Car buyers should have 'long, hard think' about diesel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Feel free to leave.
 
nilagin said:
Why should testing penalise those who use cars properly?
Click to expand...
Not penalise any end-user.

Regulate cold engine emissions on new cars, so future cars no longer produce un-checked emissions EVERYTIME it starts cold (at least once everyday, majority of cold starts emissions happen near where people live)

nilagin said:
You have been telling us there is enough choice of EV on the market and the recharging infrastructure is adequate for the number of EV cars on the road at present. Every time someone posts up a journalists article on their EV experience and how they found pitfalls or difficulty in finding working charges etc. You always say it is written by someone who dislikes EV's and wants to see them fail and they are just making up excuses. Now you are saying those excuses are a valid reason. You really do need to make your mind up, you seem confused.
Click to expand...
Please do not put words in my mouth.

I've always maintained there is not enough choice of EV on the market, recharging infrastructure is not adequate to allow long distance travel, restricting EV to home range. BUT I've always said you should never discount EV from start, EV makes a very good value proposition if your driving pattern suits it and you can recharge at home.

Everytime someone posts up a journalist article on EV experience, it's almost always written by someone trying to make EV work like ICE car, watching range like a hawk and don't have home charging setup. I've never disagreed with their point regarding public charging infrastructure.

nilagin said:
but from what you have said about your parents Volvo, I suspect it isn't that modern.
Click to expand...
2009 Volvo S40 Mk 2 1.6l petrol manual. Not very modern. Being 10 years old, there's only about a grand of resale value left. They plan to continue drive that car until they can buy a suitable EV. As I said, suitable EV is available, just not old enough to make them affordable yet. The reliability of en-route rapid charging on the other hand......

MatBin said:
Who said anything about retrospective tax? Go forward 5 years and revenue from carbon based fuel is dropping, the Govt will put a bill onto EV ownership, running costs against ice cars no longer looks so attractive. They will be more expensive to buy, initial price and more expensive to run. They already are in some ways, I could buy 2 similar cars, one ice and one EV, which will be more expensive? And if the EV breaks the higher tax bracket the difference in road tax is £290 pa. That's about 200 ltrs or more than 2400 miles, 3 months average mileage. If the Govt increase the road tax for EV then that's even more "free" miles for the ice car.
Click to expand...
I'll admit, I hadn't given tax much thought with regard to mileage and tracking devices. I was thinking in terms of tax at fuel source like fossil fuel.

But your calculation has a lot of assumptions. In 5 years time, EV will likely cost similar to ICE car to purchase, making current luxury road tax difference negligible. If government increase road tax for EV with a new tax scheme, you can be sure ICE cars will suffer more. No government will device a tax scheme to deliberately incentivise purchase of more locally polluting vehicles and risk not meeting their environmental targets.

I'm sure government are keenly aware that making people buy EV, they can export part of the car's lifetime pollution to the manufacturing nation. Making their own country meeting their environmental target easier.
 
Regarding sound making devices for EV, Transport Research Lab report:
https://assets.publishing.service.g...k-from-quiet-electric-and-hybrid-vehicles.pdf

Audibility of these vehicles is only a problem at low speeds, where tyre/road noise is not the dominant noise source, and particularly in urban environments where background noise can potentially mask the noise of the vehicle. There are current model ICE vehicles on the market which are comparable in noise level to E/HE vehicles.


With further technological changes in engine design, particularly related to ICE vehicles, any future move to increase the audibility of E/HE vehicles at low speeds to address public concerns may also potentially have to take into account future model ‘quiet’ ICE vehicles.


Careful consideration will be required if ‘added sound’ is to be used to improve the audibility of quiet vehicles. This will need to take into account the environments under which the vehicle is being used, the low speeds and the differing levels of background noise that might have to be overcome to prevent masking the audibility of the vehicle. This therefore makes moves to impose minimum noise limits on vehicles challenging.


Improving public awareness of all quiet vehicles, both E/HE and ICE, in both pedestrians and drivers may be a first step in reducing perceived risk.
Click to expand...

2011 report, yes, but the point remains, there are very quiet ICE vehicles (many of which are driven around slowly in Mayfair amongst shoppers). singling out EV for its quietness does not make sense.





