Stop/Start & Auto Hold on Superb Automatic

[Otto_Octavius]

1 hour ago, digifish said:

 

Because (we) consumers have to pay for it at purchase, and then in more expensive battery replacements and any other associated issues with the extra complexity of the system.

 

And, in the end its not the solution to any problem we face as inhabitants of the city or drivers. 

 

But it reduces fuel consumption and emissions 

[maffyou]

10 hours ago, digifish said:

Come on again. Yes you are wasting fuel idling. However, you are wasting SO LITTLE compared to moving. You are wasting 5% of the fuel you use compared to moving. 

 

Look at the numbers, forget the words. Seems like you have been sucked into an emotive rather than data driven argument.

 

You can save more fuel (i.e reduce emissions) than you waste idling simply by driving with a less heavy foot. Better yet work from home.

Ok, so let's do the numbers. The difference is, I agree, pretty much imperceptible to an individual and makes negligible difference to either your wallet or your total emissions. But, as someone with a science degree, I'd hope you understood the difference between micro and macro systems. It's not just about you as a single consumer, it's about all of the consumers. Lots of tiny amounts add up to huge amounts - that's the simple fact of the numbers. One grain of sand doesn't make a beach but many billions do. And, as you intimated, I know what I'm talking about because I have a degree in mathematics...

 

Here's a simple example. In about 30 months my car saved around 23kg of CO2 emissions from using stop-start, according to the on board monitoring. And that's on a pretty low mileage of around 7.5k mile per year, well under average certainly. But if we assume that every car could potentially save around 10kg per year, as a conservative average estimate based on my figures. On the 30+million cars in the UK, that's 300 million kg (300 thousand tonnes) of CO2 less, just from using stop start. And it costs you nothing. There's the numbers.

 

I don't want to keep going on about it here as there's an 8 page thread in the Octavia section on this already...

[maffyou]

10 hours ago, digifish said:

The facts are. There is little correlation with congestion and emissions. Full stop.

Nonsense. 100 cars passing quickly through an area will emit far less in that area than 100 cars who sit in traffic for a long time getting through the same area. If you pass someone in the street smoking you get a brief waft of their smoke but stand next to them in a queue and it will be an almost constant stream.

 

Initial figures from London's ULEZ show a significant reduction in the number of the worst polluting cars entering the city - you telling me I'd find no correlation with the reduced congestion and the reduced emissions? Really? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/16/ulez-cuts-number-of-worst-polluting-cars-in-central-london

 

Quote

Lets flip this problem. You realize that cars on the freeway are creating more emissions than those tootling through a village?

But the ones on a freeway are not pumping out their fuel directly into people's homes and to pedestrians walking along the side of it. If a smoker stands in a field and puffs away it doesn't effect me, if he stands outside my window with it blowing in, it does.

 

Quote

What matters is not whether a car is moving or stopped, but how much fuel it is consuming per-hour. And moving cars use (on average) 19x more fuel per hour than idling ones.

So it's pointless to make little savings? No point turning lights off when you leave a room because it's only a little bit of energy? Might as well leave the aircon on in the house even if I'm out because it's only  alittle bit? Come on...

Edited 12 June, 2019 by maffyou
Forgot link

[Brackenwood]

Stella

This is an emotive subject at the moment and as non scientists we do not really know whether it is better for the climate for your car to switch off whilst standing still. It would seem it is slightly advantageous particularly if the delay is lengthy. However you want to know is it a good feature to have? Well I had my last Superb for three years and the battery was the original and I was achieving 50+ mpg regularly. The starting of the engine continuously didn't affect the car or the battery at all. Was it nicer for the driver? Definitely yes they have got the system, including the auto hold down to a fine art now, it is non detectable in its operation and makes for stress free driving. I had someone in the other day who said she could do hill starts without any trouble, of course she could no one is doubting her or anyone else driving skills, it just makes them unnecessary. I could start a car at one time with the starting handle without too much trouble, but it is nice to have a starter motor. My fathers Lanchester had no heater and a Smiths windscreen motor that you had to assist on the inside as a passenger, and it is lovely now to have automatic heating and  windscreen wipers that work efficiently without help. I had several Minis that stopped when it rained. There seems to be a built in objection by some folk to modern stress free aids in our latest cars that make for happy motoring, bring then on, I say.

