<SNIP>

As to governments of the last 5,10, 20 years supporting diesels, how?

<SNIP>

A very pertinent and fair question, I have never asked and don't know.

 

It is just that in the past I always used to associate diesels with lorries, buses, vans and taxis but you now regularly see them in supermarket car parks and on the school run. People I know who have sworn by diesels for years claim that they are cheaper to run. Surely this must be down to deliberate Government policy?

 

I believe that there was also a subsequently rejected perception that they were more environmentally friendly than petrol engined cars?

Some people that were born long ago enough remember the 1960's and 70's and the Oil Crisis, rationing,

and Patrol & Diesel cars, and the cost of fuel,

Oil Changes done twice as often in a diesel as a petrol, Diesel as a cheap fuel etc.

Then the change to Diesels in more Private Cars, then Turbo Diesels and then the 1980's on.

 

Easy to research what happened with the UK, Fuel Prices, Diesel, Petrol, LPG use etc if you never lived through it or bought the 

fuel or vehicles.

 

How old are you vxh26?

Just to get an idea what era of have been a fuel buyer over?

There is an illuminating article on the Diesel -vs- Petrol engine debate in today's Telegraph (LINK). A couple of interesting points strike me:

• For more than a decade, motorists buying diesel cars have enjoyed tax breaks.
• In the 1990s there was a near hysteria about CO2, and yet nobody looked at the bigger picture.
• Gordon Brown overhauled VED so that cars that emitted a higher level of CO2 faced a higher level of VED.
• He did this despite official warnings that diesel vehicles emit “10 times the fine particles and up to twice the nitrogen dioxide”.
• Over the past decade, the number of diesel cars on Britain’s roads has risen from 1.6 million to more than 11 million and accounts for a third of vehicles.
• Diesel vehicles produce high levels of nitrogen dioxide and have been linked to 7,000 deaths a year.

Clearly a result of active Government policy which ignored health and environmental concerns.

 

There is an illuminating article on the Diesel -vs- Petrol engine debate in today's Telegraph (LINK). A couple of interesting points strike me:

• For more than a decade, motorists buying diesel cars have enjoyed tax breaks.
• In the 1990s there was a near hysteria about CO2, and yet nobody looked at the bigger picture.
• Gordon Brown overhauled VED so that cars that emitted a higher level of CO2 faced a higher level of VED.
• He did this despite official warnings that diesel vehicles emit “10 times the fine particles and up to twice the nitrogen dioxide”.
• Over the past decade, the number of diesel cars on Britain’s roads has risen from 1.6 million to more than 11 million and accounts for a third of vehicles.
• Diesel vehicles produce high levels of nitrogen dioxide and have been linked to 7,000 deaths a year.

Clearly a result of active Government policy which ignored health and environmental concerns.

 

Again, what tax breaks?   Both fuels pay the same excise fuels and diesel paid extra company car tax ie 3% or 3 levels more than petrol cars.  

 

CO2 was the original metric to tax more polluting cars and diesels, particuarly when they were mostly turbo and petrols were not, produced much less CO2, that gap has dwindled with direct injection turbo petrols.

 

Now we know that Nitrogren Oxides and particles are probably worse than CO2 as a pollutant, to health at least, we need to take this in to account and tax those cars that pollute by having a combo figure ie CO2, plus NO plus particles but the issue is really mostly on summer days with low wind which is why I think it will be a selective thing ie no dirty diesels on these days entering the big cities.      

To often figures get quoted and talk about Cars.

& we know what cars are and say there are 30 million cars in the UK, or is it Road going Vehicles.

(& many offroad use vehicles and plant.)

 

Then there are what is Private Cars, maybe Petrol, Diesel or Alternative.

Business / Commercial Cars, like Taxis, Mini Cabs, Light Goods Vehicles, many might be Diesel Engine / Fuel.

Light Plant, Heavy Plant, Agricultural & Hoticultural vehicles, Public Transport and Military vehicles.

Boats Commercial, Leisure etc etc, 

 

Fumes and Emissions are being pumped out many places and EU Regulations have not reduced them that much in many 

situations.

