The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)
Comments
-
What do you think of the evidence that the ULEZ will have minimal impact on air quality in outer London? The evicence that Khan tried to suppress. See my link upthread.rick_chasey said:
No? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66610600First.Aspect said:
It literally isn't possible to conclusively connect ULEZ or even LEZ to it though, as far as I can tell.rick_chasey said:It's quite easy to draw a line between health of Londoners and car pollution.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I do.First.Aspect said:
No. There's the sitting in traffic measurement, which is basically a tail pipe measurement, and the not next to road part, which even that article says has had a very minor effect - at most 3% for Nox and negligible for pm50. Those are the changes of levels most people will spend the great majority of their time exposed to. Or less, depending on where they live and work.rick_chasey said:
No? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66610600First.Aspect said:
It literally isn't possible to conclusively connect ULEZ or even LEZ to it though, as far as I can tell.rick_chasey said:It's quite easy to draw a line between health of Londoners and car pollution.
Once you factor in how long people living in London spend on average actually in traffic vs the time spent where the changes due to ULEZ are very small and the total change in exposure levels may be very small indeed. To the extent that the Univ of Birmingham hasn't been able to quantify it.
The public health effects will scale according to overall change in average exposure, not the wow golly, 30% change if you are trying to breathe from a car tailpipe.
Add to that, it is uncontested that the effect lessens the further from the centre of a conurbation, so the expanded ULEZ zone will be less effective.
Rest of the article is couched in riddles, such as "can be very effective when combined with other measures" . To me that sounds like, not effective unless combined with other measures, or more succinctly not effective on its own.
So back to my analogy of bicycle helmets. A cycle helmet softens the impact if I hit you over the head with some 2x4. It therefore stands to reason that it would improve cycle safety overall if they were compulsory, right?
Well if that's the case why is it so damn hard to measure that at a population level?
Tempting as it can be, you can't extrapolate. Also tempting to say that even a small benefit is worth it. Well sure, ban all combustion engined vehicles in that case. And shut down the underground.
Clearly not proportionate. In which case, you'd agree that a policy has to be proportionate to the benefits. Which you can't determine if you can't measure them.
See my point?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Lol. Ok.First.Aspect said:
No. There's the sitting in traffic measurement, which is basically a tail pipe measurement, and the not next to road part, which even that article says has had a very minor effect - at most 3% for Nox and negligible for pm50. Those are the changes of levels most people will spend the great majority of their time exposed to. Or less, depending on where they live and work.rick_chasey said:
No? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66610600First.Aspect said:
It literally isn't possible to conclusively connect ULEZ or even LEZ to it though, as far as I can tell.rick_chasey said:It's quite easy to draw a line between health of Londoners and car pollution.
Once you factor in how long people living in London spend on average actually in traffic vs the time spent where the changes due to ULEZ are very small and the total change in exposure levels may be very small indeed. To the extent that the Univ of Birmingham hasn't been able to quantify it.
The public health effects will scale according to overall change in average exposure, not the wow golly, 30% change if you are trying to breathe from a car tailpipe.
Add to that, it is uncontested that the effect lessens the further from the centre of a conurbation, so the expanded ULEZ zone will be less effective.
Rest of the article is couched in riddles, such as "can be very effective when combined with other measures" . To me that sounds like, not effective unless combined with other measures, or more succinctly not effective on its own.
So back to my analogy of bicycle helmets. A cycle helmet softens the impact if I hit you over the head with some 2x4. It therefore stands to reason that it would improve cycle safety overall if they were compulsory, right?
Well if that's the case why is it so damn hard to measure that at a population level?
Tempting as it can be, you can't extrapolate. Also tempting to say that even a small benefit is worth it. Well sure, ban all combustion engined vehicles in that case. And shut down the underground.
Clearly not proportionate. In which case, you'd agree that a policy has to be proportionate to the benefits. Which you can't determine if you can't measure them.
See my point?
Can’t argue that compliance is high (94%). So it is effective in that sense. What evidence is there that compliance will be reduced when it is expanded?