Edited 12 June, 2019 by Brackenwood
clarity

[JR RS]

Start-Stop is 99% of the time OFF for me.  No good it is. Too trigger happy to cut out the engine.  I manually activate, after I'm stopped, if I know I'm going to b stopped for a while.

 

Auto-hold is ON 100% of the time for me.  No issues with it during parking maneuvers. 

 

p.s. Hill-hold is not the same as Auto-hold.  Hill-hold is based on inclination, and cannot b deactivated.  It's always there.

Edited 12 June, 2019 by JR RS

[digifish]

2 hours ago, maffyou said:

Nonsense. 100 cars passing quickly through an area will emit far less in that area than 100 cars who sit in traffic for a long time getting through the same area. If you pass someone in the street smoking you get a brief waft of their smoke but stand next to them in a queue and it will be an almost constant stream.

 

So based on what data?

 

Emissions are 95% higher for moving cars. Traffic density of ICE vehicles is the problem not the fact cars are idle.

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15568318.2013.805345

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920912000727

 

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/07/06/urban-myth-busting-congestion-idling-and-carbon-emissions/

 

Accelerating and moving cars are the problem in cities, not idling ones

 

https://www.environmentalleader.com/2012/01/how-traffic-jams-affect-air-quality/

 

Also, as a mix, in the entire fleet on the road, Stop-Start vehicles are will always be a small percentage (and depending on whether people are using air-conditioning and other ancillaries), and will never have a chance to make their small contribution before electric vehicles become mainstream.  

 

I am always reminded how people are incapable of understanding basic statistics and proportional impacts. 

 

If you want to reduce pollution (in a meaningful way, 5% is not meaningful), Stop-start is not the solution, and will not solve this problem or indeed impact it significantly. You need to remove ICE cars from the locations where there is an emissions problem.

 

 

Edited 13 June, 2019 by digifish

[IanJD]

12 hours ago, digifish said:

 

So based on what data?

 

Emissions are 95% higher for moving cars. Traffic density of ICE vehicles is the problem not the fact cars are idle.

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15568318.2013.805345

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920912000727

 

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/07/06/urban-myth-busting-congestion-idling-and-carbon-emissions/

 

Accelerating and moving cars are the problem in cities, not idling ones

 

https://www.environmentalleader.com/2012/01/how-traffic-jams-affect-air-quality/

 

Also, as a mix, in the entire fleet on the road, Stop-Start vehicles are will always be a small percentage (and depending on whether people are using air-conditioning and other ancillaries), and will never have a chance to make their small contribution before electric vehicles become mainstream.  

 

I am always reminded how people are incapable of understanding basic statistics and proportional impacts. 

 

If you want to reduce pollution (in a meaningful way, 5% is not meaningful), Stop-start is not the solution, and will not solve this problem or indeed impact it significantly. You need to remove ICE cars from the locations where there is an emissions problem.

 

 

You're still missing the point, it's not just the amount of emissions but where they're emitted and how high the car density is.

 

Yes it may be that 95% of the total emissions are when a car is moving, and most of these will be for cars driving faster where mpg decreases and distances are longer. Let's guess that out of that 95%, 60% is emitted during out-of-town/high-speed driving and 35% driving in towns (plus the 5% while stopped) -- this is similar to the road/traffic mix used for WLTP testing. Now assume that in town the average car spacing while driving is 4 car lengths, then the emissions per car length are 7%. This compares to 5% emissions per car length for cars queueing nose-to-tail when stopped. In other words, the emissions on a given stretch of highly-polluted road where queueing happens -- in towns and cities -- are pretty similar for driving and stationary traffic, so turning off engines while stopped will reduce the emissions *on that stretch of road* by getting on for 50%. If cars spend even more time stationary like in successive traffic lights in London, the difference is even bigger.

 

So it's true that the overall emissions savings with start-stop are not so big (5%?), but the places with the worst pollution problems (e.g. illegal levels of NOx) are all in towns and cities, and in these places pollution could easily be halved by start-stop.

Edited 13 June, 2019 by IanJD

[digifish]

7 minutes ago, IanJD said:

So it's true that the overall emissions savings with start-stop are not so big (5%?), but the places with the worst pollution problems (e.g. illegal levels of NOx) are all in towns and cities, and in these places pollution could easily be halved by start-stop.

