Diesel - seriously thinking of giving up cycling

[Mark R]

Interesting you mention HGVs

Much of the current thinking is that the latest emission controls on diesel HGVs are actually quite effective and, unlike diesel cars, HGVs more or less do 'what is says on the tin' WRT emissions. SO much so that NOx emissions from a modern truck COULD actually be lower than a EURO5 diesel car on a pollution per vehicle basis. (This was reported in the press a few months back but I can't find a link...)

However it turns out that turning off one of the main emission controls is simply a matter of a software patch, meaning emissions of NOx might not have been reduced from many of these vehicles at all. Why would people disable the emission controls thus poisoning their fellow citizens unnecessarily? Simple - they don't have to spend money on ADblue and they don't have to spend time re-filling and maintaining the system - (ADblue the brand name for refined urea solution aka diesel exhaust fluid)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/10/revealed-haulage-firms-routinely-fixing-cheat-devices-diesel/

Anyone seriously believe the same won't happen for EURO6 diesel cars?

[reohn2]

https://vastgoedbs.nl/nieuws/50-minder-verkeer-in-centrum-amsterdam/ is an article about reducing motor traffic in Amsterdam by 50%. This is their current target, and they have policy and strategy in place to meet it.

Here is the Google Translate version:
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... edit-text=

They began by taking a survey of traffic bottlenecks. But an important aspect is how they think about it. Here is a translated excerpt...

The mapping of these bottlenecks seems to be a first step towards a vision, although not guided by a political starting point. It is important that Amsterdam remains accessible for, in order of importance: pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and for people who really need to enter the city by car. The rest has to be helped out of the car, if necessary with "soft coercion".

Would you rather get people to switch from diesel to petrol? Or get them to get out of the car and use other transport methods?

As I've posted before NL is a civilised country

[Mark R]

Yes really: Your example is just arguing over whether moving the deckchairs to the other side might get them out of the ice blown from the 'berg. Vehicle pollution is about far more than local air quality.

I'm struggling to understand the point you are making, it seems like more obfuscation in order to draw attention away from the extreme pollution being caused by diesel engines...

You seem to be saying that trying to improve roadside air quality is somehow misguided. Please correct me if I have misunderstood....

[De Sisti]

Interesting you mention HGVs

Why would people disable the emission controls thus poisoning their fellow citizens unnecessarily?

This is the sort of scaremongering worthy of the Daily Mail.

[Mark R]

Excuse me for exaggerating the toxicity of Nitrogen Dioxide!

https://phys.org/news/2015-09-nox-gases-diesel-car-fumes.html

[Mick F]

we decided that most important problem was air quality in London and we needed to undo the work we'd done previously on CO2 emissions to put this right.

I agree with everything you've said .................. except LONDON.

The problem for me ............. and I'm the OP ................ is that the diesel smells and yuck are on every road I ride on.
I couldn't give a toss about London.

Try riding up a hill in Cornwall with diesel cars overtaking you.

[Mark R]

we decided that most important problem was air quality in London and we needed to undo the work we'd done previously on CO2 emissions to put this right.

I agree with everything you've said .................. except LONDON.

Are you sure you agree?

The OP is arguing that populating the streets with millions and millions of diesel engines represented important work to tackle CO2 problem, and that it would be a mistake to undo this good (cough) work......

[Mick F]

My OP.
Page One.

I was out riding yesterday, and climbing Gunnislake Hill (as I often do).
09:00 and the commuters were out and about.
Just about every single car and van who overtook me was a diesel, and every single one was SMELLY. New vehicles as well as old.

I've been cycling these roads for over 30years, and in the past couple or so, it's got terrible.
I cannot get out of the valley without either climbing Gunny Hill or by climbing the hill into Devon. Both as as bad as each other.

Breathing deeply and climbing long hills at circa 5mph, the muck going into my lungs is getting unbearable.

Going along on the flat or whizzing down the hills, there isn't much of an issue. It's climbing up the hills that is the problem, and then with diesel vehicles flooring their throttles to overtake me is making me seriously considering giving up cycling.

Thoughts?