Lots of Fuel Users have Tax Benefits & Rebated Fuels in many kinds of vehicles,

Diesel & Heavy Oil is king, even if not in the Majority of Private Cars, and always has been.

My boat would burn three tonne of diesel and hour and we only moved 20 mph (about 250 gallon or 40 gallons per mile or 44 yards per gallon)

  

But then it was 100,000 tonnes ship with 70,000 tonnes of cargo ie 3,500 containers worth.  Not bad fuel per tonne carried.  

 

20,000 hp diesel engine but then we were out at sea not polluting cities.

 

US planes would fly over using Infrared to check if were dumping any oily water rather than store it for de-bunkering in to a waste oil badge. 

The vast majority I see are less than 10 years old, our oldest bus at work is a 2005ish. Even the 58 plate Enviros we have to go into Oxford have been modified to reduce the emissions so they can enter the city. The only old ones on the road unmodified are school buses because they're used for 2 miles a day and dont make enough or do enough miles to warrant anything new.

 

I cant remember the last time I saw a old Lorry on the road, they're all 57/58/59 plates or newer when I see them. Even my mrs Uncle who runs his own skip company has a 57 plate truck that runs with ad blue for reduced emissions. 

 

I hate the old school buses that I get stuck behind from Aylesbury to Thame - dog slow and always seem to break down (there's always a massive queue built up behind them).

 

There's some pre-2000 Arriva buses I see in Aylesbury/Halton (running the 500(?) route). They don't seem too smokey, but they sound like a tie fighter when they overtake me when I'm on the bike.

It is really quite simple if you take the time to look at it.

 

We know that older diesels pump out soot & NO2, once DPFs were introduced then the only change was that the amount was reduced

We also know that older petrol cars pumped out CO2, & again once cats were introduced it was only the amount that reduced.

 

IMHO Hybrids are a complete waste of time specially as they STILL have an fossil fuel engine that works MOST of the time & when i asked if these driven permanently at 30mph or below wouldn't it flatten the batteries, it was explained that the fossil fuel engine would cut in to stop this. So these still burn fossil fuel and pump out CO2 / NO2

 

Is this too simple

 

HIgher VED for older petrol & diesel,

Cutoff to lower VED being the date that DPF / Cats were introduced. staggered as at present.

No exclusion for Hybrids as they are still a fossil fuel burning vehicle & pumping out - carp - & should be VED at lower rate of whichever engine is the generator ( petrol or diesel).

It is really quite simple if you take the time to look at it.

 

We know that older diesels pump out soot & NO2, once DPFs were introduced then the only change was that the amount was reduced

We also know that older petrol cars pumped out CO2, & again once cats were introduced it was only the amount that reduced.

 

IMHO Hybrids are a complete waste of time specially as they STILL have an fossil fuel engine that works MOST of the time & when i asked if these driven permanently at 30mph or below wouldn't it flatten the batteries, it was explained that the fossil fuel engine would cut in to stop this. So these still burn fossil fuel and pump out CO2 / NO2

 

Is this too simple

 

HIgher VED for older petrol & diesel,

Cutoff to lower VED being the date that DPF / Cats were introduced. staggered as at present.

No exclusion for Hybrids as they are still a fossil fuel burning vehicle & pumping out - carp - & should be VED at lower rate of whichever engine is the generator ( petrol or diesel).

 

But it is not just the old diesels that pump out loads of NO and PMs it is the new ones too.  Actually more efficient engines can be worse as they run hotter and the Nitrogen, will normally would pass straight through the engine, react and produce very harmfully gases etc that are killing up to 30K people per year in the UK and over 100K a year across europe.

 

Some new petrols were starting to see worse NO number and VAG have now gone back to using indirect injectors rather than just direct injectors as it brings the NO back down on petrol engines.

 

The car fuel data link I gave,  http://carfueldata.d...ds/default.aspx shows how bad/good cars are on CO2, NO, THC etc and the road tax should reflect all known pollutants.

 

On some days we will just have to either exclude polluting diesels etc completely from cities or they pay, like London, a large single day rate ie £10, £15 so money can be put in to air cleaning tech.   