 

No it can't. Those vehicles all move. When they do, in for every 20 seconds a car is stopped (with the engine off), it takes 1 second to emit the same pollution as saving. 1 second.

 

Three seconds of movement and you make the same emissions as 60 seconds stopped.

 

Moving vehicles cause the pollution problem, not idling ones.

 

 

Edited 13 June, 2019 by digifish

[IanJD]

8 minutes ago, digifish said:

 

No it can't. Those vehicles all move. When they do, in for every 20 seconds a car is stopped, it takes 1 second to undo that saving. 1 second.

 

The data supports that fact.

 

 

You're *still* missing the point. Car density when stationary is at least 5x higher than while driving, so a given stretch of road has 5x more cars on it emitting pollution. On top of that about half of emissions are outside towns where local pollution isn't a problem. Put those together and the emissions on a given stretch of road where jams occur -- a typical illegal pollution hotspot -- can be halved by stop-start, even though the overall reduction is only 5%.

 

That's data + maths 😉

Edited 13 June, 2019 by IanJD

[digifish]

11 minutes ago, IanJD said:

You're *still* missing the point. Car density when stationary is at least 5x higher than while driving, so a given stretch of road has 5x more cars on it emitting pollution. On top of that about half of emissions are outside towns where local pollution isn't a problem. Put those together and the emissions on a given stretch of road where jams occur can be halved by stop-start, even though the overall reduction is only 5%.

 

That's data + maths 😉

 

You don't understand what you are talking about. 

 

Look at figure 7 here. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/07/06/urban-myth-busting-congestion-idling-and-carbon-emissions/

 

There’s essentially no relation between increases in congestion and per traveler emissions; but more hours of travel and greater distances traveled translate very directly into more carbon emissions.

 

There is zero correlation between congestion and emissions (the first panel). Its all about the number of cars and distance traveled.

 

Let me simplify this for you. Imagine every car has a sprinkler. It sprays water when the car is moving and drips when stopped. What you are arguing is that, stopping the drip solves the problem of a wet road. No. Because as soon as those cars start moving they spray water everywhere. This immediately overwhelms any small puddles they made while stopped.

 

Also, your 'densely packed cars' start spraying water 19x faster, while densely packed as they move off. This works both ways.

 

 

Edited 13 June, 2019 by digifish

[IanJD]

5 minutes ago, digifish said:

 

You don't understand what you are talking about. 

 

Look at figure 7 here. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/07/06/urban-myth-busting-congestion-idling-and-carbon-emissions/

 

Yes I do, and you're misinterpreting that data. That analysis shows that congestion doesn't affect emissions because with less congestion people drive more. That's a completely different case to the one we're talking about, which is the effect on pollution of stopping engines when stationary, where congestion isn't changed.

 

You're making the mistake of analysing it looking out of the car, when you should be analysing it looking in from the road outside. Then what matters isn't just the overall emissions but where they're emitted and how densely packed the cars are where this happens.

Edited 13 June, 2019 by IanJD

[digifish]

Congestion is a problem, because there is more acceleration per mile driven, not due to  the idling.

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10962247.2013.778220

 

That is as simple as I can explain this graph to you...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 13 June, 2019 by digifish

[IanJD]

12 minutes ago, digifish said:

Congestion is a problem, because there is more acceleration per mile driven, not due to  the idling.

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10962247.2013.778220

 

That is as simple as I can explain this graph to you...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nobody's arguing that congestion is a problem, or that most emissions occur while driving not stopped.

 

But this discussion is about start-stop and its effect on pollution, not acceleration or most economical speed to drive at.

 

You're correct that overall pollution isn't reduced much by stop-start (5%?) so from the point of view of the driver it's almost pointless.

 

I'm correct that pollution in congested hotspots is reduced a lot (50%?) so from the point of view of pedestrians and cyclists there is a big benefit.

 

Do you understand the difference?

[digifish]

4 minutes ago, IanJD said:

I'm correct that pollution in congested hotspots is reduced a lot (50%?) so from the point of view of pedestrians and cyclists there is a big benefit.

 

 

What data do you have to support this?

 

I am asking, because, I have only seen hand-waving arguments from councils and special interest groups, no scholarly articles AFAIK.

 

OTOH, I see plenty of scholarly articles showing air quality is not impacted significantly by idling traffic and significantly by accelerating and moving vehicles. 