Given “in 2019, in Greater London, the equivalent of between 3,600 to 4,100 deaths (61,800 to 70,200 life years lost1) were estimated to be attributable to human-made PM2. 5 and NO2, considering that health effects exist even at very low levels.” http://erg.ic.ac.uk/research/home/resources/ERG_ImperialCollegeLondon_HIA_AQ_LDN_11012021.pdf
A small percentage change still saves a significant number of lives.
Thirdly, to dismiss the policy on the basis it forms part of a wider approach to the issue because it is only a small part is just idiotic. You can’t argue because it’s not a silver bullet you needn’t bother.
Finally, your helmet analogy doesn’t work because it’s an entirely different calculation, which was all about benefits of cycling at all and the cost/benefit of compulsory helmets as they reduced the number of bike rides done, so for all the head traumas saved were collectively outnumbered by the cost of fewer people cycling as often.
Plus, on what basis are you determining what is proportionate and what isn’t? What price would be proportionate?
0 -
Meh, it can't be that important though? Otherwise you'd have made a stand and flogged your car.rick_chasey said:
Lol. Ok.First.Aspect said:
No. There's the sitting in traffic measurement, which is basically a tail pipe measurement, and the not next to road part, which even that article says has had a very minor effect - at most 3% for Nox and negligible for pm50. Those are the changes of levels most people will spend the great majority of their time exposed to. Or less, depending on where they live and work.rick_chasey said:
No? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66610600First.Aspect said:
It literally isn't possible to conclusively connect ULEZ or even LEZ to it though, as far as I can tell.rick_chasey said:It's quite easy to draw a line between health of Londoners and car pollution.
Once you factor in how long people living in London spend on average actually in traffic vs the time spent where the changes due to ULEZ are very small and the total change in exposure levels may be very small indeed. To the extent that the Univ of Birmingham hasn't been able to quantify it.
The public health effects will scale according to overall change in average exposure, not the wow golly, 30% change if you are trying to breathe from a car tailpipe.
Add to that, it is uncontested that the effect lessens the further from the centre of a conurbation, so the expanded ULEZ zone will be less effective.
Rest of the article is couched in riddles, such as "can be very effective when combined with other measures" . To me that sounds like, not effective unless combined with other measures, or more succinctly not effective on its own.
So back to my analogy of bicycle helmets. A cycle helmet softens the impact if I hit you over the head with some 2x4. It therefore stands to reason that it would improve cycle safety overall if they were compulsory, right?
Well if that's the case why is it so damn hard to measure that at a population level?
Tempting as it can be, you can't extrapolate. Also tempting to say that even a small benefit is worth it. Well sure, ban all combustion engined vehicles in that case. And shut down the underground.
Clearly not proportionate. In which case, you'd agree that a policy has to be proportionate to the benefits. Which you can't determine if you can't measure them.
See my point?
Can’t argue that compliance is high (94%). So it is effective in that sense. What evidence is there that compliance will be reduced when it is expanded?
Given “in 2019, in Greater London, the equivalent of between 3,600 to 4,100 deaths (61,800 to 70,200 life years lost1) were estimated to be attributable to human-made PM2. 5 and NO2, considering that health effects exist even at very low levels.” http://erg.ic.ac.uk/research/home/resources/ERG_ImperialCollegeLondon_HIA_AQ_LDN_11012021.pdf
A small percentage change still saves a significant number of lives.
Thirdly, to dismiss the policy on the basis it forms part of a wider approach to the issue because it is only a small part is just idiotic. You can’t argue because it’s not a silver bullet you needn’t bother.
Finally, your helmet analogy doesn’t work because it’s an entirely different calculation, which was all about benefits of cycling at all and the cost/benefit of compulsory helmets as they reduced the number of bike rides done, so for all the head traumas saved were collectively outnumbered by the cost of fewer people cycling as often.
Plus, on what basis are you determining what is proportionate and what isn’t? What price would be proportionate?0 -
If there is already 94% compliance, how much difference will part of the remaining 6% make? The evidence that Khan tried to suppress said very little. Which leads me to think there are other motives.
And how long before the daily charge does up and they start moving the goalposts as to what is compliant?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
One thing that came to my mind was the hoo-ha when the banning of leaded fuel was proposed. Older cars would have to be scrapped, people couldn't afford to change them...