Here's my OP.
Nowt to do with CO2.
Everything to do with yucky diesel.

[Mark R]

My mistake. When I wrote 'the OP' I meant MartinC's post

[Mick F]

That's ok!

.............................

I see the government want to phase out diesel trains and use batteries by having electric trains via overhead wires and where the wires can't be used, to flip over to batteries.

This is all well and good, but what about the branch lines? There's no way that batteries would get a train up to Gunnislake and back to Plymouth up the Tamar Valley Line. Maybe they can use Calor Gas to run steam trains instead.

[MartinC]

.......................The OP is arguing that populating the streets with millions and millions of diesel engines represented important work to tackle CO2 problem.....................

Unfortunately you've made this up, maybe my post wasn't clear enough. My point was that the switch to diesel was another bandwagon created to avoid the UK having to tackle it's car problem i.e. a technical palliative (or a hypocritical obfuscation if you prefer) to a cultural problem. It's preceded by previous bandwagons of the same nature and now followed by this latest one. The previous ones may have done some good but any benefit has been consumed by increased use. This latest one is the same but with one important difference - it undoes some of the benefit of the preceding ones.

Your view may be that the most important issue is your local air quality and that a solution must be found (at whatever cost to everyone else) that doesn't involve your urban neighbours changing their lifestyle preferences. Apologies if I have this wrong but it seems to be the gist of your argument. Your view may be that CO2 emissions are a lesser problem until the tide comes over the Thames barrier - but by then many others across the world will have been impacted terribly.

And MickF, although I know you heart's in the right place, if you don't care about air quality in London why do you expect anyone else to care about air quality (or even just how it smells) in Cornwall?

[Mick F]

Sorry, it's my dig at London Centricity. It seems that London always get top billing on everything and it seems that the rest of the country gets forgotten.

My issue is that where I ride my bikes, it's getting awful with the diesel exhausts. We have hills here and cannot avoid them. We have a single main road and cannot avoid it.

Maybe other places in UK have roads away from the main roads that people can ride. Maybe they don't have hills everywhere, and maybe they and cyclists can get away from the diesel yuck.
I can't.

Cities have different issues of course. London has many issues.

[Psamathe]

Interesting idea being tried in Germany

Germany plans to trial free public transport in cities suffering from air pollution
...
Five cities – Bonn, Essen, Herrenberg, Reutlingen and Mannheim – will benefit from the trial “at the end of the year at the latest” according to proposals drawn up by the Federal government.

I don't have the knowledge to argue as to how much it might help, but free public transport sounds like a good idea to me anyway (irrespective of air pollution issues).

Ian

[RickH]

:lol:
That's ok!

.............................

I see the government want to phase out diesel trains and use batteries by having electric trains via overhead wires and where the wires can't be used, to flip over to batteries.

This is all well and good, but what about the branch lines? There's no way that batteries would get a train up to Gunnislake and back to Plymouth up the Tamar Valley Line. Maybe they can use Calor Gas to run steam trains instead.

I can't speak specifically about your line but I know they have been taking about running hybrid trains on the Transpennine route (Manchester to Bradford & Leeds, etc.) instead of full electrification. The idea is to avoid expensive re-boring of tunnels & rebuilding of bridges (with the accompanying disruption that that causes) to accommodate the overhead power lines. The most recent proposal was for diesel hybrids but there's no inherent reason why they couldn't use battery power for the unpowered sections & recharge once back on the wires.

I've seen video of a developmental purely electric "local" train where the battery pack was a straight swap for the underfloor diesel unit so could easily be retrofitted. I think they had about 30 minutes of real world running per charge at the time of filming & suggested rapid charge top ups at stations, etc to extend range. Of course the power density of batteries is improving all the time so you will effectively be able to fit more range in the same package in the near future.

[thirdcrank]

I think Grayling's plans for transport in the North of England have more to do with avoiding spending money than any suggestion of cutting-edge technology. If the energy from hot air and spin could be captured in a practical way and used to power transport, we'd have a system powered entirely by renewable energy and they do say that talking is cheap, so it shouldn't cost much for a never-ending supply