Diesel ban near AG (merged)

[And Its Smith]

2 minutes ago, OneTeamInBristol said:

The point I have is that diesel cars are not solely the problem.

A new diesel car puts out 112g of co2 per km (on average).

I have a petrol that puts out 243g per km.

But I can drive around all day wherever I choose, luckily.

You should probably get your car scrapped for the sake of all of us!

[Vincent Vega]

1 minute ago, RedDave said:

You should probably get your car scrapped for the sake of all of us!

But it highlights just how ridiculous this is.

[CotswoldRed]

7 minutes ago, OneTeamInBristol said:

The point I have is that diesel cars are not solely the problem.

A new diesel car puts out 112g of co2 per km (on average).

I have a petrol that puts out 243g per km.

But I can drive around all day wherever I choose, luckily.

I'd love to see an allowance on how much any driver is allowed to drive outside of business. The capability and software are ready to go. Something like 5,000 miles max per year Social Domestic and Pleasure. 

Clearly lost of caveats and clauses needed but we've got to stop unnecessary journeys. 

Regardless of pollution, traffic makes every city, town and village an unpleasant place to be and most journeys I would argue aren't strictly necessary. 

[OneTeamInBristol]

4 minutes ago, RedM said:

Exactly. A modern diesel car surely emits less than some of the older petrol ones?

 

3 minutes ago, Vincent Vega said:

But it highlights just how ridiculous this is.

Precisely. 

This is not the solution at all.

2 minutes ago, CotswoldRed said:

I'd love to see an allowance on how much any driver is allowed to drive outside of business. The capability and software are ready to go. Something like 10,000 miles max per year Social Domestic and Pleasure. 

Clearly lost of caveats and clauses needed but we've got to stop unnecessary journeys. 

I assume this is a joke? 

[CotswoldRed]

5 minutes ago, RedDave said:

You should probably get your car scrapped for the sake of all of us!

I take it you don't fly by jet then RD? I'd rather you stopped that given the option, if indeed you do. 

[And Its Smith]

4 minutes ago, Vincent Vega said:

But it highlights just how ridiculous this is.

I agree. Might ask Marvin’s thoughts on why he is ignoring older petrol cars. 

[Frenchay Red]

4 minutes ago, OneTeamInBristol said:

The point I have is that diesel cars are not solely the problem.

A new diesel car puts out 112g of co2 per km (on average).

I have a petrol that puts out 243g per km.

But I can drive around all day wherever I choose, luckily.

But it's not as straightforward or simple as that. 

E.G. A V8 C63 driven for just for 2k miles a year pollutes a lot less than a Micra or similar driven 20k miles a year.

[RedM]

7 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Why can’t they just manage it like London do with the congestion zone? 

Why can’t they? Basically because we are talking about Bristol City Council in our case rather than TFL.

[And Its Smith]

Just now, CotswoldRed said:

I take it you don't fly by jet then RD? I'd rather you stopped that given the option, if indeed you do. 

Not sure it’s compatible really but I fly twice per year. To the Far East and back. That’s the only way I can get there. Drivers of high polluting cars have other alternatives. 

[CotswoldRed]

2 minutes ago, OneTeamInBristol said:

 

Precisely. 

This is not the solution at all.

I assume this is a joke? 

Nope.

[CotswoldRed]

Just now, RedDave said:

Not sure it’s compatible really but I fly twice per year. To the Far East and back. That’s the only way I can get there. Drivers of high polluting cars have other alternatives. 

Yes, like not driving. (Ditto not flying, unless business perhaps). 

We all have a choice how much we pollute to an extent. Most people seem to think their pollution is more excusable though. 

[And Its Smith]

4 minutes ago, CotswoldRed said:

Yes, like not driving. (Ditto not flying, unless business perhaps). 

We all have a choice how much we pollute to an extent. Most people seem to think their pollution is more excusable though. 

Their alternative is lower polluting cars for one. My two flights are for business yes.  
 

