Do you want to make combustion engines in cars illegal!?

[Grayfox]

. We have to disabuse people of the notion that bigger is better/safer. Lighter, lower, more efficient is the keyword.

I dont know why manufacturers make cars so large japan has those kei cars and they still have to meet japans safety standards for new cars.

 

[Carbonox]

We have to disabuse people of the notion that bigger is better/safer. Lighter, lower, more efficient is the keyword.

Only latched on to this because of that previous post, but still:

Extreme example, but I consider it a lot more likely for me to survive a collision with a medium-sized car if I'm driving an SUV, compared to one of those "K-cars", or a Lotus Exige (lovely car, but will most likely be on the losing end in any crash with just a slightly bigger vehicle. Not to mention it could get run over more easily with the low ground clearance).

It'd be foolish of me to pretend those smaller and lighter cars would be equally safe to large ones.

 

[Joel]

That's not the whole story though, you might not get in the accident in the first place if you're driving a Corolla that weighs a third as much. Sure, all things considered I'd rather get in an accident in an F150 than a Corolla, but maybe the lighter weight means I can stop or avoid it in the first place.

 

[Carbonox]

That's not the whole story though, you might not get in the accident in the first place if you're driving a Corolla that weighs a third as much. Sure, all things considered I'd rather get in an accident in an F150 than a Corolla, but maybe the lighter weight means I can stop or avoid it in the first place.

Some collisions aren't exactly avoidable though. If I do turn out a responsible driver, I probably won't be that worried about crashing into someone, but would rather minimize the risks to myself if someone else screws up.

 

[Pseudopod]

Not all are, but some are. If some types traffic accidents become more likely to result in a fatality, but the total number of accidents are reduced, the car can still be safer.

 

[Imari]

I dont know why manufacturers make cars so large japan has those kei cars and they still have to meet japans safety standards for new cars.

Kei cars work for a number of factors that are mostly unique to Japan.

For starters, they get tax breaks so they're cheaper to buy and run.
Japan's streets are really, really narrow so a small car for driving in urban areas is a big positive.
The urban areas are enormous, people who live in the city are probably going to be in urban areas pretty much the whole time, meaning that a car with low power and relatively low high speed comfort is fine.
Highway tolls are enormous as well, so there's a massive disincentive to driving your car long distances instead of using public transport.
Cost of owning a car goes up significantly as it gets older, so there's incentive to regularly buy cheap cars new instead of buying an expensive luxury car and hanging onto it for twenty years.


These things don't work for many people in western countries. People in Australia or the US want to be able to drive big distances in comfort at high speed. They want to be able to haul lots of stuff. They have no problem spending big on a really nice car and then holding it for ten+ years. They're not going to get taxed off the road for running a 15 year old car.

Kei cars are cool, but they're built to satisfy certain market conditions that really don't exist outside Japan. At least from what I've seen. No doubt there'd be some people in major cities that would love one, but it seems likely that the manufacturers have decided that the market isn't big enough to be profitable for them. If they thought they could make money out of it, they would be selling them.

I mean, look at all the people that buy SUVs that don't need to. The reasoning that leads to that is the reason we don't have Kei cars. Not that they wouldn't be fine for some people, but that nobody would buy them in countries where size is actually an issue.

 

[niky]

Small cars can be made safer. But it's easier to make medium sized cars safer. And safer than SUVs.

With SUVs, you have a lot of extra weight not contributing to the crash structure and/or crash safety and simply carrying tons of deadly kinetic energy into a crash.

In the end, if the vehicle fleet is smaller, that minimizes the amount of killing force any single vehicle carries into a crash, increasing the survivability of all involved.

If everyone settled on smaller "safe" cars (like the Mirage), you save on gasoline, raw materials, wear and tear of road infrastructure and road fatalities.

It's a vain hope. Economic progress brings with it... naturally... a desire for bigger and bigger cars. When people have the money for bigger, more powerful cars... they'll buy bigger, more powerful cars.

Then there are people who actually need bigger cars. Having two small cars to do the job of a single bigger one is simply not efficient.

 

[wfooshee]

So.... ban ICEs to "eliminate" pollution.