In other news. I drove 90 mostly motorway miles in my less than 80 miles on motorway Leaf on Friday, without relying on public chargers. 60 miles round trip commute, got home at 1pm 25% remain, plugged in and charged mostly using solar energy, had lunch, went out an hour and a bit later with 45% and got back home with 8%.
Saturday, the car was back up to 80% and ready for 60 more miles. We decided to escape the heat by visiting Mothercare and Ikea. Ikea gives £6 off while we charged, car didn't need a charge so a token 40p charge was done (still took the car up to 90%). We were not after large items, after a thorough "test" of all toys at kids section, we bought £8.50 worth of bits and bobs, only costing £2.50.
Didn't plug in overnight. Sunday we drove to Hampstead Heath for the paddling pool playground. Then Golders Green for lunch. Got back with 50% charge.
Whole weekend, including Friday afternoon, overall cost to drive around was better than free thanks to Ikea and the great sunshine.

There's a lot of EV in residential area near Hampstead Heath. They had no off-street parking, but there's still about 1 EV for every 4 ICE cars. Mostly Tesla, a few e-Golf and Zoe.

Here's a photo of the lamppost charger, I can't see sign of street been dug up. Or the whole section was redone? The charger had an odd 5.5kW power limit, probably the capacity of supply cabling.
0209A355-FAE7-4870-BC6D-9D03DCDBF879.jpeg
 
Last edited:
wuyanxu said:
Regarding sound making devices for EV, Transport Research Lab report:
https://assets.publishing.service.g...k-from-quiet-electric-and-hybrid-vehicles.pdf



2011 report, yes, but the point remains, there are very quiet ICE vehicles (many of which are driven around slowly in Mayfair amongst shoppers). singling out EV for its quietness does not make sense.
Click to expand...
On the internal roads at work we have lots of electric, diesel and petrol vehicles moving about with a 10mph speed limit. Even when driven past buildings with aircon fans outside or machinery running inside, the ice can still be heard. The EV can't be heard at all. Really silent ice are few and far between, where as EV are slowly becoming more prolific so it is only right to make them audible.
 
wuyanxu said:
I've always maintained there is not enough choice of EV on the market, recharging infrastructure is not adequate to allow long distance travel, restricting EV to home range. BUT I've always said you should never discount EV from start, EV makes a very good value proposition if your driving pattern suits it and you can recharge at home.

I'll admit, I hadn't given tax much thought with regard to mileage and tracking devices. I was thinking in terms of tax at fuel source like fossil fuel.

But your calculation has a lot of assumptions. In 5 years time, EV will likely cost similar to ICE car to purchase, making current luxury road tax difference negligible. If government increase road tax for EV with a new tax scheme, you can be sure ICE cars will suffer more. No government will device a tax scheme to deliberately incentivise purchase of more locally polluting vehicles and risk not meeting their environmental targets.

I'm sure government are keenly aware that making people buy EV, they can export part of the car's lifetime pollution to the manufacturing nation. Making their own country meeting their environmental target easier.
Click to expand...

Running costs/tax regime
Assumptions by me - true
Assumptions by you - ICE/EV price difference minimal - maybe but even a difference of £1 over the limits and £1 under the limit (at present) brings about a huge tax difference
- ICE/EV tax differential (ignoring purchase price) - no idea what that will be.
- Incentivise local pollution - probably not (I agree) depends on how many young people we have to pay the old farts pensions I guess :)

Export pollution - absolutely agree, shouldn't that be a No. 1 consideration in NOT buying EV if you are at all a) Planetrary pollution aware and b) have a social conscience?

After all running an old car into the ground probably produces less overall lifetime pollution than using an ICE until its say 5 years old (even the latest virtually non-polluting ones) and then buying an EV with all the pollution that buying a new car entails (new materials etc to make the new car).
 
Last edited:
I was hoping in 5 years EV will cost similar in all segments of the market, so you can buy £10k petrol supermini or £10.5k EV supermini. So the luxury tax threshold will no longer plague EV prices, if it still exists.

