Bristol is set to become the UK's first city to ban diesel cars from entering parts of the city centre

Donnie said:
and inaccurate given that all diesel car taxis will still go in, and buses and lorries etc etc.
Click to expand...

correction, yep
Bristol City Council has agreed to ban privately owned diesel cars from a central zone in the daytime. Commercial vehicles will pay to enter the area.
 
The problem with this is where the boundaries lie...... I'm pretty sure (from memory) they have come out a long way from the centre east/west which cuts off a lot of routes for people travelling north/south.
 
No the problem is the stupidity of the policy, its purely to tick a box, a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Yes it will likely have a degree of effect but it'll be small. There's a lot of diesels that are a hell of a lot cleaner than a lot of petrols but that nonwithstanding, if diesels the problem then what is being done about the diesel buses, lorries and taxis? Nothing.
 
Off-topic but local councils display a definition of stupid.

We have a local school close to a busy A road and a roundabout next to it, the council have fitted a set of traffic lights to enable students to cross safely.

First morning the council were out watching how things worked and came away happy, it was chaos at leaving time though, no one had considered that in the morning its a slow trickle of students over an extended period arriving at school, at leaving time all students hit it at about the same time.
 
Donnie said:
and inaccurate given that all diesel car taxis will still go in, and buses and lorries etc etc.
Click to expand...
They already needed to pay to enter the wider "Clean Air Zone". IMO this is fair.

I'm surprised Euro 6 diesels are not exampt, like the London ULEZ.

This will be sure to affect me. I drive M4 -> M5 to North Somerset to see my parents. Sometimes I'd go through Bristol because M5 has backed up. Looks like I'll have to go cross country across border of SE Bristol.

I do wonder how rare powertrains like the diesel Volvo V60 plug-in hybrid will be treated in this instance. It has a diesel engine for long journey, but it can drive with zero tailpipe emission in the city.
 
Diesel vehicles are more environmentally friendly than electric ones. All the electric vehicles do is to export the pollution out of the cities, and into the countryside. However, electric vehicles allow the government ( police ) to control driving and journeys, from a remote location, and I suspect that this is the real motivation. The new two-stroke opposed piston engines offer very real efficiency and environmental advantages, and I hope the misguided veggies don't manage to kill development.
 
Wild Brambles said:
Diesel vehicles are more environmentally friendly than electric ones. All the electric vehicles do is to export the pollution out of the cities, and into the countryside. However, electric vehicles allow the government ( police ) to control driving and journeys, from a remote location, and I suspect that this is the real motivation. The new two-stroke opposed piston engines offer very real efficiency and environmental advantages, and I hope the misguided veggies don't manage to kill development.
Click to expand...

How would an electric drive train give anyone remote control when a computer controlled ICE wouldn't?

You win for "most stupid conspiracy I've heard this year"
 
All modern vehicle seem to be having remote controls fitted. My point was that the older diesels (and other vehicles) don't have this facility, so forcing people to abandon them increases the potential to control the traffic. It isn't a conspiracy theory, it's an observation on the published facts.
 
Wild Brambles said:
All modern vehicle seem to be having remote controls fitted. My point was that the older diesels (and other vehicles) don't have this facility, so forcing people to abandon them increases the potential to control the traffic. It isn't a conspiracy theory, it's an observation on the published facts.
Click to expand...
You forgot to wear your tin foil hat ;)
 
KitsuneAndy said:
How would an electric drive train give anyone remote control when a computer controlled ICE wouldn't?

You win for "most stupid conspiracy I've heard this year"
Click to expand...
Unlike electric vehicles, very few ice vehicles computers can be accessed by WiFi.
There was a case several years ago where in an experiment, people in Australia were able to hack into a car in Europe. The computer had limited control of the vehicle compared to today's cars.
 
Mr Bump said:
they shouldn't be allowed to be sold you are correct, the sale of diesel vehicles should be banned ASAP
Click to expand...
Why? You obviously love to be reminded how modern diesels are cleaner than your petrol car.
 
nilagin said:
Why? You obviously love to be reminded how modern diesels are cleaner than your petrol car.
Click to expand...

With the rigged emission tests that VW got fined billions for, sure it is.

You can show me links and lab tests but with no way to confirm whether those are rigged...I can't trust it I am afraid.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
With the rigged emission tests that VW got fined billions for, sure it is.

You can show me links and lab tests but with no way to confirm whether those are rigged...I can't trust it I am afraid.
Click to expand...
Well for starters not all diesel engines are made by VAG.
Also emissions testing hasn't been conducted in a laboratory for 18months to 2yrs. All new cars sold since September 2018 have to pass the WLTP ( real world) test on roads. Most cars were already compliant before that.
 
nilagin said:
Well for starters not all diesel engines are made by VAG.
Also emissions testing hasn't been conducted in a laboratory for 18months to 2yrs. All new cars sold since September 2018 have to pass the WLTP ( real world) test on roads. Most cars were already compliant before that.
Click to expand...

You know what they say, fool me once...

and even if you are right, by modern do you mean only cars post September 2018?!

That is hardly that many! What about all the rest?
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
You know what they say, fool me once...

and even if you are right, by modern do you mean only cars post September 2018?!