Have you seen what it takes, chemistry-wise, to make, then dispose of or recycle, batteries??!?!??!?!?!! And you want to demand that we multiply the current rate of those processes by several orders of magnitude??!?!??!?

And um...... where does the electricity come from to charge all of these batteries?

 

[Lucas]

I have a better idea.

Why don't we use bicycles instead of cars? Less traffic, less polution, and it's better for our body. In the future, these bikes may be fitted with engines for easier and faster movement, and perhaps later on, we will use bicycles with four wheels for better stability, with added seats to carry our fellow men and women with us.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

If you're proposing something like this, where are your statistics backing it up...800 people dying in bold print isn't solid proof of anything other than you being a great politician to get people on your side, with scare tactics.

800 people lived, due to driving the car they love! See nothing to validate that at all, just like you've done. And yet I can probably safely say that since they didn't die and they all drive a car, clearly that's the reason they lived on to see another day. (Though this isn't true and is more satirical in nature to prove a point)

Also another issue is this, you assume that ICE's are to blame, and rather than propose a law that would have or grant people more money for say hydrogen fuel or some other source of combustion or compressible fuel, the easy solution to you is to outright ban it all together.

Many proposed fuels to take over like Methane, Bio-Diesel, Ethanol, Hydrogen and so on all are combustion engines with far greater benefits to the "environment" and yet instead of changing that you do the scare tactic. Think smarter not harder.

 

[Joel]

I dont know why manufacturers make cars so large japan has those kei cars and they still have to meet japans safety standards for new cars.

Because people want them and are willing to pay for them. Why do anything manufacturers make anything?

 

[Lucas]

800 people lived, due to driving the car they love! See nothing to validate that at all, just like you've done. And yet I can probably safely say that since they didn't die and they all drive a car, clearly that's the reason they lived on to see another day.

Did you know that everyone who drank water eventually died?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Did you know that everyone who drank water eventually died?

Oh my gosh, you're right. BAN WATER!

See Lucas just started a new law on how to create mass extinction, brilliant.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Did you know that everyone who drank water eventually died?

Really?!?? We should make water illegal now before we all die!

 

[squadops]

Oh my gosh, you're right. BAN WATER!

See Lucas just started a new law on how to create mass extinction, brilliant.

He was sent by David Attenborough to infiltrate us, it might be working lol. Come to think of it, it is true that you can die from water poisoning, maybe we should take NYC's approach to soda pop cups and ban all large drinking containers for sales and personal use.

Skipping all the obvious flaws of this proposal one simply needs to look at the economic impact it would have, government attempts to alter supply and demand never end well.

 

[Imari]

I have a better idea.

Why don't we use bicycles instead of cars? Less traffic, less polution, and it's better for our body. In the future, these bikes may be fitted with engines for easier and faster movement, and perhaps later on, we will use bicycles with four wheels for better stability, with added seats to carry our fellow men and women with us.

Great.

When I only lived a few kilometers from work, I did use my bicycle. It took about the same amount of time, with morning traffic and all that taken into account, and it's kind of pleasant unless the weather is awful. Through a nature reserve too, which was nice.

When I live fifty kilometers from work and most of that is on a highway, it's simply not possible. I'd spend hours a day squashing my testicles on a bicycle while breathing in exhaust fumes, and that's no way to live.

Bicycles are great, if you happen to live in a situation where you can use them. It's a bit like kei cars, they're great, if they suit your specific needs.

They don't solve many of the problems that ICEs solve though, like travelling great distances at speed, hauling cargo or moving lots of people at once.

 

[FoolKiller]

As I was reading the OP my first thought was, "This is an idea that could only be born out of California." Then I looked to the left. Finding out later that it came from a college class just added to my initial assumptions.

Anyway:

- Carbon Monoxide (and other poisonous gases as well)) are produced when fuel is not completely burned, which kills about 800 people per year in Canada+USA

Before we go anywhere else; prove it. Show me the names of the 800 people that died in 2014. I want to see the cause of death, or at least the causal data that shows that their death was a result of car emissions.

Also, 800 deaths from two countries? If you actually care about saving lives you are barking up the wrong tree. The CDC reports that there are an average of 610,000 deaths from heart disease every year in just the US. Let's start banning certain foods, regulating diet restrictions and minimal exercise requirements. You would save far more than 800 lives. But the same rule applies here as I applied to your 800 deaths. I need to see the direct link from what you are banning to the deaths before I will agree.

