CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

"The Dash for Diesel"

(21 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. kaputnik
    Moderator

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41985715

    an interesting longer-read article on the BBC News site about how decisions made back in 2000/2001 by then chancellor G. Broon had the unintended consequences of massively increasing the numbers of diesel cars on the road and therefore urban air pollution. Diesels quickly went from being a real minority of new cars sold to the majority and total numbers on the roads quadrupled from 3 to 12 million.

    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.

    Quite. Why should those responsible for creating more pollution be penalised?

    Turns out that when it comes to environmental credentials, neither petrol nor diesel are really with any merit.

    I could have told you that...

    Anyway, 18 years down the line we are all breathing in the consequences of fat-headed decisions made for the wrong reasons.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  2. Ed1
    Member

    https://www.airqualitynews.com/2017/11/16/islington-increase-short-stay-parking-cost-diesel-cars/

    Posted 6 years ago #

  3. Baldcyclist
    Member

    I remember buying my first diesel because it was sold to me they were cheaper to run, and that 'modern' (2006 I think was my first diesel) diesels were less harmful to the environment than the previous generation of black smoke belching horrors.

    Petrol cars were always (and still are) more refined, quieter, and nicer to drive. I've got one of each now and still prefer the petrol despite it only doing 20 - 25mpg (a midlife crisis toy that doesn't go anywhere very often), so much nicer and smoother to drive, and the noise comes out of the back, rather than the front of the car, which is how things should be.

    What does surprise me with new cars is how some of them can be £0 tax, do 60 - 70mpg AND accelerate to 60mph in under 5s. My mind boggles at the engineering that must be required to get a car to do both of those things (admittedly you won't be getting 60mpg if you use the available acceleration too much).

    You also see petrol cars now which are topping 60mpg and £0 - 30 tax rates. Does seem like we should transition away from diesel to petrol to electric. With petrol cars being so efficient* now, the diesel is defunct.

    *cars aren't bad, they are arguably more fun than bikes (sorry), but they all do pollute and really shouldn't be used to get to 9-5 workplaces on a daily basis.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  4. neddie
    Member

    When Toyota first designed the Prius, the engineers were briefed with designing the most efficient and least polluting car possible.

    The Japanese engineers knew very well that diesel was dirty, which is why they went for a petrol-electric hybrid rather than diesel-electric one.

    A diesel-electric hybrid would've been more efficient and more expensive, but also more polluting.

    The electric assist on top of the petrol motor allowed the petrol engine to use the more efficient Atkinson cycle (which without the electric motor would not provide a satisfactory driving experience due to its limited torque vs revs range.)

    Posted 6 years ago #

  5. neddie
    Member

    *cars aren't bad, they are arguably more fun than bikes (sorry), but they all do pollute and really shouldn't be used to get to 9-5 workplaces.

    I would add to that, that they shouldn't be used within the confines of a city.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  6. rider73
    Member

    IMHO the dash for electric cars will prob cause a similar stir in 18 years, when
    a) we get charged masses amounts per unit to charge them
    because of
    b) there is not enough clean energy being produced and the private electricity companies have to charge more to compensate for either
    b1) building off shore wind farms
    b2) import fracked gas (already happening anyway) to run gas based power stations

    and i can also imagine there might be issues with disposing of spent batteries - or can these be recycled?

    Posted 6 years ago #

  7. chdot
    Admin

    “Anyway, 18 years down the line we are all breathing in the consequences of fat-headed decisions made for the wrong reasons.”

    I don’t think that’s entirely true.

    Decision made without sufficient evidence about degree/types of pollutants or without understanding the evidence OR (possibly) after ignoring the evidence.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  8. steveo
    Member

    If you start from the position that most politicians take then Diesel makes a lot of sense.

    If one assumes that vehicle millage is like rain and nothing can be done to curb it, assuming you even want to, then knocking 20%-30% off the countries co2 emmissions is an easy sell. I don’t know how much they knew about the different types of pollution we do now or if it would have mattered, the important metric they were being measured on was co2 emissions. Arguably still should be if we want to keep our head above water (literally)

    If one takes ones head from ones behind then perhaps the attention should have been focused on reducing vehicle mileage. But then one isn’t a politician.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  9. Ed1
    Member

    I am sceptical about the dash for diesel pollution crisis being an unknown consequence. The government focused on CO targets effectively incentivising a switch to diesel, ignoring the health consequence to focus on EU targets. It’s a bit of a conspiracy that problems with diesel pollution NOx and particulates was not known at the time. They should impose Goodwin type pension cut on the ministers and officials involved, as should not still be rewarding this failure today -), I suppose they could start by linking company use and "road duty" to NOx. It seems a bit like the tobacco conspiracy, why councils in London have to try and counter central government policy on diesels.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  10. chdot
    Admin

    “But then one isn’t a politician.”

    I think one means ‘But then one isn’t a UK politician.

    (And other countries).

    I think it’s clear that in many countries there are serious attempts to reduce car use in urban areas - by law and by providing better PT (and ActiveTravel infrastructure).

    I have no idea if any countries are trying to reduce car use generally.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  11. steveo
    Member

    I think one means ‘But then one isn’t a UK politician.

    Fair point!

    Posted 6 years ago #

  12. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    I've got a diesel, which I chose on the basis of the carbon dioxide emissions. I don't drive in town - it's to access the countryside. Best choice is not to have one, obviously, but I'm selfish.

    Now madame has a job on the other side of town. Hour and twenty on the bus. Hour and twenty to run. Thirty minute cycle ride but there's no safe route. Guess what?