That is hardly that many! What about all the rest?
Click to expand...
Read what I said again. New cars have had to comply since September 2018. There will be cars that were already complying as manufacturers have been testing the vehicles for several years in preparation. The proposed ban is for all private diesel passenger vehicles regardless of age, yet modern diesels are cleaner than some older petrol cars which will still be allowed in the zone. Even Euro V diesel cars are cleaner than a lot of older petrol vehicles.
 
I find myself thinking we have become a culture wherein...
  • a small number of noisy people think everything is wonderful and this trough is full of delicious money
  • a small number of noisy people think everything is terrible and the sky is falling right now
  • a very large number of quiet people wonder about important things like "where has that bus got to?"
DSC01286 Waiting for a bus Exeter.JPG

:naughty:
 
Banning diesels from a city is a 'knee jerk' way of reducing traffic congestion too, at least for a while. It does nothing to reduce the non-tailpipe pollution from brake dust, tyres & other contaminants produced by all road vehicles. Not to mention the discarded litter produced by pedestrians, fouling by dogs & other animals.
 
nilagin said:
Read what I said again. New cars have had to comply since September 2018. There will be cars that were already complying as manufacturers have been testing the vehicles for several years in preparation. The proposed ban is for all private diesel passenger vehicles regardless of age, yet modern diesels are cleaner than some older petrol cars which will still be allowed in the zone. Even Euro V diesel cars are cleaner than a lot of older petrol vehicles.
Click to expand...

Read what I wrote again.

New cars, POST 2018?! That's not that many?

What about 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003....should I go on?

And as I said before, fool me once... unless you don't understand that saying. No one is going to trust these new test, no matter what it says now as they lied once.
 
Last edited:
broc said:
Banning diesels from a city is a 'knee jerk' way of reducing traffic congestion too, at least for a while. It does nothing to reduce the non-tailpipe pollution from brake dust, tyres & other contaminants produced by all road vehicles. Not to mention the discarded litter produced by pedestrians, fouling by dogs & other animals.
Click to expand...

But none of those are NO2.

The point is reducing NO2, which Diesel cars is a big culprit of.

I am sure the ban on all cars will come eventually or even the ban of all people...possibly but that is separate to the aim to reduce NO2.
 
Last edited:
broc said:
Banning diesels from a city is a 'knee jerk' way of reducing traffic congestion too, at least for a while. It does nothing to reduce the non-tailpipe pollution from brake dust, tyres & other contaminants produced by all road vehicles. Not to mention the discarded litter produced by pedestrians, fouling by dogs & other animals.
Click to expand...

Traffic congestion brought on by BCC ;)
 
Raymond Lin said:
Read what I wrote again.

New cars, POST 2018?! That's not that many?

What about 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003....should I go on?

And as I said before, fool me once... unless you don't understand that saying. No one is going to trust these new test, no matter what it says now as they lied once.
Click to expand...

I have already answered with regards earlier cars. A 2012 diesel could well be cleaner than a 2002 petrol, yet the petrol car will still be allowed within the zone.
The London ULEZ is a much fairer system as it takes that into account and allows modern diesels whilst some earlier petrols have to pay to enter the zone as they aren't as clean.

VW cheated by rigging a sensor that picked up the proximity of a large fan in front of vehicles whilst being tested on a rolling road. The fan is a necessity to replicate the car driving through the air. Once the car sensed the fan, it knew it was under test conditions and the engine ran an alternative calibration and used the minimal emissions controls for such times. Mercedes did something similar, years ago by rigging up the bonnet alarm sensor to do the same thing as soon as the bonnet opened the emissions control activated.
As emission testing is now carried out on the road any emissions control would have to be working all the time as there would be no way for a vehicle to know it wasn't under test conditions.
 
Raymond Lin said:
But none of those are NO2.

The point is reducing NO2, which Diesel cars is a big culprit of.

I am sure the ban on all cars will come eventually or even the ban of all people...possibly but that is separate to the aim to reduce NO2.
Click to expand...
Petrol engines also produce Nox. Which is why even small petrol engines require GPF's to pass the latest Euro 6.2 emissions.
 
nilagin said:
Petrol engines also produce Nox. Which is why even small petrol engines require GPF's to pass the latest Euro 6.2 emissions.
Click to expand...

And on average, as a whole, Petrol cars produce LESS NO2 than Diesel.

Note that I said as a whole, before you reply with "Post-2018" or "modern diesel", again.
 
diesel engines can emit a fair amount of nitrogen compounds and particulate matter as they burn diesel fuel. These facts combined to give diesel fuel a bad environmental name
 
Donnie said:
and inaccurate given that all diesel car taxis will still go in, and buses and lorries etc etc.
Click to expand...
wuyanxu said:
They already needed to pay to enter the wider "Clean Air Zone". IMO this is fair.
Click to expand...

And you've complete missed my point in that sentence.

