older diesels to be banned from within the M25...

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
big x said:
Why do we put up with this sort of thing?

Because diesel particulates from old vehicles cause health problems.

adam

But has been said on the blog site in the 1st post, there is no medical evidence of this.
Mayor of London Blog said:
There is a claim that this sort of vehicular air pollution causes "1000 premature deaths a year in London", but there are no medical studies cited which substantiate this claim. Why not ?

My euro 2 renault passes the 'fast pass' emmissions test when it goes in for MOT, due to it having good emmissions, but will still not be allowed, just because it is not euro 3.:mad:

I've just been on the phone to an aftermarket exhaust company and for £3500, they will supply and fit a new exhaust that will bring the emissions down even further.
They are in talks with the TfL at the moment, to see whether these systems would be acceptable. I suspect not though.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the Mayor of London should start with all the black cabs in London that litterally belch thick black plumes of smoke from their exhausts before hitting us lorry owners:rolleyes:

I followed one yesterday and it was that bad, if I was a policeman, I would have knicked him:devil:
 
Generally I am in favour of all of the efforts to clean up the air and the environment and I tend to be unsympathetic to the 'show me the evidence' argument. This was the argument when cigarettes, asbestos, coal mining, mill working and so on were mooted as health hazards and is just a delaying tactic.
In the case of vehicles though there is a strong tier of sub markets; Africa often being quoted but it is just one of many. What happens to many of our roadworthy old bangers is that they get recycled to these countries and carry on providing, usually, many more years of useful service and helping the local economy.
The sum of this in World terms is that we end up with old banger, possibly creating more emissions through lower regualtory and maintenance standards, plus a new low emisison vehicle in the original country; total = more emissions. On a macro basis it's a winner, on a World basis we end up with even more pollution.
 
Last edited:
In traditional hunter gather tribes those who spend the most time around wood fires IE. Women and children suffer higher rates of lung cancer.Anything from the combustion process in the lung is bad.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/naaqsfin/pmhealth.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicle...l-pollution-emissions-and-health-effects.html

adam


I thought they were having a crafty go on the funny pipe whilst the old man was out;)

Give it another 25 - 30 years and the euro 5's would be no good and we'll be in euro 20 lorries.
 
So who do you believe the American EPA with a budget of hundreds of millions dollars and access to hundreds of research papers or an internet blog?
That's the problem with the internet....with no editor or peer group checks it's infested with nonsense and vested interests !

adam
 
So who do you believe the American EPA with a budget of hundreds of millions dollars and access to hundreds of research papers or an internet blog?
That's the problem with the internet....with no editor or peer group checks it's infested with nonsense and vested interests !

adam

I've been looking at this proposal for over 6 months now.
A lot of the letters and leaflets come from the TfL.
 
Because diesel particulates from old vehicles cause health problems.
I'm sure most Londoners would support the policy.

adam

Benzene from petrol is arguably worse, but less in-your-face obnoxious as compared to smoke. I suggest that red-top tabloids can photograph diesel smoke much more readily than discuss pollution from old petrol cars.

I live inside the M25, and in order to reduce my C02 footprint (so China can afford a middle-class with associated energy consumption) I should really buy the lethal G-wiz.

However I really want to stuff it to the populist marxist Ken, so I think I'll gut my catalyst instead, and gain a few mpg!
 