Running a car into the ground could produce less pollution than buying a new car. But only if you don't drive loads of miles. If you drive loads of miles, the pollution from ICE at point of use adds up to more than pollution from manufacturing a new EV. The point at which one should change to EV is very difficult to calculate and different for each individual.

Exporting pollution is only a concern for climate conscious buyer if the lifetime pollution of EV is more than lifetime pollution of comparable ICE cars.

We have seen articles claiming ICE car would pollute similar to EV manufacture + use after a number of years, depend on electricity source. Lifetime pollution from EV is consistently lower.
Found it: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-16/the-dirt-on-clean-electric-cars
The graph suggests as little as 3 years if we use renewables to charge, less than 30k miles. So if you drive 15k miles a year switching to EV as soon as possible will see you produce less CO2 in around 2 years time, as long as you use 100% renewable suppliers.
 
wuyanxu said:
Exporting pollution is only a concern for climate conscious buyer if the lifetime pollution of EV is more than lifetime pollution of comparable ICE cars.

We have seen articles claiming ICE car would pollute similar to EV manufacture + use after a number of years, depend on electricity source. Lifetime pollution from EV is consistently lower.
Found it: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-16/the-dirt-on-clean-electric-cars
The graph suggests as little as 3 years if we use renewables to charge, less than 30k miles. So if you drive 15k miles a year switching to EV as soon as possible will see you produce less CO2 in around 2 years time, as long as you use 100% renewable suppliers.
Click to expand...

But that's the whole point, the difference between ICE and EV is so small and compared to Global pollution it's insignificant. All that effort and brain power produces minimal difference, it's a sticking plaster on a massive cut, pretty pointless.
 
PaulF said:
I too work in IT, it still amazes me the lack of security of some major financial and defence institutions.

I can, but won't, name a few that still use Windows xp!, will let visiting IT professionals wander around unescorted and not question when someone they know does not work directly for them walks out of the building with their IT kit, including servers and network kit!
Click to expand...
A few years back I worked with a major UK bank, on visiting their 'most secure' data centre & being shown round they explained how access to their computer hall was managed. It all seemed very secure, until one of my colleagues pointed out a 'contract' cleaner who had just wandered into the machine room unattended & unchallenged by anyone.

The bank 'guide' we were with was not quite so cocky about their security when this was pointed out to him. It turned out the cleaning staff had free access pretty much anywhere.
 
srichards said:
HMRC don't tax biofuels now below something like 1000 litres a year. They realised it wasn't worth the effort of collecting.

It seems to be above 2500 litres before they care. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pay-excise-duty-on-biofuels-and-other-fuel-substitutes-ho930


I'd think it will be the same with home use of electricity unless smart meters can be programmed to do it automatically. Far easier to slap VED on all new EVs.
Click to expand...
Or just increase the VAT on domestic energy supplies, don't forget they want us to use less gas for heating our homes & cooking.
 
nilagin said:
it is only right to make them audible.
Click to expand...


Makes sod all difference to an awful lot of people. I've had as many people step out in front of me while on the bike (which might keep getting "Noisy Exhaust" advisories at MoT time) as I've had in the Leaf. Not all phone zombies with their ear buds in, either. I can't hear the Leaf's low speed noise - I'm almost totally deaf in that frequency range.

Oddly, by law, the noise has to be able to be switched off - it's (currently) illegal to cause noise from a sounder between certain hours...
 
MatBin said:
But that's the whole point, the difference between ICE and EV is so small and compared to Global pollution it's insignificant. All that effort and brain power produces minimal difference, it's a sticking plaster on a massive cut, pretty pointless.
Click to expand...
It all depends on the source of your electric grid mix. But as shown, EV have the potential to take less than 30k miles to produce less lifetime emission. It's not pointless when average car gets driven over 100k miles.

As the grid become greener with more renewable sources, as more energy storage are connected to the grid to allow better utilisation of renewables, all electric cars on the road, including existing EV becomes greener.

That is the biggest benefit of EV. Government pollution reduction targets can be met quicker, investment in electricity sector will see huge gains. Unlike current ICE cars, where older cars on the road continue to pollute until they are off the road.

