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

Mr Bump said:
diesel is a filthy fuel and needs to be banned ASAP.
tax on diesel cars should be massive.
Click to expand...

How would you like all the shops in Bristol to be supplied?
My company Sure as hell isnt paying £100 a day for the privilege of driving our trucks into Bristol.
Considering one of our biggest customers is the council, will be interesting to see how they react. Will they pay the fee on Thier bill.. I doubt it.

Also almost all the councils vehicles are diesel. All the refuse trucks, highways trucks, highways vans, road sweepers, street wardens etc etc..
Who is gonna pay to replace all of those? As far as I’m aware there are no 32t electric refuse lorries on the market yet.. how is Bristols waste going to be collected?
Cabot circus shopping centre is included in the congestion zone, who is going to use it now? Go to cribbs causeway instead for free.
The city centre will be dead in a couple of years.
 
The link posted by Raymond is for a campaigning group with it's own agenda.

When they make a statement like the one below I think we can see where they are coming from.

"On average, diesel cars emit more CO2 than gasoline hybrid cars."
 
Nod said:
£260 is enough.
Click to expand...
My petrol car is twice that(and a bit more), I’d just avoid Bristol though, or park outside and get the bus, how many electric buses does the council run?
 
TCR4x4 said:
How would you like all the shops in Bristol to be supplied?
My company Sure as hell isnt paying £100 a day for the privilege of driving our trucks into Bristol.
Considering one of our biggest customers is the council, will be interesting to see how they react. Will they pay the fee on Thier bill.. I doubt it.

Also almost all the councils vehicles are diesel. All the refuse trucks, highways trucks, highways vans, road sweepers, street wardens etc etc..
Who is gonna pay to replace all of those? As far as I’m aware there are no 32t electric refuse lorries on the market yet.. how is Bristols waste going to be collected?
Cabot circus shopping centre is included in the congestion zone, who is going to use it now? Go to cribbs causeway instead for free.
The city centre will be dead in a couple of years.
Click to expand...

They will probably become a special exemption through a secret loophole ;)
 
Mr Bump said:
diesel is a filthy fuel and needs to be banned ASAP.
tax on diesel cars should be massive.
Click to expand...

So what happens to all of us who brought diesels, when we were encouraged to do so by previous Governments? What about those of us that can't afford to change our cars just like that. In the real world how would we move things around if it wasn't for Diesel cars?

Come and live where my mother in law does and tell me how they can just rely on public transport.
 
munch said:
So what happens to all of us who brought diesels, when we were encouraged to do so by previous Governments? What about those of us that can't afford to change our cars just like that. In the real world how would we move things around if it wasn't for Diesel cars?

Come and live where my mother in law does and tell me how they can just rely on public transport.
Click to expand...

I live in Bristol and work in Bristol. Outside of the ban zone. I can't even rely on public transport..... :rolleyes:
 
Mr Bump said:
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
Click to expand...
Dpf's filter out the particulates. Diesel engines have had Dpf's since 2007 and have seen greater improvements over the 12 years bring particulates down to lower than the particulates emitted by older petrol cars.
The only bad thing around here is your knowledge on the subject.
 
When I worked in Holland I hardly used my vehicle, public transport was reliable, cheap and used by most people, so no worries about being mugged or ripped off or stranded, when we have the same infrastructure I am sure we will all use public transport, until then we will use our private transport. Knee jerk poorly thought out policy and I live on a main road so would very much benefit from lower pollution level but banning cars without alternative transport is ridiculous.
 
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...
Euro 5 emissions had limits of 0.06g/km for petrol and 0.18g/km for diesel.
Euro 6 regulations came into force in 2015 although some manufacturers were already conforming a year earlier.
Petrol particulates limit remained th same at 0.06g/km. Diesel was heavily reduced to 0.08g/km. Some diesels producing far less than the petrol 0.06g/km limit.
The limit on Euro 4 petrol cars is higher than a euro 6 diesel.and there are plenty of them still on the road.
 
