Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Diesel pollution and air quality
FightBack Forums > Discussion > Government Policy
ford poplar
Given some cities recent introduction of additional charges on diesel vehicles, should we expect the Chancellor to reduce the VED/sales tax on private electric vehicles & hybrids to promote sales of these vehicles to private motorists in the forthcoming Budget?
The Rookie
The irony is that a modern BS6 diesel car driving through the 'high' pollution we recently had in London will almost certainly have a cleaner tailpipe emissions than those being sucked in at the intake, it's the older cars that are the issue, so any action has to target the relevant vehicles and not the best of them. Ban all unfixed Volkswagen A.G. (Who would think the usual acronym would trigger the swear filter!) products for example, there are still a lot out there.

Knee jerk (and badly thought and executed) resolutions rarely work......funny that.
fedup2
If i was skeptical and of course im not...

Lets say i wanted to make more money from taxes and wanted to do it in a big way.Who could i hit?

I could hit the diesel car,almost every home has one,and most of the mileage being done is in one.

If i somehow blacked their name,then people would eventually move to less economical and more to tax petrol's and make a killing when the average petrol does 30mpg and the average diesel does 45.

I could also make a fortune out of upping the parking charges and make fortunes that way too.

Fisrt though id have to convince were all doomed due to diesel cars,but thats easy,we will just say the problem is invisible,then who could really know for sure?



Rookie...

I was watching the news a few days ago,something i try and avoid nowadays but it was fairly early and they were warning people to drive safe because of the fog.They showed pictures clearly showing fog.A few hours later,the same pictures looked like they were being used on a different topic,apparently now showing SMOG.
You really couldnt make it up...Er hang on............
The Rookie
Well to be fair when discussing traffic issues you would use the generic (as opposed to literal) word fog for anything that reduced visibility, when discussing pollution/the atmosphere you would use smog, I think your insinuation is rather 2+2=5.
AndyCF
I was thinking a while back (and I've seen some others very occasionally mention it)

This um charge on diesel vehicles due to their 'output' and air quality / health effects.

Now that most if not all new vehicles have particle filters and the like fitted, I do wonder if whatever does 'escape' is that small it can no longer be filtered by the human body (ie: lungs) compared to say an older design... huh.gif

I'm not really sure how to write that properly, but my thought (incorrect no doubt) was the 'clean up' was to remove nearly all the nasties but I wonder if tiny tiny particles that do escape are that small they are (potentially?) more harmful than the older, larger ones...

Jlc
That was my (limited) understanding. As diesel technology has advanced to a better 'burn' the particles that are emitted are smaller and penetrate further into the lungs. Here for example.

notmeatloaf
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 29 Jan 2017 - 06:18) *
The irony is that a modern BS6 diesel car driving through the 'high' pollution we recently had in London will almost certainly have a cleaner tailpipe emissions than those being sucked in at the intake

I know this was mentioned on Top Gear once but surely it's not true - otherwise everyone would feed their exhaust into their car when driving in cities to enjoy the lovely filtered air and people with new cars would be encouraged to drive more when pollution was high.
The Rookie
I can assure you that it is true, I've worked 27 years in various forms of Powertrain development and I've seen a number of negative test results from the rolling road where even with relatively low background pollution the tailpipe results is cleaner.

What you wouldn't want is the high CO2 content pumped into the cabin.
Tancred
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sun, 29 Jan 2017 - 06:18) *
The irony is that a modern BS6 diesel car driving through the 'high' pollution we recently had in London will almost certainly have a cleaner tailpipe emissions than those being sucked in at the intake, it's the older cars that are the issue, so any action has to target the relevant vehicles and not the best of them. Ban all unfixed Volkswagen A.G. (Who would think the usual acronym would trigger the swear filter!) products for example, there are still a lot out there.