Nod said:
Oddly, by law, the noise has to be able to be switched off - it's (currently) illegal to cause noise from a sounder between certain hours...
Click to expand...
Really? I did not know that. I only know no honk before 7am. I regularly leave before 7am, may be I am breaking the law by not turning off the noise-maker.

But my neighbours had actually said to me that they are thankful I switched to EV. I used to start up my Merc diesel early in the morning, it makes a huge racket.

Another way the noise-maker legislation is not well thought out and doesn't make sense is how it doesn't mandate reversing sounds. The reversing sound legislation only allows reversing sound for goods vehicle. So in supermarket car parks where there may be small children walking near parked cars, hidden to driver due to poor rear visibility, the EV could start moving silently. From my experience, this is more important than forward noises.
https://www.speakev.com/threads/reversing-sound.51609/
 
wuyanxu said:
That is the biggest benefit of EV. Government pollution reduction targets can be met quicker, investment in electricity sector will see huge gains. Unlike current ICE cars, where older cars on the road continue to pollute until they are off the road.



Another way the noise-maker legislation is not well thought out and doesn't make sense is how it doesn't mandate reversing sounds. The reversing sound legislation only allows reversing sound for goods vehicle. So in supermarket car parks where there may be small children walking near parked cars, hidden to driver due to poor rear visibility, the EV could start moving silently. From my experience, this is more important than forward noises.
https://www.speakev.com/threads/reversing-sound.51609/
Click to expand...


Some car manufacturers have started their own scrappage schemes (up to £4k) again so that should see some of the older cars removed from the road.


The problem with small children in supermarket car parks isn't so much a problem for the legislation, more a case of poor parenting.
 
nilagin said:
Some car manufacturers have started their own scrappage schemes (up to £4k) again so that should see some of the older cars removed from the road.


The problem with small children in supermarket car parks isn't so much a problem for the legislation, more a case of poor parenting.
Click to expand...
The problem with scrappage scheme is that it usually only applies if you buy brand new cars. If you are happily driving a 10+ years old car and not paying much depreciation, it's unlikely you'll want to jump straight into a brand new car and pay a lot more money for very little fuel saving.
(with EV, however, you can afford to pay a bit more on car depreciation, thanks to massive fuel savings)

The problem in supermarket car parks is not only with small children, that was just the worst case example. It also applies to anyone who happen to be walking by. Unlike noise while driving, where it only really affects people wanting to cross the road, car park is a place where people walk amongst parked cars, unable to tell which car is about to move affects everyone. EV in UK are not allowed to have reverse sound, so the car could start moving without any warning. I've surprised a lot of people even when slowly reverse out of parking space. It's a real problem.
Hence as I've said, the EV noise-maker legislation is not well thought out, poorly put together and doesn't tackle real problems.
 
wuyanxu said:
The problem in supermarket car parks is not only with small children, that was just the worst case example. It also applies to anyone who happen to be walking by. Unlike noise while driving, where it only really affects people wanting to cross the road, car park is a place where people walk amongst parked cars, unable to tell which car is about to move affects everyone. EV in UK are not allowed to have reverse sound, so the car could start moving without any warning. I've surprised a lot of people even when slowly reverse out of parking space. It's a real problem.
Hence as I've said, the EV noise-maker legislation is not well thought out, poorly put together and doesn't tackle real problems.
Click to expand...

Oh come on, fit a rear facing camera to the car, sense when there's a moving object (or even a stationery one) and get the s/w to engage the brake until the driver overrides it and record he has done so (in case of an accident the driver would then have to produce the evidence). I'm sure that's not outside the bounds of what a car maker could do (if required by Law of course).
Surely that would be more usefull than some of the other gimmicks.

I never reverse out of a carpark slot, always into so I can judge if there are any pedestrians around and they can see I have stopped and going into the slot, it works 99% of the time.
My house/drive is on a main road, the pavement is used by kids on the school run (great when they are tots away from Mum who is on the phone not looking after the kids)and I always reverse onto my drive so I can see if there are any pedestrians around that I need to be aware of, despite the protests sometimes of idiot car drivers not paying attention to me indicating to pull over well before my drive and jamming their bumper under my boot lid. Reverse parking should be the norm not the exception.
 