My retirement plan was always buying a house in the Canary Islands, living their in the winter and here in the summer. Having to rethink things now as that would mean 4-6 flights per year realistically.  No idea how offset that, probably can’t 

[054123]

I’m not an expert on this, but my new diesel utilises adblue and has lower co2 emissions than the petrol equivalent.

Should I be buying the petrol version despite it being worse for the environment?

[Eddie Hitler]

29 minutes ago, BS2 Red said:

Salus populi suprema lex esto.

Excellent thread crosser!

[BS2 Red]

1 minute ago, Eddie Hitler said:

Excellent thread crosser!

I couldn't resist.

[And Its Smith]

21 minutes ago, 054123 said:

I’m not an expert on this, but my new diesel utilises adblue and has lower co2 emissions than the petrol equivalent.

Should I be buying the petrol version despite it being worse for the environment?

I’ve emailed Marvin Rees asking him a similar question. Doubt I will get a reply!

[Cowshed]

4 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

Tend to agree BUT at the same time, Bristol has to be seen to be doing something significant, drastic-  we're clearly failing in certain criteria and targets.

https://airqualitynews.com/2019/10/02/bristols-clean-air-zone-plans-delayed-for-third-time/

Government induced people to buy cars fuelled by diesel. Bristol City Council can create a longer timescale to bring in their uneven measures for those they will disadvantage . Things can be done and be based upon logic and fact. As pointed out by numerous posters this is neither. 

 

[Red-Robbo]

35 minutes ago, 054123 said:

I’m not an expert on this, but my new diesel utilises adblue and has lower co2 emissions than the petrol equivalent.

Should I be buying the petrol version despite it being worse for the environment?

Although diesels emit less CO2 ,the issue in urban areas is NOx (Nitrogen Oxide) and soot particulates. Both can cause cancer as well as other health ill-effects, and both tend to hang about in city centres where there are lots of stop-start short journeys. New generation diesels (ie: those produced since the VW emission rigging scandal) tend to be much better at filtering particulates but are still above what the WHO considers safe for NOx emissions.

I think if you do a lot of motorway and countryside driving, diesels are fine - and still a greener alternative. If a significant proportion of your driving is in large towns and cities,  it's unwise to own one.

FWIW I think the BCC proposal is too draconian, and it needs some measure of phasing in, and a rethink as to how it applies to newer, cleaner vehicles.

 

[Nibor]

10 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Although diesels emit less CO2 ,the issue in urban areas is NOx (Nitrogen Oxide) and soot particulates. Both can cause cancer as well as other health ill-effects, and both tend to hang about in city centres where there are lots of stop-start short journeys. New generation diesels (ie: those produced since the VW emission rigging scandal) tend to be much better at filtering particulates but are still above what the WHO considers safe for NOx emissions.

I think if you do a lot of motorway and countryside driving, diesels are fine - and still a greener alternative. If a significant proportion of your driving is in large towns and cities,  it's unwise to own one.

FWIW I think the BCC proposal is too draconian, and it needs some measure of phasing in, and a rethink as to how it applies to newer, cleaner vehicles.

Who do you think you are coming in here with your thought out reasoned posts?  This is for knee jerk reactions and bollocks.

FWIW I suspect BCC don't think that this will go ahead in its current form, they are probably planning to have it wound back to just a hefty charge on commercial vehicles like the proposals for Leeds etc.

They can rely on central gov not to pass the legislation needed and not to fund it in the way needed.

I think the biggest problem we have here is that we still have this rather odd habit of half the world thinking they need to rush into the town centre for 9am every day.  When you look hard at it I think that is unnecessary for a large majority of the people who do it.  That's the thing I think will have to change (and is the easiest to change).

[Mr Popodopolous]

48 minutes ago, Nibor said:

Who do you think you are coming in here with your thought out reasoned posts?  This is for knee jerk reactions and bollocks.