Now it's gone/dealt with and forgotten.0 -
0 -
It's not a direct analogy, nor supposed to be on that level. It's about a assessment of information, as ever.
I haven't considered compliance. Assume it will be high.
I doubt you've read that report. It doesn't strip out ULEZ, LEZ or LES policies as far as I can see. And the executive summary confirms this:
"Without the Mayor’s air quality policies and other general air pollution trends, a child born
in 2013 would lose 7 to 11 months life expectancy due to air pollution"
So, multiple policies (which could include anything from ULEZ to workplace parking levvies or restrictions on on street parking) and "other general air pollution trends" (which are to Khan what inflation is to Sunak) account for these projected outcomes by 2050. (Not sure how much of this period combustion engines are expected to be around anyway).
You state, 'A small percentage change still saves a significant number of lives.'
Does it? How do you know if its significant if you don't know the percentage?
The Imperial report doesn't tell you this, I don't think.
So you, and in fairness lots of others, are conflating the very real effects of air pollution with the effects of a specific policy, which no one seems quite able to quantify the effects of.
0 -
Difference with things like that and seatbelts was that it was possible to retrofit cars, or use other anti knocking additives.focuszing723 said:One thing that came to my mind was the hoo-ha when the banning of leaded fuel was proposed. Older cars would have to be scrapped, people couldn't afford to change them...
Now it's gone/dealt with and forgotten.
ULEZ seems like a comparatively blunt instrument. They've not even exempted key workers, for example.0 -
Glyphosate use rises in UK farming while overall pesticide use fallshttps://wickedleeks.riverford.co.uk/news/glyphosate-use-rises-in-uk-farming-while-overall-pesticide-use-falls/
New data shows glyphosate use has risen by 16 per cent with less ploughing encouraged by regenerative farming playing a ‘small role’ alongside desiccation of wheat.
Humanity is probably more at risk from micro plastics and chemicals used in food production.0 -
I think you're looking for something that is impossible to see though? There's no reliable control, and any attempt to filter out the effects of the policy are gonna be hopelessly flawed. Even if the ULEZ expansion were to be rolled back tomorrow, it's likely that it would have already had some beneficial impact on people getting less polluting vehicles.
I do think the Labour party are doing a pretty shonky job on communication on this. They could be celebrating the progress towards cleaner air, they aren't. They could be pointing out this has been driven by a conservative central government, they aren't doing that either. They could be promoting cheaper, more frequent, more reliable public transport, they don't really seem to be doing that.
Instead the conservatives get two bites at the cherry, effectively forcing Khan to implement a policy, then acting like they oppose it.0 -
Mr Tesla against EVs. Surely notfocuszing723 said:
They should have let the progression, which is happening, be natural and not kick struggling companies and the less fortunate in the b0ll0cks. What do they want an even greater amount of people on the drip with finance deals to buy what might not be the answer anyway. EVs ain't cheep and the second hand market is getting kicked in the b0llocks at the moment, they are depreciating massively. Get the charging network sorted first!super_davo said:
Well yes exactly, hence my diesel benefits from the previously highly beneficial tax regime. There are similar "have you been mis-sold" diesel claim firms set up. And non compliant diesels haven't been sold for 8 years so are already in the "things can go wrong" stage of their lives.focuszing723 said:The shift to promoting diesel vehicles under the last Labour government can be seen as a textbook example of the law of unintended consequences.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41985715
In 2001, the then Chancellor Gordon Brown introduced a new system of car tax aimed at protecting the environment. In actual reality it fostered a popular move towards highly polluting diesel cars - a trend which according to some experts has been associated with thousands of premature deaths a year.
New light is shed on how this happened by records received by the BBC, after a two-year freedom of information battle with the Treasury. Some of these papers show that civil servants objected to a stronger policy to deter diesel usage on presentational grounds, because they did not want the government to be seen as "penalising" diesel drivers.
Another thing I find disgraceful about Ulez is diesel cars were pimped and backed by governments for there fuel efficiency to the public. Then scientists p1$$ed on their chips saying they were high polluters. Car manufacturers especially French ones pushed massive R&D into diesels hence turbos seemed common on ordinary cars.