Last edited:
I am in awe of the perfect standards that my fellow forum members maintain, day in, day out. You truly inspire me to be a better person. Thank you.
 
MatBin said:
Oh come on, fit a rear facing camera to the car, sense when there's a moving object (or even a stationery one) and get the s/w to engage the brake until the driver overrides it and record he has done so (in case of an accident the driver would then have to produce the evidence). I'm sure that's not outside the bounds of what a car maker could do (if required by Law of course).
Surely that would be more usefull than some of the other gimmicks.

I never reverse out of a carpark slot,
Click to expand...
So now, rather than having a very simple noise-maker already installed to activate when reverse gear is selected, a complex image processing software solution is proposed. What you've said is certainly possible and I'd personally prefer it over a noise-maker. But to get it into every car at every price level will take years, as we all know, manufacturers love to slowly trickle down technology.

Noise-maker requirement has been put in for yesterday, it was the perfect opportunity to tackle the car park problem for EV's, and overrule outdated "no reverse sound except for goods vehicle". But it didn't.

Unfortunately it's not possible to always reverse into a parking spot. If I want charge my Leaf for example, you'd have to park nose-in because the charging socket is at the front. Compound the problem with chargers are usually located near the entrance (stupid decision IMHO) with high foot traffic.
 
Last edited:
wuyanxu said:
The problem with scrappage scheme is that it usually only applies if you buy brand new cars. If you are happily driving a 10+ years old car and not paying much depreciation, it's unlikely you'll want to jump straight into a brand new car and pay a lot more money for very little fuel saving.
(with EV, however, you can afford to pay a bit more on car depreciation, thanks to massive fuel savings)

The problem in supermarket car parks is not only with small children, that was just the worst case example. It also applies to anyone who happen to be walking by. Unlike noise while driving, where it only really affects people wanting to cross the road, car park is a place where people walk amongst parked cars, unable to tell which car is about to move affects everyone. EV in UK are not allowed to have reverse sound, so the car could start moving without any warning. I've surprised a lot of people even when slowly reverse out of parking space. It's a real problem.
Hence as I've said, the EV noise-maker legislation is not well thought out, poorly put together and doesn't tackle real problems.
Click to expand...

Scrappage schemes are generally run by manufacturers though and they don't generally have 2nd hand cars to run such schemes with. Some 2nd hand dealerships do run their own scrappage deals however and It's not uncommon for the cars to be a higher price in the first place. People aren't obligated to buy a new car, nor take advantage of getting more money for there car, but if they do they can get a cleaner, modern vehicle, probably safer than their old one in many respects. So It's not really a problem at all.

As mentioned by others, you really ought to be reversing into parking spaces, not out of them.
 
wuyanxu said:
So now, rather than having a very simple noise-maker already installed to activate when reverse gear is selected, a complex image processing software solution is proposed. What you've said is certainly possible and I'd personally prefer it over a noise-maker. But to get it into every car at every price level will take years, as we all know, manufacturers love to slowly trickle down technology.
Click to expand...
You only have to specify a reversing camera as an optional extra if you want one. The price of a new EV , I would be surprised if they are not standard anyway.
 
nilagin said:
You only have to specify a reversing camera as an optional extra if you want one. The price of a new EV , I would be surprised if they are not standard anyway.
Click to expand...
That's very different to what has been suggested. Did you read that post thoroughly? Or do you only read my posts to see if there's anything can be dismissed and anything can be turned around to snipe at EV's?
MatBin said:
fit a rear facing camera to the car, sense when there's a moving object (or even a stationery one) and get the s/w to engage the brake until the driver overrides it and record he has done so
Click to expand...

Please correct me if I'm wrong, current reversing auto-brake solution only exist for ultrasonic sensors against stationary object like a wall or car. Reversing camera is visual only for the driver, the optional extra item doesn't automatically brake.
 
MatBin said:
Oh come on, fit a rear facing camera to the car, sense when there's a moving object (or even a stationery one) and get the s/w to engage the brake until the driver overrides it and record he has done so (in case of an accident the driver would then have to produce the evidence). I'm sure that's not outside the bounds of what a car maker could do (if required by Law of course).
Surely that would be more usefull than some of the other gimmicks.

