it anywhere. A person without a driver's license CAN own a car(I owned one legally when I was 7 years old) - they just cannot drive it. Without a Driver's license - a requirement in virtually ALL countries - You can be ticketed for driving on public roads. You cannot argue this point. YOU are just plain wrong here. Ownership does not convey the right to drive a car - a Driver's License conveys the Privilege of driving. And I in MY world I am right -and YOU are speaking nonsense.

THere are LOTS of highways with lanes for cars that contain 3 or more riders - and if you do not have them - then YOU cannot legally drive on those roads and will be given a ticket. These Laws were made after cars were already on the roads as well - so in fact - they even changed the requirements AFTER people already owned cars - so THIS is one example that PROVES you are wrong. ANd this is about CARS - not televisions.

In the USA - there are also LOTS of Roads and Bridges were certain large vehicles cannot - or cannot any longer Drive because of their weight. And if you are driving one of the restricted vehicles - you CANNOT drive on those roads. In addition - cities regularly and openly CLOSE public roads to traffic - and it would be illegal to drive on those PUBLIC roads - no matter when you bought your car.

It is certainly legal to 'ban' certain vehicles or certain types of vehicles from a region of a town, however a blanket ban is not legal.

Pollution standards cannot be ethically revised to be more stringent than the standards in use at the time the car was originally manufactured, in a broad sense.

Notably, Japan has laws on the books which raises taxes on older vehicles to get them off the road just for this reason - so people are economically punished across the board (and up front) for driving an 'old' car that pollutes. However, in that case, people know up front that they will need to decide to take an old car off the road or else pay the higher road taxes to keep it in operation. They will not have the rug pulled out from under them, which is what the law in this article seems to suggest.

Sorry - but YOU are again WRONG

There is nothing that prevents the government from making a law that establishes a Blanket Ban on something - even though it was once Legal. A great Example would be that of Coca-Cola - which contained some cocaine - and when the government placed cocaine on its list of ILLEGAL substances for sale (not controlled) - Coca Cola with cocaine could NOT BE SOLD as of the date in the proceedings.

Pollution standards CAN be legally" (Ethics is a meaningless issue in this) changed any time the Political machine wants to do it - and it is the shear number of vehicles involved -and people owning affected vehicle - that controls the government - not the law. If the government passed a law that said that your car would have to meet a certain new standard to pass inspection and that it was UP TO YOU to modify your car to do so - or forfeit your right to drive the car - then - regardless of how rich or poor or the age of the car or anything else - you would have to bring your car up to standards to pass inspection. And while it would be prudent to give owners ample time to perform those modifications - no one has ever really characterized the government as prudent - and it would depend on the level of the threat as to how long you would have. Example - NO extra time is given when a water source is considered unsafe by law - Unsafe water (as defined by the law) can be declared illegal Immediately. I would assume that unsafe emissions could be handled in the same way. THere might be a revolution in the country - but the government is within its right. IF the governement decided there is a clear and immediate DANGER to the public health - there is NO such thing as a "grace" period.