Diesel users to pay £20 to enter London

[GoodDoc]

Joffery666 said:

Good. The less tractors we have on our roads, the better.

For the moment. When the next effort to improve air quality starts which group do you think you'll concentrate on;

- Petrol Cars.
- Diesel buses/trucks.

..because one of those group performs a more useful task than the other.

Be careful what you wish for because the future of vehicles in city centres is zero emissions. It may be the diesel car now, but petrol is on the list as well.

It's all academic anyway, you're arguing about which method of propulsion you prefer. It's like two religions arguing about which is the one true way to get to heaven. The destination is the same, just enjoy the ride.

[ewenm]

So this is why they are electrifying the Paddington => Bristol (and beyond) train line... they don't want an extra £20 charge to drive their diesel trains into the station!

[Mr GrimNasty]

POORCARDEALER said:

I think once the battery technology is up to spec then maybe, but its nowhere near at the minute

Good luck with that, it will require altering the laws of physics.

[POORCARDEALER]

Mr GrimNasty said:

POORCARDEALER said:

I think once the battery technology is up to spec then maybe, but its nowhere near at the minute

Good luck with that, it will require altering the laws of physics.

Tesla have done it already apparently ????

[Lowtimer]

GoodDoc said:

Be careful what you wish for because the future of vehicles in city centres is zero emissions. It may be the diesel car now, but petrol is on the list as well.

This is why I don't understand all those people saying the BMW i8 is pointless, just buy a 911 instead. Being able to operate purely on battery power within a urban centre ULEZ is likely to be a real asset shortly.

[NomduJour]

Plug-in hybrids just move the problem elsewhere, it isn't all generated by windmills.

[Shurv]

I'll happily keep my 911 and steer clear of London ta very much. If I have to go there, I'll take the train. Agree that the majority of the crap coming out of exhausts in London comes from buses and cabs. If they were electric, then the pollution would be massively reduced.

[kambites]

NomduJour said:

Plug-in hybrids just move the problem elsewhere, it isn't all generated by windmills.

That's the whole point of the initiative - to move the poor quality air out of cities and hence away from most people's lungs.

[stu67]

There is little reason to drive into London of a weekday, even though we all like to moan about public transport it really isn't bad within the M25. I cycle into the city from Barnet, it's mostly nose to tail buses all the way from wood Green to Islington. However obviously a city runs on things being delivered to shops etc and they are not delivered in Tesla's, so we will all end up paying for it one way or another.

So sort out the smelly buses and black cabs, roll out the Oyster scheme to train stations outside zone 6, run the tube over night + more buses add some decent cycle lanes, job jobbed!

Well I know its not exactly that simple, but you get my point. The problem is driving into London is just not "expensive" enough to make the other options seriously viable

[ewenm]

NomduJour said:

Plug-in hybrids just move the problem elsewhere, it isn't all generated by windmills.

It depends if you think "the problem" is CO2 or urban pollution. At least power stations are usually not in urban areas and can apply waste control technology and benefit from economies of scale.

[NomduJour]

kambites said:

That's the whole point of the initiative - to move the poor quality air out of cities and hence away from most people's lungs

Pollution is pollution (and not CO2), it doesn't just disappear when it leaves the power station chimney.

stu67 said:

The problem is driving into London is just not "expensive" enough to make the other options seriously viable

Carrot not stick.

[Prawnboy]

NomduJour said:

Plug-in hybrids just move the problem elsewhere, it isn't all generated by windmills.

no with any luck the political classes will man up and build some more nuclear power stations. no emmisions.

[SBDJ]

Pan Pan said:

I can barely think of s single good reason for going into London, by car, bus, train, plane etc.

Two reasons that affect me personally are travelling in and out of London at hours during which public transport isn't really viable and carrying equipment.

Also when I take my son to GOSH I tend to drive as public transport - especially the tube - can be a real nightmare for someone who is wheelchair bound.

[lufbramatt]

Prawnboy said:

Well i must say PH is taking this very well, (maybe because it's announced by a tory mayor), there is a flaw though.
As this will affect older cars, you will be penalising people with less money to spend on their transportation, unlike the cap on the VED.
Going to kill residuals for old diesels in the south east too i guess.