MatBin said:
When I worked in Holland I hardly used my vehicle, public transport was reliable, cheap and used by most people, so no worries about being mugged or ripped off or stranded, when we have the same infrastructure I am sure we will all use public transport, until then we will use our private transport. Knee jerk poorly thought out policy and I live on a main road so would very much benefit from lower pollution level but banning cars without alternative transport is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I have no intention of using public transport. I find it a very depressing form of transport. I will continue to drive until I am too old or incapable of driving.
 
nilagin said:
I have no intention of using public transport. I find it a very depressing form of transport. I will continue to drive until I am too old or incapable of driving.
Click to expand...
I would agree with you when discussing UK public transport, but Dutch transport really is well organised, pleasant and cost effective.
 
MatBin said:
I would agree with you when discussing UK public transport, but Dutch transport really is well organised, pleasant and cost effective.
Click to expand...
I'd still rather be driving my own car .
 
The best public transport I've experienced was in Holland and Singapore but I'm able bodied and when on holiday I don't need to carry heavy or bulky things like the weekly shop or the odd large screen TV.

Nothing I've experienced yet has convinced me that public transport is the answer. It could well be for able bodied and even some not able bodied in large well developed towns and cities but get out of those and public transport can soon be seen as utterly impractical. For example I live 10-15 minutes walk from the nearest bus stop, a bus ride from the nearest train station and maybe half an hours walk to the nearest supermarket so living without personal transport would be a right royal PITA for me and would become difficult in years to come when I'll presumably be less able.

And then there's work. Since the age of 19 I've never had a job that involved travel to and from just one place of work. I've always had to travel at a moments notice and I've always needed tools and test gear. That sort of non fixed location and non fixed time 9-5 job would be impossible with public transport. These days I don't "work" but often have to take someone with limited mobility maybe in a wheelchair and with public transport it's a real PITA.

Unless things change in a way I can't imagine at the moment some form of personal and quickly accessible transport is going to be needed for a large number of people both for work and for non work use.

The fact that government and councils seem at times to be hell bent on making life as difficult as possible for car drivers when there may be no viable alternative annoys and frustrates me and then there's the effects on businesses many of which are hanging on by their fingernails. Do national and local government want to kill off town centres and businesses and make thousands effectively housebound? It would seem so.
 
I find it quite ironic that my gas guzzling tuned 2L GTI petrol will be fine whereas my wife’s fuel sipping 1.4tdi won’t be allowed in!
 
munch said:
So what happens to all of us who brought diesels, when we were encouraged to do so by previous Governments? What about those of us that can't afford to change our cars just like that. In the real world how would we move things around if it wasn't for Diesel cars?
Click to expand...
This is the problem with the ever moving goal post for ICE car industry. Buying used car as young as 5 years old (2014 Euro 5 diesel), you will be penalised for not being able to afford brand new car, in the form of tax for driving anywhere.
(life expectancy of a modern car is said to be 15 years old, so 5 years old cars is like a young man in his late 20's, or in reliability terms, ideal time in the bathtub curve)

I wouldn't agree with you being so dramatic if there's also a good selection of cheap petrol cars. But we all know the government and car industry had pushed us into diesels (instead of hybrids) to meet their CO2 goals, while know full well the health problems. So if you are someone looking at reasonably priced ~6 years old car, unfortunately you will get stun.

For example, when I was looking at changing car in 2017, looking for 3-4 years old cars, there was zero petrol that has equipment I wanted. The choices were diesel or diesel, all Euro 5, all subject to ULEZ in London.