I never reverse out of a carpark slot, always into so I can judge if there are any pedestrians around and they can see I have stopped and going into the slot, it works 99% of the time.
My house/drive is on a main road, the pavement is used by kids on the school run (great when they are tots away from Mum who is on the phone not looking after the kids)and I always reverse onto my drive so I can see if there are any pedestrians around that I need to be aware of, despite the protests sometimes of idiot car drivers not paying attention to me indicating to pull over well before my drive and jamming their bumper under my boot lid. Reverse parking should be the norm not the exception.
Click to expand...
Reverse parking doesn't work in supermarket car parks when you have a trolley load of groceries to load into the boot of the car. Or a load of DIY materials you have just collected from the DIY 'shed' or garden centre.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
broc said:
Reverse parking doesn't work in supermarket car parks when you have a trolley load of groceries to load into the boot of the car. Or a load of DIY materials you have just collected from the DIY 'shed' or garden centre.
Click to expand...
Strange that. Neither has ever been a problem for me. Just lucky I guess. :)
 
wuyanxu said:
That's very different to what has been suggested. Did you read that post thoroughly? Or do you only read my posts to see if there's anything can be dismissed and anything can be turned around to snipe at EV's?


Please correct me if I'm wrong, current reversing auto-brake solution only exist for ultrasonic sensors against stationary object like a wall or car. Reversing camera is visual only for the driver, the optional extra item doesn't automatically brake.
Click to expand...

Ford's auto park assist reacts and brakes to pedestrians or cars crossing It's path when entering or exiting parking spaces.
 
wuyanxu said:
If I want charge my Leaf for example, you'd have to park nose-in because the charging socket is at the front.
Click to expand...

We bought a 10m cable to avoid that problem. Long enough to reach the front of the Leaf even when reversed in in front of the bikes.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Strange that. Neither has ever been a problem for me. Just lucky I guess. :)
Click to expand...

By the same token, I've been parking nose-in in supermarkets and forward onto my drive for 30 years. (Near a school)
Never hit a person of any age, no trolleys, no one up my bumper on trying to park.
It's a matter of preference, not safety, you just have to be aware of your surroundings.
And yes, I can parallel park on either side of the road, or reverse into a car park spot, without issue, if I choose. :)
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Strange that. Neither has ever been a problem for me. Just lucky I guess. :)
Click to expand...
Have you not tried squeezing between two parked cars to get to your car boot carrying the odd paving slab or sack of compost to discover the person who has parked immediately behind your car is so close you cannot open the boot/tailgate ?
 
broc said:
Have you not tried squeezing between two parked cars to get to your car boot carrying the odd paving slab or sack of compost to discover the person who has parked immediately behind your car is so close you cannot open the boot/tailgate ?
Click to expand...
The secret is to think ahead and park appropriately. Still there's no law about it so you go your way and I'll go mine. :ty:
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
The secret is to think ahead and park appropriately. Still there's no law about it so you go your way and I'll go mine. :ty:
Click to expand...

I judge each parking situation as it arises & as my needs (& available space) dictate & reverse park when I need to. I have even been known to reverse park with a 7.5m caravan attached......
 
broc said:
I judge each parking situation as it arises & as my needs (& available space) dictate & reverse park when I need to. I have even been known to reverse park with a 7.5m caravan attached......
Click to expand...
Congratulations?:thinking:
 
broc said:
Have you not tried squeezing between two parked cars to get to your car boot carrying the odd paving slab or sack of compost to discover the person who has parked immediately behind your car is so close you cannot open the boot/tailgate ?
Click to expand...
I would just move my car out if that was the case and I had reversed in, have done so a few times. The only place I drive into a slot is in the garden centre because all of the bays are angled and you can't reverse in.
I wouldn't want to reverse off my drive into the main road, plus the high boot blocks out seeing youngsters running behind my car if I'm reversing off my drive. I also have 1m high fencing down both sides (neighbors fences, both of them unusually plus a brick pillar on one side). So for me reversing on is the only safe option.
Years ago some pillock reversed off his drive and caused me to have an accident on my motorcycle so I guess I may be biased.
 
wuyanxu said:
So now, rather than having a very simple noise-maker already installed to activate when reverse gear is selected, a complex image processing software solution is proposed. What you've said is certainly possible and I'd personally prefer it over a noise-maker. But to get it into every car at every price level will take years, as we all know, manufacturers love to slowly trickle down technology.