Given unfixed VW cars are no worse than other cars (or in some cases much better), it makes no sense to ban VW cars specifically - while other manufacturers may not be using cheat devices (which was for the US where the cars could never pass the tighter emissions laws unlike here where they can with a software fix), they're bending the rules so far they may as well be:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/a...s-nox-emissions

Under testing, only one out of 201 Euro 5 diesels passed within the limit and seven out of 62 EU6 diesels.

Many other cars were significantly worse then VW in real world testing:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/a...eal-world-tests


Itchy Bootmore
This is what happens when overpaid undercompetent finance people at council offices think its smart to gamble the pension fund money on say.... Icelandic banks performance. Which dont. Result councils have big black holes to fill... like Nottingham (& Hertfordshire, Cambs I think too... ) one of the cities considering these stupid schemes. Its a much more complex picture than the simplistic one pols like to paint for their purposes. Some petrol cars emit more PMs (pm 10, pm 2.5 pm .5 etc whatever...) than diesels. Some older diesels emit less PMs than modern. When I worked at Warren Spring laboratory back in the 90's before closure the concern was on NOx and SOx emissions as well as benzene compounds, CO and CO2 as well as complex hydrocarbons. What makes these idiots think pollution stops at council boundaries? So the nearby M1has no effect then? So all those flights out of East Mids and over Notts have no effect then? Dultards. When that Icelandic volcano erupted a while back Kings College(or was it Imperial? I got the report somewhere) did a study while all the planes were grounded. The drop in pollution levels was massive and for the first time could attribute how much was due to aircraft rather than mixed in with surrounding traffic and industry.
Smoke and mirrors to get the Govt hand in your pockets ever deeper. The next trick will be to reveal how much pollution is caused during manufacture and disposal of hybrid cars and their batteries etc.
This idea a load of horse manure and a disguised bailout yet again.
fedup2
Diesels now not fit for purpose smile.gif

You couldn't make it up...er hang on..............................
Clear Skies
About 15 years ago...

There was a magazine for council workers.... and the front page stated clearly...that pollution caused by speed bumps would kill more people than Speeding cars.

Did that stop people demanding the installation or the council putting them in? Noooooooooooo
That makes them culpable


As an aside , Has london (for example) ever stopped and thought.... London is a bottle...with a number of necks . A13, a12, a 11, a10 m1 etc

It might make sense to slow the traffic going in . Why do we slow the traffic that is leaving london down with cameras and speed controls? The a13 for example, average speed controls , changing speed limits, 30, 40 and 50mph, and not in that order!



Surely the speed limits should be as fast as is possible to get the traffic OUT of london, making the bottle just half full, less
pollution... sod the delight of receiving the speeding fine funds and having the thumb on drivers throats... control freakery at its best... start thinking about the people

Why do they only think symmetrical? 3 lanes in, but if we are short of funds and space, why don't we just add another lane going out?



Best
B
notmeatloaf
QUOTE (Clear Skies @ Mon, 24 Apr 2017 - 17:41) *
Surely the speed limits should be as fast as is possible to get the traffic OUT of london, making the bottle just half full, less
pollution... sod the delight of receiving the speeding fine funds and having the thumb on drivers throats... control freakery at its best... start thinking about the people

That isn't how roads work, people aren't slowed into London because there isn't physically space for them, they are slowed because a finite number of vehicles can pass through a road and there are more vehicles wanting to get into London then can physically pass through the roads.

Tidal flow where it exists like the A38(M) works very well, but it has space for an empty lane in the middle. Tidal flow roads without the empty lane tend to have high accident rates, and it would be very expensive for little improvement on London's roads if you had to lose an entire lane to introduce tidal flow.

It would help to have consistent speed limits but of course the limits should be set for safety first. It does bugger things up though, my commute into work is a road that goes 60 - 30 - 50, the traffic always crawls (I overtake on my pushbike) through the 60 because the traffic bunches up going into the 30.
fedup2
Its all gone quiet on the diesel taxes,Must be an election on.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.