<SNIP>

On some days we will just have to either exclude polluting diesels etc completely from cities or they pay, like London, a large single day rate ie £10, £15 so money can be put in to air cleaning tech.   

Somehow I can't see a practical way of excluding polluting diesel vehicles from cities "on some days" so London and Islington Council's solution sounds like the sensible way forward.

Somehow I can't see a practical way of excluding polluting diesel vehicles from cities "on some days" so London and Islington Council's solution sounds like the sensible way forward.

 

ANPR cameras.

Again, what tax breaks?   Both fuels pay the same excise fuels and diesel paid extra company car tax ie 3% or 3 levels more than petrol cars.  

 

CO2 was the original metric to tax more polluting cars and diesels, particuarly when they were mostly turbo and petrols were not, produced much less CO2, that gap has dwindled with direct injection turbo petrols.

 

 

The tax break was the large drop in VED for diesel cars, it's only recently that petrol cars have become better at this metric but it was implemented to encourage diesel car purchases.  The gap may have reduced recently but for a long time there was a big gap between similar diesel and petrol engines.  I don't know why you keep claiming the reduced VED wasn't a tax break to push people towards diesel cars.

 

John

http://bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26599010

So people with more than one car can take out the other, or hire one.

http://bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26599010

So people with more than one car can take out the other, or hire one.

 

Indeed this policy has be run in several cities during these warm, low wind events that one day you can drive a car with an odd numbered plate and evens the next day.  Forces car sharing, or people to use motorcycles, or get a Nissan Leaf or a  Renualt Zoe (best electric car under £20K). 

 

But probably introduce ANPR camera, do in in London, dartford crossing on the M25 now, that charge a pollution charge on peak pollution days, days in the summer, March 21st to September 21st,  when this occurs.   Expect it to come to Birmingham-Black country, Northern Power house cities, Glasgow, Edinburgh,  Bristol maybe, Cardiff, any city over half a million people.

The tax break was the large drop in VED for diesel cars, it's only recently that petrol cars have become better at this metric but it was implemented to encourage diesel car purchases.  The gap may have reduced recently but for a long time there was a big gap between similar diesel and petrol engines.  I don't know why you keep claiming the reduced VED wasn't a tax break to push people towards diesel cars.

 

John

 

Because it just happened that diesel produced less CO2 and the policy was to push cars under the 120 gm/CO2 level not specifically an engine type, buyers choose diesels. 

Manufacturers have been very slow to lower CO2 on non-turbo petrols.  Hate the fact have to pay ten pound a month road tax for the Fabia HTP but pay £2.60 a month for a GM Corsa-based car.

 

Aston Martin was so worried it started doing a deal that you could get a AML Cygnet (Avgo/C1) when you bought a Vantage to lower their average CO2 per car sale.

 

So policy was lower the CO2 not actually buy a diesel IMO.

 

Whether there was much choice.  If you go back to 2000 I can only think of the petrol Smart car that was under 120 but there probably was a few French or Japanese cars also I would have thought. 

 

Road Tax in the UK has been comparitively low for most cars, and I am trying to remember the year where Gov introduced the extra tax on new cars but it did not really put off buyers of Aston etc and more so for cars like the Superb V6 I would have thought.   

Aston Martin was so worried it started doing a deal that you could get a AML Cygnet (Avgo/C1) when you bought a Vantage to lower their average CO2 per car sale.

It's a Toyota IQ.

ANPR cameras.

I don't quite see how ANPR cameras would exclude diesel cars from cities. How would a diesel car driver know that "Today you can't come in"?

Social Media,

Traditional Broadcast Media,

Big Signs on the road saying. 'High Air Pollution Vehicle Restrictions in place'.

 

& if you are not bothered by the expense of fines or cars Seized / Clamped ignore.

 

But you can employ people at Junctions and Traffic Lights to stick a potato up the exhaust pipe and Diesel Flatbed HGV's to lift the car 

and impound them.

Because it just happened that diesel produced less CO2 and the policy was to push cars under the 120 gm/CO2 level not specifically an engine type, buyers choose diesels.