You can’t then go and kick people in the b0ll0cks by being sold a lie! It's akin to PPI schemes whereby people received compensation for being missled.
I do think the best thing for the majority of people to do is cycle, every time I go into London I marvel at how cycling has completely taken over the city, and in most cases it will be much quicker to get from A to B.
Why should people yet again be pushed into something which doesn't suit their requirements. Long distance trips (rubbish charging network), current deprecation, no home charging option...
Ford now how backed tracked on going all out EVs (not selling) and are switching to hybrids akin to Toyota.0 -
Meh, it doesn't matter anyway AI will takeover Humanity soon. That's the biggest risk to our liberty of life.0
-
94% within the ulez obviouslyStevo_666 said:If there is already 94% compliance, how much difference will part of the remaining 6% make? The evidence that Khan tried to suppress said very little. Which leads me to think there are other motives.
And how long before the daily charge does up and they start moving the goalposts as to what is compliant?0 -
Lol key worker exemptions hahaha what are you on about?First.Aspect said:
Difference with things like that and seatbelts was that it was possible to retrofit cars, or use other anti knocking additives.focuszing723 said:One thing that came to my mind was the hoo-ha when the banning of leaded fuel was proposed. Older cars would have to be scrapped, people couldn't afford to change them...
Now it's gone/dealt with and forgotten.
ULEZ seems like a comparatively blunt instrument. They've not even exempted key workers, for example.
No one has a right to drive0 -
I'm talking about key workers who have to drive for a living. You are going to illustrate the bubble you live in again now, I can tell.rick_chasey said:
Lol key worker exemptions hahaha what are you on about?First.Aspect said:
Difference with things like that and seatbelts was that it was possible to retrofit cars, or use other anti knocking additives.focuszing723 said:One thing that came to my mind was the hoo-ha when the banning of leaded fuel was proposed. Older cars would have to be scrapped, people couldn't afford to change them...
Now it's gone/dealt with and forgotten.
ULEZ seems like a comparatively blunt instrument. They've not even exempted key workers, for example.
No one has a right to drive1 -
-
Why do you still own a car ?rick_chasey said:What, so if they earn money from it, it’s ok to pollute more?
Driving is a privilege not a right.
Do you still own a car ?
You still own a car
Still own a car
Own a car
A car
Car
?1 -
Yep, his car!Stevo_666 said:All yours Rick...
1 -
😂The irony……Stevo_666 said:
If everyone only commented on stuff that directly affected them, Cake Stop would be a pretty quiet place. Fortunately there is no shortage of posters who think they know better than those who are directly affected.kingstongraham said:So the position is that you aren't in London, don't own a non-compliant vehicle, but are obsessed with it because you don't want the poorest people to have to pay to drive there.
But you do want some of those people to not pay their £12.50, for them to get fined £180, and to then appeal against their fines, so you can find out if a charge that won't affect you is valid for other people driving into London.
Fair play to you, everyone needs a hobby.0 -
I'm not against it. There are a lot of advantages to EV's, simply charge at home, less brake wear, more efficient, less maintenance. I don't think it's fair that people are being pushed into them though. Make them, the price and the charging network good enough for a natural transition.Jezyboy said:
Mr Tesla against EVs. Surely notfocuszing723 said:
They should have let the progression, which is happening, be natural and not kick struggling companies and the less fortunate in the b0ll0cks. What do they want an even greater amount of people on the drip with finance deals to buy what might not be the answer anyway. EVs ain't cheep and the second hand market is getting kicked in the b0llocks at the moment, they are depreciating massively. Get the charging network sorted first!super_davo said:
Well yes exactly, hence my diesel benefits from the previously highly beneficial tax regime. There are similar "have you been mis-sold" diesel claim firms set up. And non compliant diesels haven't been sold for 8 years so are already in the "things can go wrong" stage of their lives.focuszing723 said:The shift to promoting diesel vehicles under the last Labour government can be seen as a textbook example of the law of unintended consequences.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41985715
In 2001, the then Chancellor Gordon Brown introduced a new system of car tax aimed at protecting the environment. In actual reality it fostered a popular move towards highly polluting diesel cars - a trend which according to some experts has been associated with thousands of premature deaths a year.