Mr Bump said:
they shouldn't be allowed to be sold you are correct, the sale of diesel vehicles should be banned ASAP
Click to expand...

b****x, plenty of diesels are less polluting than petrol cars, they are both polluters but your blinkers don't want to see the wider picture. I bet you even support the use of plastics etc too.

broc said:
Banning diesels from a city is a 'knee jerk' way of reducing traffic congestion too, at least for a while. It does nothing to reduce the non-tailpipe pollution from brake dust, tyres & other contaminants produced by all road vehicles. Not to mention the discarded litter produced by pedestrians, fouling by dogs & other animals.
Click to expand...

This :plus1:
Raymond Lin said:
And on average, as a whole, Petrol cars produce LESS NO2 than Diesel.

Note that I said as a whole, before you reply with "Post-2018" or "modern diesel", again.
Click to expand...

But you are wrong. Diesels produce less NO2 than a non catalysed Petrol, so you cannot say all petrol cars. Plus diesels actually are more efficient and diesel fuel has more actual energy per litre than petrol. Oh and don't forget that Petrol cars (cataylised and non cat) produce more CO2 than diesels as a whole.

This is the problem when people only focus on one issue, usually the one thats most popular in the media at that time :-(
 
How about jet engine NOx emissions when you fly off to your holiday home? Of course, they don't count - neither do the emissions from the taxi that gets you to/from the airport(s). Or the busses that do the same.
 
Mr Bump said:
diesel engines can emit a fair amount of more nitrogen compounds and particulate matter than a catylsed petrol engine BUT LESS than a non catylysed petrol engine as they burn diesel fuel which has more energy per litre . These facts erroneously and without any reference to the wider picture of traffic induced pollution combined to give diesel fuel a bad environmental name
Click to expand...

fixed that for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
It's a poorly thought out policy (Bristol city council doing something poorly thought out, who'd have thought it) that will among other things stop parents taking children to the children's hospital, which is well inside the exclusion zone.

My car is petrol so exempt. I won't shop for anything big in the wider zone in future as that would need my Euro 4 diesel Transit to take home and I'm not paying the council vast sums of money to go shopping (last thing I used it for was a framed print of a Japanese woodblock painting from the museum and art gallery at the top of Park street, which wouldn't fit in my car). Please don't say "buy an electric van then" as there isn't one with a 3500kg MGVW and 2000kg towing weight, and if there were to be, I couldn't afford it.
 
Donnie said:
But you are wrong. Diesels produce less NO2 than a non catalysed Petrol, so you cannot say all petrol cars. Plus diesels actually are more efficient and diesel fuel has more actual energy per litre than petrol. Oh and don't forget that Petrol cars (cataylised and non cat) produce more CO2 than diesels as a whole.

This is the problem when people only focus on one issue, usually the one thats most popular in the media at that time :-(
Click to expand...


I didn't say all, I said on average. Why do people twist my words?

https://www.transportenvironment.or...ons/2015_09_Five_facts_about_diesel_FINAL.pdf


AgMzd8Z.png


Yes I know that is written in 2015, not POST-2018.
 
Last edited:
And in the 5 years since, things have changed somewhat!
 
Raymond Lin said:
I didn't say all, I said on average. Why do people twist my words?

Yes I know that is written in 2015, not POST-2018.
Click to expand...

Whoa, pump the hate brakes eh? Don't assume Im twisting your words, I didn't parse the average to be honest, gimme 10 minutes to look at your link and I'll reply eh?
 
Donnie said:
Whoa, pump the hate brakes eh? Don't assume Im twisting your words, I didn't parse the average to be honest, gimme 10 minutes to look at your link and I'll reply eh?
Click to expand...

And Im back, but not with anything you would like, mainly because it's full of a few possible generalisations and when I went to look at the references for some of the claims, unfortunately NONE are provided? So, Im unable to take the whole "report" seriously, unless you can link to the whole thing for me to consider?
 
diesel is a filthy fuel and needs to be banned ASAP.
tax on diesel cars should be massive.
 
£260 is enough.
 
Donnie said:
And you've complete missed my point in that sentence.
Click to expand...
Please, sir, enlighten us with the point you've hidden with your cryptic sentence ;)

Donnie said:
And Im back, but not with anything you would like, mainly because it's full of a few possible generalisations and when I went to look at the references for some of the claims, unfortunately NONE are provided? So, Im unable to take the whole "report" seriously, unless you can link to the whole thing for me to consider?
Click to expand...
It's a brief written by environmental group. So it is right to be cautious about its claims.

But one claim shouldn't be overlooked is how NOx are bad for humans, the brief references a WHO working group publication with the following conclusion:
Dr Christopher Portier, Chairman of the IARC working Group, stated that “The scientific evidence was compelling and the Working Group’s conclusion was unanimous: diesel engine exhaust causes lung cancer in humans.” Dr Portier continued: “Given the additional health impacts from diesel particulates, exposure to this mixture of chemicals should be reduced worldwide.“
Click to expand...
https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr213_E.pdf

Published in 2012. After publishing this: Little news of this from mass media. Zero attempt to move away from diesels by the politicians. Zero attempt by car manufacturers to educate consumers to move away from diesel power. It's almost as though there's some sort of oil industry status quo that mustn't be disturbed...... for profit and backhanders, instead of public health.

As Raymond said, fool me once...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top