If I put my Star Trek hat on I don't need to be exactly sure of what the big grey blob is heading towards us but I am pretty sure that the naughty Klingons are behind it and we had better shoot first.
Similarly, I can see that there appears to be some evidence of climate change. I can also see that it could be that mankind is contributing towards it and that with a bit of determination we can do something about it.
Doomsday scenarios have been around since before the Bible and just based on that evidence I tend to be suspicious about such current claims, especially when they are put over by a slick politician like A. Gore.
Now somebody has invented carbon trading. I find it unbelievable that rather than trying to get to the roots of the problem, here we are basically making betting propositions on the outcomes. Can someone come along and knock their tables over.
But this is my problem. Where can one find an intelligent discourse about this that is not just trying to promote one view or another but is trying to look at the facts and project all possibilities, the positive as well as the negative? Everything is loaded on the negative side but there are, or could be, some positives.
A few years ago the major problem was one of oil supplies running out. That now seems to be less of an issue, it is rather the need to find a substitute energy source.
Furthermore while Ken may or may not be misguided, he is not a major player, it is the large energy companies in all their various forms that have most influence. I see it not unlike the cigarette smoking arguments of some years ago - powerful corporate lobbies on one side and the rest of us virtually powerless. So we can go to the bio counter, catch the bus and put in attention grabbing carbon reduction schemes but does it count. That's what I really want to know as I get the feeling there are some mighty powerful people having a good laugh while they get yet another safe installed to take a few more squillions and they puff their cigar and knock back another malt.
Okay, ramble over. I'm off to get the bus, then it's a Cohiba and Dalwhinnie at home.
 
Last edited:
But has been said on the blog site in the 1st post, there is no medical evidence of this.


My euro 2 renault passes the 'fast pass' emmissions test when it goes in for MOT, due to it having good emmissions, but will still not be allowed, just because it is not euro 3.:mad:

I've just been on the phone to an aftermarket exhaust company and for £3500, they will supply and fit a new exhaust that will bring the emissions down even further.
They are in talks with the TfL at the moment, to see whether these systems would be acceptable. I suspect not though.

Why does everyone forget that both pertol and diesel engines emit particulates?? AND as you have said there is no evidence to suggest diesel particulates create health problems due to being too coarse (PM10), whereas the ultra fine (PM2.5) can pass through the lung walls and cause blood thickening.
I'll leave you to guess where the PM2.5's mainly come from, and remember petrol engines produce more particulates by volume than diesel anyway, just less by mass due to being smaller.

Emminox are a supplier of post treatment cats and traps. Cheaper than a new lorry.
 
I would trust that the Brits would do the same as the Germans and ensure that trucks in transit comply with all the regs. Most now seem to have learnt the lesson as it is rare to see an East Euroepan truck that is not a new Scania or Murky.
I thought that this proposal was not serious when I first saw it but as the operators are giving it credence, it must be the case.
So, I believe there are a couple of well established HGV trade organisations that should be looking after the interests of members. Usually the aim would be to negotiate a delay, exemptions or something that relieves some of the pain. What are they doing about it?

The Eastern European trucks are mainly Scanias, Mans and Mercs because if they break down here you can get them repaired.

But that's not to say that they are in good order and as well maintained as a British lorry has to be.
 
Because diesel particulates from old vehicles cause health problems.
I'm sure most Londoners would support the policy.

adam

They might not be quite so keen when everything goes up in price to sponsor new vans, buses and lorries....
 
£200 per day x 5 days + £1000. That's just to park in my yard:mad:

I pay less on HP per month than that for a £35k lorry.

There was talk of a demonstration, but there were also threats of us being arrested and / or it going on record against our operators licences.:eek:

It's a sad state of affairs when people cannot demontsrate against something for fear of punishment by the state...
 
Similarly, I can see that there appears to be some evidence of climate change. I can also see that it could be that mankind is contributing towards it and that with a bit of determination we can do something about it.

I agree with a lot of what you say.

I'm a scientist so I believe in looking at the evidence and then acting upon it.

I strongly believe climate change is a fact since the overwhelming majority of the evidence supports that conclusion. I also believe that there is strong evidence that it is man-made, i.e. happens as a result of our (industrial) activities.

So, I think we need to do something about it and fairly urgently too.

Now, perhaps surprisingly, I do not believe the solution lies in taxing cars off the road, carbon trading, abolishing airplanes, etc.

Why not you may ask? Well, because we are all kidding ourselves if we think any of these is going to have any real impact on climate change.

If we all stop emitting carbon altogether in this country, the "gains" of that will within weeks be effaced by the development of industry across the developing world. Are we going to tell them that they cannot aspire to develop industry as we did? That they cannot aspire to the same lifestyle as us?