FWIW I suspect BCC don't think that this will go ahead in its current form, they are probably planning to have it wound back to just a hefty charge on commercial vehicles like the proposals for Leeds etc.

They can rely on central gov not to pass the legislation needed and not to fund it in the way needed.

I think the biggest problem we have here is that we still have this rather odd habit of half the world thinking they need to rush into the town centre for 9am every day.  When you look hard at it I think that is unnecessary for a large majority of the people who do it.  That's the thing I think will have to change (and is the easiest to change).

Pfft, 9am is so 20th century.

Try 8.30am- if not sooner.

[054123]

5 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

Although diesels emit less CO2 ,the issue in urban areas is NOx (Nitrogen Oxide) and soot particulates. Both can cause cancer as well as other health ill-effects, and both tend to hang about in city centres where there are lots of stop-start short journeys. New generation diesels (ie: those produced since the VW emission rigging scandal) tend to be much better at filtering particulates but are still above what the WHO considers safe for NOx emissions.

I think if you do a lot of motorway and countryside driving, diesels are fine - and still a greener alternative. If a significant proportion of your driving is in large towns and cities,  it's unwise to own one.

FWIW I think the BCC proposal is too draconian, and it needs some measure of phasing in, and a rethink as to how it applies to newer, cleaner vehicles.

 

Thanks. I honestly thought I was buying the least damaging.

Whats worse though is the ‘hybrid’ was 12k more expensive!!!!!

[Maesknoll Red]

7 hours ago, RedDave said:

Why can’t they just manage it like London do with the congestion zone? 

So if you can afford to pollute, you can do so at will...... what sort of policy is that!

[Maesknoll Red]

5 hours ago, Nibor said:

Who do you think you are coming in here with your thought out reasoned posts?  This is for knee jerk reactions and bollocks.

FWIW I suspect BCC don't think that this will go ahead in its current form, they are probably planning to have it wound back to just a hefty charge on commercial vehicles like the proposals for Leeds etc.

They can rely on central gov not to pass the legislation needed and not to fund it in the way needed.

I think the biggest problem we have here is that we still have this rather odd habit of half the world thinking they need to rush into the town centre for 9am every day.  When you look hard at it I think that is unnecessary for a large majority of the people who do it.  That's the thing I think will have to change (and is the easiest to change).

09.00 every day - not sure where you travel to/from in Bristol daily, if you do, because from 0630 until 1000 it’s pretty busy, it stays just busy until about 1430 when it ramps up again and dies off just after 1830.  So your traditional 9-5 is already a thing of the past.

[Nibor]

11 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

09.00 every day - not sure where you travel to/from in Bristol daily, if you do, because from 0630 until 1000 it’s pretty busy, it stays just busy until about 1430 when it ramps up again and dies off just after 1830.  So your traditional 9-5 is already a thing of the past.

I'm well aware it's sometimes busy outside those times but there is still a massive peak between 8 and 9 and 5 and 6.  Traditional "office hours" are alive, well and causing gridlock and pollution.

[Maesknoll Red]

9 minutes ago, Nibor said:

I'm well aware it's sometimes busy outside those times but there is still a massive peak between 8 and 9 and 5 and 6.  Traditional "office hours" are alive, well and causing gridlock and pollution.

It’s not sometimes, it’s every day - although, granted it does lessen off in the school holidays, is that a pointer to some of the traffic issues?  I never once got taken to school in a car, has to walk,  or cycle, so I nearly always cycled.  Not sure what has changed, except people being more well off I suppose, we only ever had one car in the family, so even if I had wanted and somehow managed to persuade my parents I should be chauffeured to school, there wouldn’t have been a car there to do it and they both worked, so would not have had the time either.

Its a huge change to alter the way things are, to stop people driving, it isn’t going to happen over night - not without some sort of social and civil collapse, knee jerk reactions aren’t the way forward, actions taken without due diligence aren’t exactly ideal either and this plan seems to fit both categories.