New light is shed on how this happened by records received by the BBC, after a two-year freedom of information battle with the Treasury. Some of these papers show that civil servants objected to a stronger policy to deter diesel usage on presentational grounds, because they did not want the government to be seen as "penalising" diesel drivers.
Another thing I find disgraceful about Ulez is diesel cars were pimped and backed by governments for there fuel efficiency to the public. Then scientists p1$$ed on their chips saying they were high polluters. Car manufacturers especially French ones pushed massive R&D into diesels hence turbos seemed common on ordinary cars.
You can’t then go and kick people in the b0ll0cks by being sold a lie! It's akin to PPI schemes whereby people received compensation for being missled.
I do think the best thing for the majority of people to do is cycle, every time I go into London I marvel at how cycling has completely taken over the city, and in most cases it will be much quicker to get from A to B.
Why should people yet again be pushed into something which doesn't suit their requirements. Long distance trips (rubbish charging network), current deprecation, no home charging option...
Ford now how backed tracked on going all out EVs (not selling) and are switching to hybrids akin to Toyota.
It also annoys me that people who wang on about Ulez will happily waltz on a commercial flight using a lifetimes worth of vehicle fuel on a jolly. Meanwhile on terra firma there will be people trying to make ends meet getting reapeatedly kicked in the b0ll0cks.1 -
Good little article backing that up here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/29/tories-accused-hypocrisy-ulez-row-call-extend-congestion-chargeJezyboy said:I think you're looking for something that is impossible to see though? There's no reliable control, and any attempt to filter out the effects of the policy are gonna be hopelessly flawed. Even if the ULEZ expansion were to be rolled back tomorrow, it's likely that it would have already had some beneficial impact on people getting less polluting vehicles.
I do think the Labour party are doing a pretty shonky job on communication on this. They could be celebrating the progress towards cleaner air, they aren't. They could be pointing out this has been driven by a conservative central government, they aren't doing that either. They could be promoting cheaper, more frequent, more reliable public transport, they don't really seem to be doing that.
Instead the conservatives get two bites at the cherry, effectively forcing Khan to implement a policy, then acting like they oppose it.
I'd agree completely on Labour missing an open goal here - it's like they are too scared of a backlash in the red wall if they are seen to be "anti car" to talk about it (huge similarities with their Brexit approach). They always seem to wait for the Tories to shoot themselves in the foot, which admittedly, is the one thing the Tories always deliver on.0 -
People in urban areas are those who are generally more in favour and they vote labour anyway.super_davo said:
Good little article backing that up here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/29/tories-accused-hypocrisy-ulez-row-call-extend-congestion-chargeJezyboy said:I think you're looking for something that is impossible to see though? There's no reliable control, and any attempt to filter out the effects of the policy are gonna be hopelessly flawed. Even if the ULEZ expansion were to be rolled back tomorrow, it's likely that it would have already had some beneficial impact on people getting less polluting vehicles.
I do think the Labour party are doing a pretty shonky job on communication on this. They could be celebrating the progress towards cleaner air, they aren't. They could be pointing out this has been driven by a conservative central government, they aren't doing that either. They could be promoting cheaper, more frequent, more reliable public transport, they don't really seem to be doing that.
Instead the conservatives get two bites at the cherry, effectively forcing Khan to implement a policy, then acting like they oppose it.
I'd agree completely on Labour missing an open goal here - it's like they are too scared of a backlash in the red wall if they are seen to be "anti car" to talk about it (huge similarities with their Brexit approach). They always seem to wait for the Tories to shoot themselves in the foot, which admittedly, is the one thing the Tories always deliver on.
People who live in the sticks and drive in to urban areas are less likely to be labour voters so they’re who are gonna be pandered to.0 -
"The shift to promoting diesel vehicles under the last Labour government can be seen as a textbook example of the law of unintended consequences.super_davo said:
Good little article backing that up here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/29/tories-accused-hypocrisy-ulez-row-call-extend-congestion-chargeJezyboy said:I think you're looking for something that is impossible to see though? There's no reliable control, and any attempt to filter out the effects of the policy are gonna be hopelessly flawed. Even if the ULEZ expansion were to be rolled back tomorrow, it's likely that it would have already had some beneficial impact on people getting less polluting vehicles.