Noise-maker requirement has been put in for yesterday, it was the perfect opportunity to tackle the car park problem for EV's, and overrule outdated "no reverse sound except for goods vehicle". But it didn't.

Unfortunately it's not possible to always reverse into a parking spot. If I want charge my Leaf for example, you'd have to park nose-in because the charging socket is at the front. Compound the problem with chargers are usually located near the entrance (stupid decision IMHO) with high foot traffic.
Click to expand...
Again, stunningly blinkered thinking. If manufacturers won't voluntarily do it then legislation could be introduced, just like they are doing for speed sign recognition limiters.
 
nilagin said:
Ford's auto park assist reacts and brakes to pedestrians or cars crossing It's path when entering or exiting parking spaces.
Click to expand...
Different technology though. That combines ultrasonic sensor and perhaps rear side radars to achieve this, not visual camera alone. Also see below regarding the change of topic away from the real issue.

MatBin said:
Again, stunningly blinkered thinking. If manufacturers won't voluntarily do it then legislation could be introduced, just like they are doing for speed sign recognition limiters.
Click to expand...
Not blinkered thinking, only pointing out the obvious. If it is to be put into legislation, why wasn't it introduced together with the noise-maker legislation? It's the same larger issue: safety of low speed quiet vehicles.

But the issue here is not stopping for pedestrians at the last second. The real issue is pedestrian awareness of your moving or about to move vehicle. The reason forward noise-maker was made to be compulsory is to make the vehicle more prominent to pedestrians, but same wasn't done for reversing. Fitting reverse camera or having the car stop at the very last second doesn't change the fact unaware pedestrians in the car park will get a fright and may involve in an accident because we are relying on the last resort: emergency braking functionality. Most cars today already have AEB for pedestrian anyway, so by same logic, the noise-maker for up to 12mph wouldn't be required, because we can rely on the car to stop at the last second!


Nod said:
We bought a 10m cable to avoid that problem. Long enough to reach the front of the Leaf even when reversed in in front of the bikes.
Click to expand...
10m cable must be quite a monster to get back into the boot........ it's only really required because there's not enough chargers and the bays may have cars parked but not plugged in. If there were more chargers in more bays, you should be able to get away with 2m cables. I've 5m cable so I can park in the bay next to the charger if required.

What about rapid charging where cables are attached to the charger and similar length to petrol pump hoses. Often at motorway services, they are near the entrance and people walk all around the car. In last few day's sun, the reverse light could be easily missed.
 
wuyanxu said:
Different technology though. That combines ultrasonic sensor and perhaps rear side radars to achieve this, not visual camera alone. Also see below regarding the change of topic away from the real issue.


Not blinkered thinking, only pointing out the obvious. If it is to be put into legislation, why wasn't it introduced together with the noise-maker legislation? It's the same larger issue: safety of low speed quiet vehicles.

But the issue here is not stopping for pedestrians at the last second. The real issue is pedestrian awareness of your moving or about to move vehicle. The reason forward noise-maker was made to be compulsory is to make the vehicle more prominent to pedestrians, but same wasn't done for reversing. Fitting reverse camera or having the car stop at the very last second doesn't change the fact unaware pedestrians in the car park will get a fright and may involve in an accident because we are relying on the last resort: emergency braking functionality. Most cars today already have AEB for pedestrian anyway, so by same logic, the noise-maker for up to 12mph wouldn't be required, because we can rely on the car to stop at the last second.
Click to expand...

Is there a manufacturer system that relies on rear view camera alone? In my experience It's either rear sensors or rear camera plus sensors.
Surely all that matters is there are systems out their that work. Just because it doesn't fit what is in your head, it doesn't mean it isn't acceptable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top