Diesel scrappage

[Steve Walker]

But the way to deal with that is by ensuring the cleanliness of new vehicles - older ones will soon fall out of the system anyway, without punishing the innocent owners who followed government advice.

If it is really necessary to clean up the air rapidly and reduce the number of diesels immediately to do so, then having been given the wrong advice, owners should be given enough money to scrap their vehicles that they can afford to replace them with an equivalent petrol car at no cost to themselves.

You cannot claim anti-social behaviour when drivers neding transport were deliberately encouraged by government to go diesel.

SteveW

[Steve Walker]

Public transport and walking more just don't work for those of us that have difficulty walking due to painful arthritis or that need to carry bulky or heavy things or that simply may be on-call for children, sick relatives, etc. where they may need to leave immediately and travel to one of a number of destinations without having to link up with various timetables.

SteveW

[Dave Plowman (News)]

The obvious retort to that is if you need a car because of where you live, move. Makes as much sense as you've done.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Or simply taking the dog somewhere new for a walk.

Of course I use PT in London for quite a few journeys. Mainly when going to the West End etc. But even with a very good PT system, a car is still going to be more convenient for some.

[Andy Burns]

I thought for diesel cars, the MOT "fast pass" only tests smoke level, not CO/NOx/HC levels?

[Andy Burns]

Or "rolling coal"

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Like those relatively new VW etc which fiddled the figures in the (US) tests deliberately? And that independant tests show that many new models produce far more pollution in practice than their test results give?

The pollutant in the news at the moment is NOx. And that isn't removed by a particulate filter. That filter is meant to stop the visible black smoke from a hard working diesel. And anyone who does any driving at all will have seen plenty modern diesels smoking.

[Another John]

So ... the invisible nasties in diesel are even nastier than the invisible nasties in petrol?

Not being argumentative - just trying to keep up. And wondering, of course, how much my 63Reg diesel trade-in value has fallen since I bought it last October >-(

J.

[harry]

A smoking diesel is down to worn injectors.

The dangerous particles are invisible. They can actually get through the walls of the lung and into your bloodstream.

[harry]

Ultrafine particles.

[mechanic]

Sorry mate, but it's a bit precious implying I'm clueless when you make remarks like that!

[mechanic]

Infrequently .

[mechanic]

Not too much sense on here so far; many would walk/cycle/use public transport if those alternatives were suitable. Where we are bus routes are being cut so such alternatives are limited - city dwellers tend to have more choice. And that's where the pollution problems tend to be.

[mechanic]

dennis?

[Capitol]

I've done Gatwick to Liverpool Street with 2 x 70lb suitcases and a piece of hand luggage, never again!!

[Dave Plowman (News)]

A modern petrol engine produces very little NOX.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

The snag tend to be everyone wants everyone to use those far more worthy ways of getting around - except themselves, of course. 'They' always have excuses why only they need a car.

Bus routes tend to be cut if they are little used.

Rather obviously.

[charles]

and, by being cut, become useless and even less used. Our first bus into town is at 10.35 and there are only two more in the day.

[Adrian Caspersz]

Why not let the children walk?

[dennis]

Avoiding the fares?