Are we really believing that we will accept to return to an era without our modern gadgets, audiovisual tools, electrical equipment etc?

The problem is the increased release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. So, the solution must be to use science and technology to prevent this release, to find methods to capture these gasses and store them safely in the underground and to find other methods of managing the problem. All of this is within the realm of our current scientific and technological possibilities.

I refuse to give up driving my V8, not because I think I'm better than other people, but because I refuse to sign up to the fashionable, but seriously flawed, ideas of the green fundamentalists. What these people propose is mostly about form, rather than content.

You mentioned carbon trading - a nice example of that: it doesn't solve a thing, but it does allow us to feel "better" about ourselves. What nonsense.

There was some interesting coverage in the papers today about a UN report on bio fuels, actually illustrating how a global move towards them would ruin the planet, rather than save it. I have been saying this for a while now, yet there are plenty of green fundamentalists still carping about it.

It is possible to solve these challenges without going back to living in caves. So, rather than wasting resources on all these ridiculous but fashionable exercises such as punishing people for wanting to retain their mobility or giving up on mod cons, it's about time we put our efforts in something positive such as developing and deploying suitable technology solutions.
 
Well this just confirms to everyone that cameras/congestion charge and just about every other levy on the motor car is all about making money period.
I still maintain/ if everyone in this country bought a bicycle tomorrow, there will be bicycle tax by next year.
remember radio licence? which change to tv. licence? now the latest talk is of computer licence.
Just when tony blair said in 1999 that he wants every household to have a computer by 2010 who thought this was the scheme he had in mind?
This is my opinion so please do not crucify me for it:confused:
 
Well this just confirms to everyone that cameras/congestion charge and just about every other levy on the motor car is all about making money period.

Well, I must admit that I can't see how "this" proves that any measure or level is about making money :D.

Let's recognise that lots of rules and measures are there for good reason, even if we don't like them ;).

This is my opinion so please do not crucify me for it:confused:

I quite like you, even though I often don't or not in full agree, but you are absolutely and entirely entitled to your opinion in this matter. If we don't agree, we might argue, but we should not crucify you for it ;). And it's good to hear another side in this kind of debate :).
 
"This will cover all the 33 London Boroughs within the M25, but not the M25 itself, and will seek to limit particulate carbon air pollutants , which are mostly produced by pre-2001 vintage diesel engined lorries etc. through Yet Another Automatic Number Plate Recognition enforced system of fees (£100 to £200 a day) and fines (£ 1000 or more)."

Hmm - trying to force smokey diesels off the road for emissions reasons? Sounds like a good excuse to order an ML63
 
The Eastern European trucks are mainly Scanias, Mans and Mercs because if they break down here you can get them repaired.

But that's not to say that they are in good order and as well maintained as a British lorry has to be.

Impossible to tell but probably 80% of our truck traffic in Luxembourg is in transit and a large number of these are CZ, PL, RO, LT, LV, BG, H. Whereas a few years ago they were a load of chuggers, I'd say that they are amongst the best trucks that you see and none of them are chuggers. Noticeably in worse condition are the Dutch and Belgian trucks; not so clean, torn canopies - a kind of Bob Geldof look.
The worst trucks are the car transporters with PL and LV plates.
However, these are gross generalisations.
 
Impossible to tell but probably 80% of our truck traffic in Luxembourg is in transit and a large number of these are CZ, PL, RO, LT, LV, BG, H. Whereas a few years ago they were a load of chuggers, I'd say that they are amongst the best trucks that you see and none of them are chuggers. Noticeably in worse condition are the Dutch and Belgian trucks; not so clean, torn canopies - a kind of Bob Geldof look.
The worst trucks are the car transporters with PL and LV plates.
However, these are gross generalisations.

We get them all over here, lorries from everywhere, and with Mayor Ken's new tax on the English lorries and vans it's going to be a huge boost to foreign firms running on Russian diesel, driven by sleepy drivers in their LHD 44 tonne trucks maintained to who knows what standard.

Once again the British set out to destroy one of their own industries...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom