5 ms·

“Users shouldn’t be same to control their own engines actually” hmm well ok then

Arainach 4mo ago
One person's "controlling their own engines" is another "spewing nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, and other pollutants into the air, giving cancer to neighbors and destroying the atmosphere". We tried the "don't regulate" path and it ended in a multitude of disasters.
- mohamedkoubaa 4mo ago
  You can regulate emissions without preventing custom tunes
  - Arainach 4mo ago
    In practice, no, you can't. Certainly not without enormous costs such as mandatory regular vehicle inspections.
    - mnw21cam 4mo ago
      I don't think "enormous costs" is a strong argument here. The annual MOT is usually under £50, and that includes a fairly comprehensive roadworthiness check and emissions check. A stronger argument would be that a car owner could change some settings on their car specially to pass the emissions check, and then set them back to dirty afterwards each year.
      - Arainach 4mo ago
        An MOT is a cost to every driver every year - significant in money and in time - plus the cost of running the infrastructure to provide the testing. All so that a few people can tune engines? No thanks.
        mnw21cam 4mo ago
        It's not just so that a few people can tune engines. The majority of the MOT is the roadworthiness check.
subscribed 4mo ago
May I introduce you to the "rolling coal" morons?
- binary132 4mo ago
  do you really think there’s no way to prevent or penalize that behavior without preventing the user from owning and operating their own engine? also, what scale of harm do you think exists from those people? do you really believe that control of one’s own engine should be removed from all vehicle owners if a few people misuse it? do you understand that vehicle manufacturers use their proprietary systems that control the vehicle to exploit customers?
  - Arainach 4mo ago
    > also, what scale of harm do you think exists from those people? Serious health complications, particularly to cyclists and pedestrians. Significant pollution surges: > According to government estimates, the practice can increase nitrogen oxide emissions as much as 310 times, non-methane hydrocarbons 1,400 times, and carbon monoxide 120 times. [https://www.rawstory.com/raw-investigates/rolling-coal-donald-trump-supporters/ https://www.rawstory.com/raw-investigates/rolling-coal-donal...] > AED estimates that the emissions controls have been removed from more than 550,000 diesel pickup trucks in the last decade. As a result ofthis tampering, more than 570,000 tons of excess oxides of nitrogen(NOx) and 5,000 tons of particulate matter (PM) will be emitted by these tampered trucks over the lifetime of the vehicles. [https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/epa-on-tampered-diesel-pickups-11-20/6d70536b06182ad2/full.pdf https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/epa-on-tampered-diese...]
    - childofhedgehog 4mo ago
      The reason diesel folks delete emissions is because the way the new diesel motors are set up actually kills the motor. Buying a new motor (or a whole truck!) is extremely expensive. Now if the automotive industry came out with an efficient diesel that also ran well for more than 100k miles, we’d see a lot less deletions.

One person's "controlling their own engines" is another "spewing nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, and other pollutants into the air, giving cancer to neighbors and destroying the atmosphere". We tried the "don't regulate" path and it ended in a multitude of disasters.

mohamedkoubaa 4mo ago
You can regulate emissions without preventing custom tunes
- Arainach 4mo ago
  In practice, no, you can't. Certainly not without enormous costs such as mandatory regular vehicle inspections.
  - mnw21cam 4mo ago
    I don't think "enormous costs" is a strong argument here. The annual MOT is usually under £50, and that includes a fairly comprehensive roadworthiness check and emissions check. A stronger argument would be that a car owner could change some settings on their car specially to pass the emissions check, and then set them back to dirty afterwards each year.
    - Arainach 4mo ago
      An MOT is a cost to every driver every year - significant in money and in time - plus the cost of running the infrastructure to provide the testing. All so that a few people can tune engines? No thanks.
      - mnw21cam 4mo ago
        It's not just so that a few people can tune engines. The majority of the MOT is the roadworthiness check.

subscribed 4mo ago

May I introduce you to the "rolling coal" morons?

binary132 4mo ago
do you really think there’s no way to prevent or penalize that behavior without preventing the user from owning and operating their own engine? also, what scale of harm do you think exists from those people? do you really believe that control of one’s own engine should be removed from all vehicle owners if a few people misuse it? do you understand that vehicle manufacturers use their proprietary systems that control the vehicle to exploit customers?
- Arainach 4mo ago
  > also, what scale of harm do you think exists from those people? Serious health complications, particularly to cyclists and pedestrians. Significant pollution surges: > According to government estimates, the practice can increase nitrogen oxide emissions as much as 310 times, non-methane hydrocarbons 1,400 times, and carbon monoxide 120 times. [https://www.rawstory.com/raw-investigates/rolling-coal-donald-trump-supporters/ https://www.rawstory.com/raw-investigates/rolling-coal-donal...] > AED estimates that the emissions controls have been removed from more than 550,000 diesel pickup trucks in the last decade. As a result ofthis tampering, more than 570,000 tons of excess oxides of nitrogen(NOx) and 5,000 tons of particulate matter (PM) will be emitted by these tampered trucks over the lifetime of the vehicles. [https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/epa-on-tampered-diesel-pickups-11-20/6d70536b06182ad2/full.pdf https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/epa-on-tampered-diese...]
  - childofhedgehog 4mo ago
    The reason diesel folks delete emissions is because the way the new diesel motors are set up actually kills the motor. Buying a new motor (or a whole truck!) is extremely expensive. Now if the automotive industry came out with an efficient diesel that also ran well for more than 100k miles, we’d see a lot less deletions.