    Posted 6 years ago #

  13. Ed1
    Member

    A diesel would make more sense out of town as have less effect on global warming but in town gas more people. This is what made the London congestion exemption so stupid at times, it was based on CO not NOx so exempted many cars that would be more suited to the highlands possibly encouraging higher NOx cars in to the centre exempting the wrong cars.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  14. kaputnik
    Moderator

    Edinburgh's parking permit costs are also based on CO2 emissions...

    Even then the costs are so ridiculously low for effectively leasing the right to dump your motor on public property for a year that they were never going to be punitive anyway.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  15. Nelly
    Member

    "Edinburgh's parking permit costs are also based on CO2 emissions...

    Even then the costs are so ridiculously low for effectively leasing the right to dump your motor on public property for a year that they were never going to be punitive anyway"

    Indeed - mine is a 2017 diesel with very low emissions, £20 "road tax" and £102 for the permit. Incredible value for money, given that a garage in my neck of the woods would cost £30k.

    Mine was a company car - when I took redundancy, I bought it as they offered it to me at a stupidly low price. Even if permits / tax goes up a bit the numbers still stack up on my side.

    And that, folks, is why people still run cars v public transport - because its not expensive.

    Until costs become punitive, families like mine will do the sums and continue to run a car (although I should say that the majority of my daily errands are done via bike).

    Posted 6 years ago #

  16. acsimpson
    Member

    "I have no idea if any countries are trying to reduce car use generally."

    I've been meaning to post this for a week or two. Singapore is limiting car ownership, although not actual use:

    http://uk.businessinsider.com/singapore-ban-cars-february-2018-2017-10?r=US&IR=T

    Perhaps that's a discussion for another thread though.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  17. cb
    Member

    "
    The Diesel Technology Forum, a non-profit trade group that promotes the use of diesel, said [...]

    "Still, today, diesel offers a unique combination of unmatched features: proven fuel efficiency, economical operation, power, reliability, durability, availability, easy access to fuelling and service facilities, and now near-zero emissions performance."
    "

    So that's ok then.

    Posted 6 years ago #

  18. Ed1
    Member

    https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/new-diesel-cars-subject-to-40-levy-to-park-in-city-1-4780267

    It’s too low as can still end up paying more for a far less polluting petrol car. It also does not take in to account location, in high density areas should be higher than lower density to reflect the dangers. It also is only new vehicles permits when the dangers of NOx and particulates have been known prior to the UKs dash for diesel it’s was central government choose EU targets over public health.

    Looking at the comments on EEN there is still the myth that new diesel cars are clean. A ford PUMA petrol built between 1997 and 2002 has a NOx:23 mg/km
    PM:0 mg/km a brand new ford fiesta diesel 1.5 has NOx:58 mg/km
    PM:1 mg/km

    https://www.nextgreencar.com/view-car/63974/ford-fiesta-1.5-tdci-style-85ps-diesel-manual-6-speed/

    https://www.nextgreencar.com/view-car/6329/ford-puma-1.6i-16v-petrol-manual-5-speed/

    Posted 5 years ago #

  19. chdot
    Admin

    “

    A public consultation by the council, which had 5,412 responses, found 43 per cent of people strongly opposed a diesel surcharge being introduced on residents’ parking permits. The survey revealed only 18 per cent were strongly supportive of the move, 14 per cent supported it and 16 per cent opposed it.

    “

    What a surprise.

    Waste of time consulting - especially if you know what you are going to do anyway!!!

    Posted 5 years ago #

  20. Roibeard
    Member

    I don't think it's new diesel vehicles only, rather that existing diesel vehicle permits won't be charged extra, just when that vehicle is replaced (new or second hand) that the increased charge is levied.

    Of course, this understanding is based on the EEN report, so may not be accurate!

    Robert

    Posted 5 years ago #

  21. Ed1
    Member

    The consultation possibly did not consider all stake holders, many of the people effected by the pollution would not have been included tourists, the people work in the center, students in the center, home less ruff sleepers who may be most exposed. The stake holders should be anyone that breathes Edinburgh air. Did Edinburgh council consult when they decided to relate parking permits prices to CO2 Emissions the differences still appear to be greater there may well be an inverse relationship with lower prices and higher pollution (NOx) (on average; the average of each car in each band compared to next) http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/20277/parking_permits/442/residents_parking_permit_prices/1. Even with the changes when buying getting a new permit you could still pay less on a car that greats 5 times NOx the charge is low and has little bearing on relative risks. However still a step in the direction of sense.

    http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/326563

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18415532

    Its always strange the way in many public buildings can no longer smoke in the car park hospitals, many gov offices, when the world health organisation consider diesel smoke as bad as second hand tobacco smoke. Like Edinburgh royal infirmary you can be half a mile from the door and smoking a cig is breaking the rules yet diesel cars much closer. If you can not smoke in a car park then seems inconsistent to allow driving diesels in a car park-)

    Why is it the NHS and Scot gov don’t offer advice on how to protect your family from diesel exhaust in a similar way they do to second hand smoking? Of course I am being somewhat subversive in saying this as would not be practical and would be akin to someone making a similar statement about tobacco second hand smoke 40 years ago. The local authority paid taxi driver that drove me to school used to smoke, the head master would smoke a lot in school office corridors yet of course someone would have appeared churlish to comment. It may be Edinburgh should have signs lite up by the road when breaching EU levels of NOx and advice on NHS web site and scot gov of areas to avoid-) Do not walk down X street if can be avoided keep time in set area to minimal etc.

    Posted 5 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin