| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 2542.1 | See ya Diesel !! | WOTVAX::BARRETTR | | Thu Aug 22 1996 21:03 | 6 |
| > Just for burning oil
Diesel drivers better start worrying then really !!
Rick
|
| 2542.2 | | COMICS::SHELLEY | Don't get mad, get even. | Thu Aug 22 1996 21:14 | 8 |
| Police have always had the ability to stop dangerous cars.
Environmentally or otherwise. An MoT only shows a car is roadworthy
on the day of the test.
It would be embarassing if they pulled someone for a smokey exhaust
but the car passed the MoT emission test.
Royston
|
| 2542.3 | | ARKIE::WEBB | | Thu Aug 22 1996 23:23 | 16 |
|
Re: .1
Diesel cars are supposed to be very friendly to the environment, that is if
you don't consider people as part of the environment. I heard/read that there
has been a considerable increase in asthma cases, which followed the increase
in the number of diesel powered cars. Supposedly this is because of the large
amounts of particulate matter in diesel fumes.
I wonder if a car with a blown head gasket would be stopped. Usually the
symptoms of a blown head gasket are clouds of white smoke coming from the
exhaust, because the anti-freeze gets into the cylinders. The question would be,
is boiling anti-freeze a danger to the environment?
nigel
|
| 2542.4 | | TERRI::SIMON | Semper in Excernere | Fri Aug 23 1996 12:30 | 10 |
| It would be embarassing if they pulled someone for a smokey exhaust
but the car passed the MoT emission test.
My previous Landrover had HCs at about 150ppm whereas the limit is 1200,
the other measurments where all very low as well.
The sad part is that it had some worn piston rings and burnt oil like
an aircraft carrier... and blow it out of the exhaust.
Simon
|
| 2542.5 | My world is blue! | CHEFS::GERRYT | | Tue Aug 27 1996 21:12 | 5 |
|
But then again there are 2 stroke m/cycles that burn with blue exhaust
fumes! The guy's off his trolley.
Tim
|
| 2542.6 | | ARKIE::WEBB | | Wed Aug 28 1996 19:25 | 19 |
| RE: .5
>"The guy's off his trolley."
I don't know if you were refering to me for asking the question or to John
Gummer (Enviroment Secretary) for making the statement.
I only asked the question because I find it difficult to understand how the
'boys in blue' are going to determine that a car is "Environmentaly Dangerous".
I agree with Royston (.2) that dangerous cars have always been at risk to be
stopped. Those were the cars that had visible signs, such as bald tyres, large
rust holes, pieces hanging off or missing, or pieces tied on with baler twine,
but as far as I can tell the 'environmentaly dangerous' stuff is invisible. If
it wasn't we wouldn't need to pay for an emissions test, we'd just take a look
at some part of the car (perhaps the exhaust), we certainly wouldn'd have to
lift the bonnet because according to John Gummer you can be "stopped while
driving" an 'environmentaly dangerous' car.
nigel
|
| 2542.7 | Tecnology has the answer?? | SEDSWS::OCONNELL | PETER PERFECT | Wed Sep 04 1996 21:20 | 9 |
| With the technology employed in cars these days, how about adding
some gizzmo to the on board computer that checks the vehicles own
emmission. Then it can do one of a number of things:
Warn the driver that there is a problem.
Warn the driver that there is a problem, threaten not to start after
a given period of time, to prompt for a repair!.
nice idea eh???!!!
|
| 2542.8 | | ARKIE::WEBB | | Fri Sep 06 1996 03:03 | 11 |
| RE: -1
Sounds like a great idea, just stick a sensor in the tail pipe and you get a
warning.
Alternativly: to meed the environment secretary's requirement, instead of the
driver getting the warning light in the dash. A big orange sign in the rear
window flashes "ENVIRONMENTALLY DANGEROUS" so that the cops can stop you and
book you.
nigel
|
| 2542.9 | oops | CHEFS::GERRYT | | Mon Sep 16 1996 17:21 | 20 |
| 2542.10 | | KAOFS::M_NAKAGAWA | | Fri Sep 20 1996 07:22 | 27
|