I do think the Labour party are doing a pretty shonky job on communication on this. They could be celebrating the progress towards cleaner air, they aren't. They could be pointing out this has been driven by a conservative central government, they aren't doing that either. They could be promoting cheaper, more frequent, more reliable public transport, they don't really seem to be doing that.
Instead the conservatives get two bites at the cherry, effectively forcing Khan to implement a policy, then acting like they oppose it.
I'd agree completely on Labour missing an open goal here - it's like they are too scared of a backlash in the red wall if they are seen to be "anti car" to talk about it (huge similarities with their Brexit approach). They always seem to wait for the Tories to shoot themselves in the foot, which admittedly, is the one thing the Tories always deliver on.
In 2001, the then Chancellor Gordon Brown introduced a new system of car tax aimed at protecting the environment. In actual reality it fostered a popular move towards highly polluting diesel cars - a trend which according to some experts has been associated with thousands of premature deaths a year.
New light is shed on how this happened by records received by the BBC, after a two-year freedom of information battle with the Treasury. Some of these papers show that civil servants objected to a stronger policy to deter diesel usage on presentational grounds, because they did not want the government to be seen as "penalising" diesel drivers."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41985715
Perhaps because it was their policy which encouraged polluting diesels which aren't considered Ulez compliant now.0 -
20 years ago mate, rolls his eyes in millennial.0
-
Seemed a reasonable approach during covid.rick_chasey said:What, so if they earn money from it, it’s ok to pollute more?
Driving is a privilege not a right.
If you earn 20k visiting people to deliver meals or change nappies or other fun stuff like that, us it reasonable to incur 10k in fees to do it?
Is it reasonable to need to replace your car to do it?
0 -
The damage was done and that's not the date when they were then considered greater polluters than their petrol variants.Jezyboy said:20 years ago mate, rolls his eyes in millennial.
Diesel are better now with adblue (diesel exhaust fluid) and the joys of oil dilution (isn't more frequent oil changes polluting?). Emissions standard Euro 5/6.0 -
Europe's diesel push seemed like a perfectly sensible idea at the time. But they execution was badly botched, full of unintended consequences over the next 20 years.https://www.vox.com/2015/10/15/9541789/volkswagen-europe-diesel-pollution
One main drawback of diesel cars is that they can emit higher levels of other harmful air pollutants like particulates and nitrogen oxides. And those ended up being much harder to clean up than experts initially predicted. We now know that Europe's regulators have failed spectacularly to control diesel pollution, relying on weak rules and flimsy testing procedures. Lots and lots of automakers — not just Volkswagen — have been manufacturing diesel cars that emit far more gunk than they're supposed to. It's one reason why cities like London and Paris are still clogged with unhealthy levels of air pollution, causing thousands of premature deaths each year.
Meanwhile, European nations — including Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Austria — had been cutting taxes on diesel car purchases and diesel fuel to promote sales, all in the name of thwarting climate change. Diesel sales soared. Back in 1990, just 10 percent of new car registrations in Europe had run on diesel. By 2011, that had climbed to nearly 60 percent.0 -
Yes, yes it is.First.Aspect said:
Seemed a reasonable approach during covid.rick_chasey said:What, so if they earn money from it, it’s ok to pollute more?
Driving is a privilege not a right.
If you earn 20k visiting people to deliver meals or change nappies or other fun stuff like that, us it reasonable to incur 10k in fees to do it?
Is it reasonable to need to replace your car to do it?
And if you read the research, for commercial vehicles, they had 97% compliance.0 -
This feels more like an argument for better pay or terms and conditions for care workers and less one for getting rid of clean air legislation.rick_chasey said:
Yes, yes it is.First.Aspect said:
Seemed a reasonable approach during covid.rick_chasey said:What, so if they earn money from it, it’s ok to pollute more?
Driving is a privilege not a right.
If you earn 20k visiting people to deliver meals or change nappies or other fun stuff like that, us it reasonable to incur 10k in fees to do it?
Is it reasonable to need to replace your car to do it?
And if you read the research, for commercial vehicles, they had 97% compliance.0