Hopefully electric will break the moving goal post. CO2 emission for EV is regulated at the source (power plants) and any changes wouldn't affect individual car ownership. 1% cleaner grid means 1% cleaner across ALL EV's, new and old. 10% cleaner newly developed ICE won't make a dent thanks to all the existing ICE emitting on the road.
Only additional emission based taxation (like ULEZ and Bristol diesel ban) we might see is to disincentives charging during peak times, which is not an issue as long as there's enough chargers to allow you to park and shift charge to off-peak times.
 
wuyanxu said:
10% cleaner newly developed ICE won't make a dent thanks to all the existing ICE emitting on the road.
Click to expand...
Lower emissions doesn't just come from new vehicles, you are ignoring the fact that oil companies also develop cleaner burning fuels, something that all ice vehicles can run on.
 
nilagin said:
Lower emissions doesn't just come from new vehicles, you are ignoring the fact that oil companies also develop cleaner burning fuels, something that all ice vehicles can run on.
Click to expand...
You mean like E10, where, again, the poorer who drives 10 years old cars may get shafted?
"As of 2011, all new cars sold in the UK must be E10 compatible. "
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tra...le-with-family-cars-nissan-ford-a3921316.html

Remember leaded petrol? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40593353
Why did we use such harmful material for so long? Answer: to help Standard Oil, General Motors and the DuPont Corporation get a bigger profit.
How did it get introduced? Answer: the big 3 had significant lobbying effort.

How did diesel cars get nod from UK govt, despite knowing health risks? See the previous answer.
The CO2 based tax was introduced in 2001. This journal was published in 2001, referencing other diesel health risk publications as early as 1988. https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/17/4/733#sec-20



Poor people, envirounment, health, truth? Who cares. It's all about gaining maximum profit.
 
No I don't mean like E10. Additives are added to all fuels to allow engines to a cleaner, fuller burn. This not only produces lower emissions, but also keeps the combustion chambers clean, maintaining performance and keeping the emissions low.

Lead was used in petrol because it reduced engine knock and helped lubricate the valves, preventing them from coking up and not closing properly and getting damaged.
Lead was phased out after the widespread introduction of fuel injection in cars meant fuelling had better control and there was less chance of knock. Older cars could have hardened valve seats installed and or the timing adjusted to retard the spark.

Low vehicle tax for diesels wasn't invented by the UK government, it was widespread across Europe and around the world. People took advantage of it because of the low tax and the fact that they could have a bigger more powerful car that did a lot more to the gallon than smaller petrol cars and the mpg difference between the same car depending on if it was petrol or diesel.
Last diesel car I owned was over 6yrs ago, it did 60mpg, had I bought the petrol version I would have been getting 25-28mpg.
Car manufacturers were fitting catalytic converters to diesel cars, long before legislation dictated it.
No one forced people to buy diesel vehicles.
 
nilagin said:
Lead was used in petrol because it reduced engine knock and helped lubricate the valves, preventing them from coking up and not closing properly and getting damaged.
Lead was phased out after the widespread introduction of fuel injection in cars meant fuelling had better control and there was less chance of knock. Older cars could have hardened valve seats installed and or the timing adjusted to retard the spark.
Click to expand...

Funny as that's how I remember it too so I'm glad I wasn't having a brain fade :D
 
First Vauxhall I drove that used lead free petrol had obviously just had it's ignition retarded and precious little else, wouldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding (now there's a phrase you don't hear often these days) :)
 
nilagin said:
Lead was phased out after the widespread introduction of fuel injection in cars
Click to expand...
Leaded petrol was introduced around 1925.
Fuel injection engines were available from 1902. According to this: http://bestride.com/news/top-automotive-innovations-history-of-fuel-injection

GM thought it is easier to get harmful material added to petrol than working on their car technology. (sounds similar to VAG's dieselgate?)
DuPont and Standard Oil saw an opportunity to increase their profit margins.
Why did the petrol companies push tetraethyl lead instead of ethyl alcohol? Researchers who have studied the decision remain puzzled. Cynics might point out that any old farmer could distil ethyl alcohol from grain. It couldn't be patented, or its distribution profitably controlled. Tetraethyl lead could.
Click to expand...
 
wuyanxu said:
Leaded petrol was introduced around 1925.
Fuel injection engines were available from 1902. According to this: http://bestride.com/news/top-automotive-innovations-history-of-fuel-injection
Click to expand...
There is a hell of a lot of difference between mechanical and electronic fuel injection. With mechanical fuel injection you are tied into one timing of injection throughout the rev range. With electronic fuel injection the timing of the injection can vary throughout the rev range to ensure a cleaner and more controlled burn and a more exact amount of fuel used.
 