What do you think? Would it keep most people happy?

Yadda yadda yadda, cold, dead hands.

Manufacturers would be happy; 300 million people would need a new car... lol.

And over half of them wouldn't be able to afford it, wouldn't be able to get to work, would lose their jobs, their families would starve, experience the medical and emotional stresses that accompany poverty, and many will die. The economy would suddenly falter and crumble and then others would become drastically poor. Eventually no cars of any kind will be cost effective to create and sell and your fun track days would come to a screeching halt.

Congratulations, you maybe, theoretically saved 800 lives but wiped out a huge chunk of the population and industry. Not only did you save the 800 lives, but you reduced global emissions to a near halt. Shame about those 100+ million though, right? No classes focusing on economics and market forces in your school?

Times change, nobody complains about all of the milkmen that went out of business, because someone bought a refrigerator.

Because no one made it happen with some insane law forcing refrigerator purchases or banning milk delivery. That was a result of the free market at work.

I think if we really wanted to, we can change the entire lineup to at least hybrids within 10 years.

Even if this were true, the economic effects would still be devastating. People drive old cars for a reason.

And um...... where does the electricity come from to charge all of these batteries?

Trees, duh.

























No, seriously. They die, break down and the carbon becomes pressurized over millions of years and hardens into a black rock known as coal, and then some dude digs it up and then we burn it to run our power plants. Renewable, green energy!

 

[sk8er913]

As I was reading the OP my first thought was, "This is an idea that could only be born out of California." Then I looked to the left. Finding out later that it came from a college class just added to my initial assumptions.

Anyway:


Before we go anywhere else; prove it. Show me the names of the 800 people that died in 2014. I want to see the cause of death, or at least the causal data that shows that their death was a result of car emissions.

Also, 800 deaths from two countries? If you actually care about saving lives you are barking up the wrong tree. The CDC reports that there are an average of 610,000 deaths from heart disease every year in just the US. Let's start banning certain foods, regulating diet restrictions and minimal exercise requirements. You would save far more than 800 lives. But the same rule applies here as I applied to your 800 deaths. I need to see the direct link from what you are banning to the deaths before I will agree.


Yadda yadda yadda, cold, dead hands.


And over half of them wouldn't be able to afford it, wouldn't be able to get to work, would lose their jobs, their families would starve, experience the medical and emotional stresses that accompany poverty, and many will die. The economy would suddenly falter and crumble and then others would become drastically poor. Eventually no cars of any kind will be cost effective to create and sell and your fun track days would come to a screeching halt.

Congratulations, you maybe, theoretically saved 800 lives but wiped out a huge chunk of the population and industry. Not only did you save the 800 lives, but you reduced global emissions to a near halt. Shame about those 100+ million though, right? No classes focusing on economics and market forces in your school?


Because no one made it happen with some insane law forcing refrigerator purchases or banning milk delivery. That was a result of the free market at work.


Even if this were true, the economic effects would still be devastating. People drive old cars for a reason.


Trees, duh.

























No, seriously. They die, break down and the carbon becomes pressurized over millions of years and hardens into a black rock known as coal, and then some dude digs it up and then we burn it to run our power plants. Renewable, green energy!

That first paragraph made my lol. I was planning on abandoning this thread, but that intro was great.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

That first paragraph made my lol. I was planning on abandoning this thread, but that intro was great.

That's great, so are you going to retract what you said or just be known at the guy that gives out faulty info...while being what seems like either a major in environmental what ever or sustainability science and living in California.

 

[R5]

I was planning on abandoning this thread

 

[sk8er913]

That's great, so are you going to retract what you said or just be known at the guy that gives out faulty info...while being what seems like either a major in environmental what ever or sustainability science and living in California.

I didn't give any fault info purposely; I remembered the title of a graph incorrectly; so what. And my final statement was on page 2. Just let the oil run out. It's only 2 decades different.

And if you'll notice in the links my emission source was Portland State University. I highly doubt PSU is giving their students faulty information on CO and NO emissions.