[Nibor]

6 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

It’s not sometimes, it’s every day - although, granted it does lessen off in the school holidays, is that a pointer to some of the traffic issues?  I never once got taken to school in a car, has to walk,  or cycle, so I nearly always cycled.  Not sure what has changed, except people being more well off I suppose, we only ever had one car in the family, so even if I had wanted and somehow managed to persuade my parents I should be chauffeured to school, there wouldn’t have been a car there to do it.

I think it's a few different things but mainly it's that both parents go out to work full time in many more families nowadays so young children get driven.  Yes there's more car ownership and probably a bit more unnecessary fear about children walking too.

6 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

Its a huge change to alter the way things are, to stop people driving, it isn’t going to happen over night - not without some sort of social and civil collapse, knee jerk reactions aren’t the way forward, actions taken without due diligence aren’t exactly ideal either and this plan seems to fit both categories.

I tend to agree, the changes with the biggest impacts are hard and take the longest.  I also think this plan is quite arbitrary and needs revision - perhaps it has served its main purpose of putting it front and centre.  But fundamentally there is very little reason these days for people to be driving into the town centre every day in cars.  Most of the work that goes on in the town centre is done in front of a computer.

[And Its Smith]

37 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

So if you can afford to pollute, you can do so at will...... what sort of policy is that!

Not what I meant at all!

RedM made the point that people will find ways of going into the zone. In London if you go in the zone you will be fined 100% of the time. Sure BCC can take number plates in the same way. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

34 minutes ago, Nibor said:

I think it's a few different things but mainly it's that both parents go out to work full time in many more families nowadays so young children get driven.  Yes there's more car ownership and probably a bit more unnecessary fear about children walking too.

I tend to agree, the changes with the biggest impacts are hard and take the longest.  I also think this plan is quite arbitrary and needs revision - perhaps it has served its main purpose of putting it front and centre.  But fundamentally there is very little reason these days for people to be driving into the town centre every day in cars.  Most of the work that goes on in the town centre is done in front of a computer.

You perhaps underestimate or don't fully factor in the number of sales, insurance and recruitment type companies in the centre. Can't do that from home in the main.

Still, can't help but feel that there are just too many cars on the road in general! Unsure of the best ways forward though.

@spudski mentioned school buses. Assume 1-2 kids per car, stick them on say a school bus, impact starts to come down over time.

Could incentivise people to car share, carpool a lot more. 3 or 4 in a car really would help...reckon a lot of journeys are single occupant.

All starts to add up.

Oh and much improved public transport, but that's also a national issue, perhaps primarily so.

9-5?

Try 8.30-5.30.

Dunno if the 9-5 is all that applicable nowadays tbh.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 hours ago, glos old boy said:

When all the air inside these zones is clear from all nasty defects.....will it stay there or will maybe the wind ignore these imaginary lines and blow the dirty air from outside the zone in to the clean zone? and all the nice clean air to the outside?

Expect this and other money making scams to expand because of this, to the m/ways around Bristol and then more tolls to purify the air above them.Then next the whole country...that.still dosent quite do it though, as the nasty wind will still blow the non conforming air from USA/EUROPE/S AMERICA etc over are nice clear country and the councils who will be desperatly trying to think of the next money making scheme.

Councils have been financially decimated the last 5-10 years so if there is revenue raising attempts, it's understandable.

Yet, 300 die a year from air pollution in Bristol but you don't factor this in. Interestingly, yet it's something that IF Government are serious about climate issues would need to be rolled out in a fairly national way.

[Nibor]

27 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

You perhaps underestimate or don't fully factor in the number of sales, insurance and recruitment type companies in the centre. Can't do that from home in the main.

Not sure about sales but I use a recruitment agency that works from home completely and the last time I dealt with a broker they worked from home.  It's very odd that large companies insist on incurring a huge cost and forcing everyone to come to an expensive central location to sit in a cubicle and work at a computer or over a telephone.