<SNIP>

 

I don't really believe that the Government happened simply not to have noticed that diesel engined vehicles produced less CO2 than petrol engined vehicles. The unintended consequences excuse will not wash.

 

The Government knew that the changes to taxation were going to result in a move to diesel engined vehicles and also knew that there were associated undesirable environmental and health consequences.

 

God alone knows why they chose to ignore this - perhaps pressure from the transport industry lobby?

Lots to do with the Chancellors Father in Law, and other Peers of the Realm.

UK Oil & Gas.

The likes of the Ex Chairman of BP and now of Cuadrilla.  

The Conservative and Unionist party function because of who back them and make the policies they follow,

the Labour Party are following what Union Bosses and Sponsors tell them to follow and most of them are too stupid to 

see the bigger picture and need to live on expenses to have some wealth unlike the other party.

I'll predict the future.

 

Taxes, duty and VED encourage people (that can) and businesses to buy hybrids.

 

EU changes the testing regime.

 

Hybrids outed as the gas guzzling frauds that many of them are.

 

Start protests again.

 

Taxes, duty and VED encourage people (that can) and businesses to buy fully electric vehicles

 

EU rules change to introduce punitive battery taxes for the exploitation lithium and other associated metals

 

Electric vehicles get very expensive to run, maybe more expensive than old diesels.

 

Start protests again.

 

Rinse and repeat.

I'll predict the future.

 

Taxes, duty and VED encourage people (that can) and businesses to buy hybrids.

 

EU changes the testing regime.

 

Hybrids outed as the gas guzzling frauds that many of them are.

 

Start protests again.

 

Taxes, duty and VED encourage people (that can) and businesses to buy fully electric vehicles

 

EU rules change to introduce punitive battery taxes for the exploitation lithium and other associated metals

 

Electric vehicles get very expensive to run, maybe more expensive than old diesels.

 

Start protests again.

 

Rinse and repeat.

 

Solution = View a car as TCO (total cost of ownership) rather than look at the individual stealth taxes etc. and buy a second hand gas guzzling petrol and have some fun rather than buying a new thrifty eco car.

Hybrid is a con where people might never run on anything other than the 1.4 TSI engine in the likes of the Golf GTE / Audi A3 e-Tronic.

 

But Emission Figures and the VED based on a car having Stop / Start where the person might seldom be stopping 

or have Stop / Start switched off.

 

Cars are basically still too big and heavy in many cases, and the economy & MPG is still rubbish all these years on,

the Euro 6 Emissions thing is just a fiddling of figures and reducing emission figures while engines are still moving vehicles 

around that in many cases do not need to be the weight they are to carry the few passengers that they do.

 

(I loved my Toyota iQ 1.0 CVT, but it still was not very economic on fuel, even when hypermiling it.

yes you could do 60 mpg on runs, but not in a city.)

Edited 19 June, 201510 yr by goneoffSKi

Same old same old: Government offers incentives to buy low CO2 engines then realise more and more cars are creeping in under the very low tax bands so councils start introducing surcharges to replace the lost revenues... They want their money one way or another.

Hybrid is a con where people might never run on anything other than the 1.4 TSI engine in the likes of the Golf GTE / Audi A3 e-Tronic.

 

But Emission Figures and the VED based on a car having Stop / Start where the person might seldom be stopping 

or have Stop / Start switched off.

 

Cars are basically still too big and heavy in many cases, and the economy & MPG is still rubbish all these years on,

the Euro 6 Emissions thing is just a fiddling of figures and reducing emission figures while engines are still moving vehicles 

around that in many cases do not need to be the weight they are to carry the few passengers that they do.

 

(I loved my Toyota iQ 1.0 CVT, but it still was not very economic on fuel, even when hypermiling it.

yes you could do 60 mpg on runs, but not in a city.)

 

Interesting what you found with your iQ. My citigo has proven to be better than I expected. With a clear run home from work I can see an indicated 74mpg, a lot of people who were shocked that I bought one are now looking at doing similar.

 

I think big engines are finished, and the director of our parent company (who designs engines) also thinks this