@legacyMACHINE There's not really a point in continuing when its 2 vs 29... No idea who the 2 is...

 

[R5]

@legacyMACHINE There's not really a point in continuing when its 2 vs 29... No idea who the 2 is...

Was more referencing the "I'm being challenged on my sources. Abandon ship!!!!" Attitude you seem to have.

 

[crooky369]

No offence but this is a classic case of a youngster talking about an important issue to adults without really understanding the subject. We've all been there at some point and you'll cringe if you see this thread in ten years when you're older and wiser...

But you're young and it's good to see you're passionate about these sort of issues that will affect you in your lifetime. I guess even if you didn't have a true understanding, that at least you've generated a lengthy and interesting discussion around the replacement for ICE powered vehicles.

 

[Exorcet]

There's not really a point in continuing when its 2 vs 29... No idea who the 2 is...

For one thing, that brings into question the entire idea, unless you felt that most people would readily agree with it (which would further support the idea that a law is not necessary). If you're really trying to push for something, you don't give up because people disagree with you.

Secondly it's a thread with a debate, so the only "vs" is in the sense that people are communicating with each and other and don't necessarily agree on everything. There is possibly something to be gained on all sides by continuing, while just jumping out when points are unclear and confused can leave people with the wrong impression.

 

[R5]

I would like to throw my hat into the ring with yet another no.

I think the one of the most viable rules is exclusion zones, where places require cars to run on electricity, be it a pure EV or a hybrid. This would reduce CO2 substantially with a worldwide rollout (although even in just London would have a decent impact) and offer free public transport for those who can't travel in these zones. This will still have some problems, one of which may well be an increase in traffic outside of these exclusion zones as more people attempt to use a different route which may defeat the point of the exclusion zone in the first place.


But then there is also the question of how to police it properly? Would someone with a hybrid simply not switch to E-power and get away with it?

There is also the fact that the public transport will need to keep with the EV idea, meaning a change in design for them. This could cost vast amounts for both governments and transport operators, which may not be recovered entirely.

 

[FoolKiller]

There is also the fact that the public transport will need to keep with the EV idea, meaning a change in design for them. This could cost vast amounts for both governments and transport operators, which may not be recovered entirely.

Or bankrupt every small, local gas station owner or franchisee as the costs to retrofit away from oil-based products would be too great.

Another issue with using the term internal combustion engine is that they can be designed to internally combust something other than petroleum products. I've seen liquid natural gas designs, propane designs, and liquid hydrogen designs.

The thing abou internal combustion is that it is very versatile for the fuel source. You need to redesign the combustion chamber for the type of fuel you are using, but everything after that is similar. Heck, even power plants based on hydroelectrical, nuclear, tidal forces, and wind all use the same basic principle for generating power: turn a turbine connected to a generator.

And my final statement was on page 2. Just let the oil run out. It's only 2 decades different.

When I was in fifth or sixth grade, roughly 23 years ago I was told we only had about 20 years of oil left and 10-15 years worth of fresh water. Oh, and the ozone layer would be completely gone in a decade. If I keep going I could talk about how we recycled because we were on the verge of running out of all sorts of stuff. Heck, I remember the rainforests were going to be gone and the air would have so little oxygen that the Earth would be unlivable, if the lack of rainforests didn't cause rain to no longer be made and result in worldwide drought. Then I got older and discovered ocean Algeba has a far greater effect on oxygen production and climate than the rainforests, and it had been known well before I was told otherwise in school.

Be careful with any data you get in school regarding a controversial topic. Misinformation exists in many places other than the Internet, including from reputable scientists. It is why all research must be reproducible and verified multiple times. One text book picks up one thing before it can be reproduced and suddenly that is fact.

Example: Paul Revere didn't complete his ride. He was captured by the British.

 

[Famine]

I didn't give any fault info purposely; I remembered the title of a graph incorrectly; so what. And my final statement was on page 2. Just let the oil run out. It's only 2 decades different.

And if you'll notice in the links my emission source was Portland State University. I highly doubt PSU is giving their students faulty information on CO and NO emissions.

As I explained before, the problem isn't in the charts you've posted but your interpretation of them - which makes your claim that cars are responsible for 50-60% of any gas you want to choose from the list completely false.