Donnie said:
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.
Click to expand...

True but if every city in the UK followed suit and then every city in the world did the same thing, the effect would be multiplied in the tens of thousands and it would have an impact. I realise this is a pipe dream as money will always trump the environment but ultimately it needs to start somewhere.

If we want to start slowing or reversing the effects of GW, we need to change the way we live but trying to get everyone on board all over the world is an impossible task.

We have two cars due to where we live, the nearest train line is 6 miles away and buses are non existent when you need to be on a 05:22 train to London. Both cars probably cost £700-800pm to run including depreciation, wear and tear, insurance, VED and fuel etc but if we had a viable alternative, I would happily get rid of one of the cars. Neither is a diesel to be fair.
 
Last edited:
noneforit said:
True but if every city in the UK followed suit and then every city in the world did the same thing, the effect would be multiplied in the tens of thousands and it would have an impact. I realise this is a pipe dream as money will always trump the environment but ultimately it needs to start somewhere.

If we want to start slowing or reversing the effects of GW, we need to change the way we live but trying to get everyone on board all over the world is an impossible task.
Click to expand...
I'll say it again, too many humans on this planet, to reverse/stop GW and the man-made extinction of other species we need to reduce our impact on the planet, do we cull ourselves or do we wait for nature to do it?
 
noneforit said:
True but if every city in the UK followed suit and then every city in the world did the same thing, the effect would be multiplied in the tens of thousands and it would have an impact. I realise this is a pipe dream as money will always trump the environment but ultimately it needs to start somewhere.

If we want to start slowing or reversing the effects of GW, we need to change the way we live but trying to get everyone on board all over the world is an impossible task.

We have two cars due to where we live, the nearest train line is 6 miles away and buses are non existent when you need to be on a 05:22 train to London. Both cars probably cost £700-800pm to run including depreciation, wear and tear, insurance, VED and fuel etc but if we had a viable alternative, I would happily get rid of one of the cars. Neither is a diesel to be fair.
Click to expand...
Better still, stop trying to cram even more people into an already overcrowded and restrictive space
 
nilagin said:
Better still, stop trying to cram even more people into an already overcrowded and restrictive space
Click to expand...

Most people work to live, they go where the jobs are.

Even if you built industry in the Country and spread the population out, how would that make a difference in terms of what we emit?
 
MatBin said:
I'll say it again, too many humans on this planet, to reverse/stop GW and the man-made extinction of other species we need to reduce our impact on the planet, do we cull ourselves or do we wait for nature to do it?
Click to expand...

So we give up then? Just not bother trying?

I agree the planet is overpopulated but short of a call or introducing a maxim child policy, what options do we have?
 
noneforit said:
So we give up then? Just not bother trying?

I agree the planet is overpopulated but short of a call or introducing a maxim child policy, what options do we have?
Click to expand...
I didn't say we give up, but whatever the UK does will have a minor impact on the World situation and yes a maximum child policy is definitely the way to go, do you see that being taken up globally, do you see the likes of Oxfam not handing out food to the starving in environments that cant support 1 child let alone 6,7 etc where families have multiple children, not a chance. Odd how when we film wildlife dying we aren't supposed to interfere because it's "nature's way" yet when it happens to humans we can interfere as much as we want, we bulldoze forests to create space for their homes, we rip up animal habitats so we can grow food or plant stuff for our needs.
The do-gooders who allow over population will at some point reap what they sow (literally).
 
Last edited:
MatBin said:
Sometimes the truth has to be told and sometimes it hurts.
Click to expand...