I've never driven inside the congestion zone despite living in North Kent. My dad works in south east London, drives to work and he's never bought a congestion zone ticket either. don't know anyone who works in central London that drives to work. Can't see it having much of an effect on used car prices, in the UK depreciation is ridiculous anyway compared to most other countries.

If I need to go up there, I just drive to Ebbsfleet and get the high speed train for a few quid. Much quicker than fighting through traffic.

[Jasandjules]

kambites said:

I don't think it would be a bad thing to push for all cars which routinely enter the centre of big cities to be electric. It's the one situation where "zero emission" really means something sensible.

Well, except for the electricity to charge them isn't generated by fairies....

Get rid of the horrible buses would be a good start.

[Pixelpeep7r]

well, remember kids.

The system only punishes those who play by the rules.

Cloned plate anyone?

[Callughan]

Should help with sales of petrol Range Rovers in Zone 1;)

[Otispunkmeyer]

POORCARDEALER said:

kambites said:

POORCARDEALER said:

I think once the battery technology is up to spec then maybe, but its nowhere near at the minute

Indeed, but I see no evidence that petrol cars are going to be pushed out of cities completely in the next few years.

Theres no evidence that an electric car will take me from yorkshire to london in the next few years on a single charge, and thats the problem.

Interesting the last 20 years has been pro diesel and that may well start to reverse

The best laugh is that for all these years cars have been coming down in CO2 etc, whats really happened is that we've stayed much the same for the past 15 years. That is what they are now finding out when carrying out PEM tests or portable emissions monitoring. Particularly NOx which is what causes the smog and acidic rain, is still as high now as it was ages ago. They've gamed the NEDC tests, but real life isn't fooled. Diesels have reduced PM drastically though, of that there is no question. Love or loath them, the DPF does do its job exceedingly well (until it clogs and you can't regenerate it).

[Otispunkmeyer]

Fastdruid said:

heebeegeetee said:

strummerville said:

It amuses me that we are all incentivised financially to drive supposed lower CO2 emitting, but more carcinogenic diesels. As one wag on here said a while ago:
"Diesel is the new asbestos. We know it's bad for your health, but choose to ignore it".

This is the thinking that I just can not understand. After 100 years of use, it has been decided that diesel is carcinogenic based on conditions in people who have worked underground with diesel engines for 30 years.

Meantime highly carcinogenic substances have been added to petrol to get the fuel to work well in internal combustion engines. Before the carcinogenic substances were added (or as well as, possibly) tetra-ethyl lead was added, another substance known to be highly injurious to human health.

If you were going to label a fuel as carcinogenic, why would you not pick the fuel known to be carcinogenic right from the moment it was used? Why would you pick the fuel that has taken 100 years to be decided whether or not the fuel is carcinogenic?

If you were going to use asbestos as an analogy, why would you not pick the fuel that has always been known to be injurious over human health, over the fuel that has had 100 years debate on the subject?

What are you on about? It's not about the fuel itself it's about what comes out of the tailpipe. Specifically it's about nitrous oxides which unlike CO2 is actually nasty and which diesels pump out 20x that of petrols.

Take a look at the Euro emmisions standards, currently Euro 5 diseasals are allowed 0.18 g/km of NOx, in comparison Petrols are allowed 0.06 g/km. They're allowed 3x already but in real terms while petrol cars have improved with the Euro standards there have been no improvements in NOx for ~20 years despite the ever tighter Euro regulations.

Good luck for diesels come Euro 6 though. That's going to be very complicated and expensive to get them to pass.

Edited by Fastdruid on Tuesday 29th July 09:13

Yep, they're banking on high temperature combustion then big SCR systems to clean up the NOx afterwards. Current systems are 97% reduction, they need to be better than even that. Its gonna be difficult.

[leigh1050]

I'd make it £200.00 a day nasty smelly fking things.

Edited by leigh1050 on Tuesday 29th July 19:41