There's not really a point in continuing when its 2 vs 29... No idea who the 2 is...

Whether you're right or wrong does not depend on a popular vote.

 

[Imari]

@legacyMACHINE There's not really a point in continuing when its 2 vs 29... No idea who the 2 is...

Don't say I didn't tell you so.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I see these threads go one of two ways.

Either you drive yourself nuts trying to reply to every little criticism of your argument, which is so far fairly unsupported and thus pretty easy to criticise. In which case this thread has about a day or two before something goes horribly wrong.

Or you take a breath, take on board what has been said so far and spend some time this weekend rewriting the OP with the level of information and supporting documentation that it requires. Then we won't have to spend the next ten pages picking all the holes in your arguments, and we can actually discuss the arguments themselves.

I think you'll agree that there's no point even discussing a weak argument. Until you put this in a form that is strong and well reasoned, all you're going to get from people is pointing out the errors and fallacies in what you're saying. Correct that, and then you'll get some real feedback on your proposal.

You've given up instead of accepting that you started out badly.

So you were wrong. Nobody cares as long as you have the balls to say "Hey guys, I was wrong. Sorry about that, here's what I really meant."

Too many people seem to feel that they need to stick to their opinions no matter what. If it's wrong, it's wrong. 🤬 happens. Be a man, admit that you screwed up and move on. If you still feel strongly about the reasons you started the thread, then gather the evidence that supports you and present it.

Or you know, just give up because everyone is picking on you. Which nobody is doing, the thread has been astoundingly polite so far. People are just pointing out things that you've got wrong, which just feels like being picked on to you.

I hope you never go into science. You'll soon find that you spend 90% of your time being wrong, and that's the whole point. If you can't accept it now, you'll never discover anything productive.

The thing abou internal combustion is that it is very versatile for the fuel source. You need to redesign the combustion chamber for the type of fuel you are using, but everything after that is similar.

Yeah, you can probably do it with just about anything that burns.

I know it's been done with coal dust. I imagine you could even do it with things like powdered sugar or whatever if you managed to get a small enough particle size and a good distribution. I remember stories of grain mills exploding because the fine dusts are explosive if you get just the right dust:air mixture.

Internal combustion is a fantastically flexible method of generating kinetic energy.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

No offence but this is a classic case of a youngster talking about an important issue to adults without really understanding the subject. We've all been there at some point and you'll cringe if you see this thread in ten years when you're older and wiser...

But you're young and it's good to see you're passionate about these sort of issues that will affect you in your lifetime. I guess even if you didn't have a true understanding, that at least you've generated a lengthy and interesting discussion around the replacement for ICE powered vehicles.

Really don't see how, I'm in college, and if I wanted to as an in-depth question I'd make sure sources and citations were linked to what I'm arguing. I doubt I'm that much older than him. Point is if this was me posing this or some of the others arguing against him they'd have known better than present it as he just did.

Other than that I agree with everything you're saying and trying to put across.

 

[sk8er913]

Don't say I didn't tell you so.




You've given up instead of accepting that you started out badly.

So you were wrong. Nobody cares as long as you have the balls to say "Hey guys, I was wrong. Sorry about that, here's what I really meant."

Too many people seem to feel that they need to stick to their opinions no matter what. If it's wrong, it's wrong. 🤬 happens. Be a man, admit that you screwed up and move on. If you still feel strongly about the reasons you started the thread, then gather the evidence that supports you and present it.

Or you know, just give up because everyone is picking on you. Which nobody is doing, the thread has been astoundingly polite so far. People are just pointing out things that you've got wrong, which just feels like being picked on to you.

I hope you never go into science. You'll soon find that you spend 90% of your time being wrong, and that's the whole point. If you can't accept it now, you'll never discover anything productive.



Yeah, you can probably do it with just about anything that burns.

I know it's been done with coal dust. I imagine you could even do it with things like powdered sugar or whatever if you managed to get a small enough particle size and a good distribution. I remember stories of grain mills exploding because the fine dusts are explosive if you get just the right dust:air mixture.

Internal combustion is a fantastically flexible method of generating kinetic energy.

I didn't give up. I found a different piece of evidence and came to the conclusion that it will be naturally limited and we don't have to artificially limit it.