Well, one could argue that there aren't actually too many people on the planet. Look at the UK, we seem overpopulated but I read somewhere that the developed areas are the equivalent of the little area around the corner flag on a football field. If they mean one corner flag or all four I'm not sure and perhaps it doesn't matter. Yes, there are areas that are overpopulated and there are places that are polluted but these facts may not prove that there's too many people in the world as such, all it may mean is that some are in places they really should be. Food is another subject and despite the starving there's no shortage of food (and sadly there's sometimes no shortage in the country in which people are starving) and the world could, so I've read, support a much larger population.

However, we'd need to do "it" right and at the moment we arguably aren't.

I'd much prefer doing it right to not intervening and letting people suffer terribly and die in larger numbers than we suffer now by doing what we can when we can be bothered to. In all of this I believe we'll be held to account and judged one way or another and I would not be a willing part of any world in which we looked and saw the suffering and the tragedies and collectively said "We could do something but we wont. So be it."
 
woof woof said:
In all of this I believe we'll be held to account and judged one way or another and I would not be a willing part of any world in which we looked and saw the suffering and the tragedies and collectively said "We could do something but we wont. So be it."
Click to expand...
Neither do I want to see suffering and starving, especially when we see glutony and greed on a massive scale in some parts of the world.
We differ in that I think we are over populated and we destroy too much of our planet simply to satisfy our ever increasing population and our individual and collective greed, we are all guilty, we all consume too much (I include myself in that just as much as anyone else), so we MUST do something about it but what we need to do is MASSIVE and not just a tinkering around the edges so we can sit back in a self satisfied way and say "we are doing our (little) bit". We, as a species, are destroying our planet and with it taking with us species after species into extinction. Only Governments can introduce legislation to curb this and this needs to be on a Global scale but it wont happen, politician dont have the b***s to do what's needed, so we''ll descend into chaos where might is right and the strongest will survive for a while.
I'll get off my soapbox now, might be a bit heavy for a Thursday afternoon :)
 
Last edited:
My complaint about doing something about all this is that when "we" try to do something it's often highly questionable and very possibly the wrong thing. I doubt we have the will to do and I also doubt we have the ability to do the things you'd like to see done, done right.
 
noneforit said:
Most people work to live, they go where the jobs are.

Even if you built industry in the Country and spread the population out, how would that make a difference in terms of what we emit?
Click to expand...
If there is less congestion it will make a huge difference.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
The world's a fearsomely complicated place and simple solutions always do more harm than good. Take a look at this analysis of American middle class spending by U.S. Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren: https://wustllawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/8-13.pdf
Click to expand...

That's an interesting read.

In my little world I see people spending little to middling amounts often on things I wouldn't spend on and that does worry me but after reading that piece I hope to worry a little less.

Just a little example, I know people who'll buy a dinner every day and who can't pass a coffee shop without buying a coffee and a cake. I often make sandwiches or take some other snack when I'm going out and I take a bottle of water or occasionally a flask my theory being that £6 a day (easy) 5 days a week spent of coffee, cake and shop bought sandwiches is £30 a week, £120 a month and knocking on £1500 a year and if there's two of you that's possibly £3k a year on sarnies and coffee? OK stuff made at home isn't free but it's a big saving overall. Maybe I'm just tight.
 
I was at a farmer's auction sale yesterday, along with innumerable other people and maybe 1000 or so cars.
The vast majority were diesel powered 4 x 4's, usually pretty old, many (including my own) won't have DP Filters, so they will all be right at the top end in the pollution stakes.

But what the government (and some members here) don't seem to get is that only diesel powered 4 x 4 cars are capable of doing the jobs needed by farmers. Currently, electric cars are a joke and petrol engined cars - when available in real 4x4 versions - simply cost far too much to run.

Nobody is happy with causing avoidable pollution, but adding yet another layer of tax (in addition to ridiculously expensive VED, fuel duty and VAT on both the fuel and the duty) is just further penalising the people who have no choice. And banning them from city centres is just another stupid knee jerk reaction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top