Edited 13 June, 2019 by digifish

[IanJD]

1 hour ago, digifish said:

 

What data do you have to support this?

 

I am asking, because, I have only seen hand-waving arguments from councils and special interest groups, no scholarly articles AFAIK.

 

OTOH, I see plenty of scholarly articles showing air quality is not impacted significantly by idling traffic and significantly by accelerating and moving vehicles. 

I don't have any data to support this, just simple calculations that I clearly explained the basis for. There's unlikely to be any measured data because you'd have to compare the cases of 100% cars without start-stop to 100% with it, which is impossible -- but this doesn't stop a valid comparison being worked out like I did. Of course the numbers I gave are only estimates, if there are more accurate ones the answer could be different.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiK9b-vzebiAhWSQhUIHScICM4QFjALegQIAhAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Foa.upm.es%2F7257%2F2%2FINVE_MEM_2011_78663.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1mEExqUSmnX-VSPRJuIIOU

 

This showed that in a city route stop-start alone reduced overall emissions by 12%. Given that this has no effect while driving, all this reduction must all come while stationary in a queue, where cars are much more closely packed together. So it's perfectly possible from this that the local pollution in the hotspot next to the queue could be halved by start-stop, though this paper does not look at pollution, only fuel consumption -- as I said, looking out of the car not in from the road.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47525885

 

showed that asking drivers to turn off engines while idling outside a Wandsworth school reduced black carbon pollution by 36%. Since it's unlikely that they got to 100% of the drivers immediately they stopped (and maybe some refused), this again backs up the estimate that stop-start fitted to all cars could reduce pollution in hotspots by 50%.

 

If you have scholarly articles that disagree with these please give references, making sure that they talk about local pollution in a congested area not total emissions... 😉

Edited 13 June, 2019 by IanJD

[maffyou]

17 hours ago, digifish said:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15568318.2013.805345

Can only view the abstract for this, can't see the rest of the paper.

 

17 hours ago, digifish said:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920912000727

 

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/07/06/urban-myth-busting-congestion-idling-and-carbon-emissions/

 

Accelerating and moving cars are the problem in cities, not idling ones

 

https://www.environmentalleader.com/2012/01/how-traffic-jams-affect-air-quality/

This is all just a conflation of the argument. No one is arguing that idling cars emit the same pollution as those moving at constant velocity, or accelerating. That's not in dispute.

 

Let's break this down into two simple questions:

 

1. Do idling cars burn fuel and expel exhaust fumes? Yes.

2. Do switched off engines burn fuel and expel exhaust fumes? No.

 

The only logical conclusion is that using stop-start results in fewer emissions.

17 hours ago, digifish said:

Also, as a mix, in the entire fleet on the road, Stop-Start vehicles are will always be a small percentage (and depending on whether people are using air-conditioning and other ancillaries), and will never have a chance to make their small contribution before electric vehicles become mainstream.  

Virtually all new cars come with stop start, so the proportion of stop start vehicles on the road is increasing over time, at an increasing rate. The use of air con etc doesn't necessarily preclude stop start from engaging, it depends on the circumstances. EVs are a long way off being mainstream. Just because something makes a small difference doesn't make it pointless - do you leave the lights/heating on in your house when you go out? 

17 hours ago, digifish said:

I am always reminded how people are incapable of understanding basic statistics and proportional impacts. 

 

If you want to reduce pollution (in a meaningful way, 5% is not meaningful), Stop-start is not the solution, and will not solve this problem or indeed impact it significantly. You need to remove ICE cars from the locations where there is an emissions problem.

Whilst you're busy feeling smug, I'll say again that I have a degree in mathematics and have studied plenty of statistics. There is no fixed amount to denote a significant variation, it's arbitrary and entirely dependent on the context. If you think 5% isn't meaningful, phone your mortgage provider and tell them you're happy to increase your rate for 5% then see if it makes a meaningful dent in your account balance.

 

Here's one academic paper:  https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/02/f8/idle-stop_light_duty_passenger_vehicles.pdf  Conclusion: yes, stop start can have a meaningful impact on reducing fuel consumption and emissions, the biggest drawback is variation in driving style and journey type (i.e. someone driving a manual holding it on the clutch will never get the improvement, and if most of your journey is extra urban then it won't kick in - both of which should be obvious).

 

And here's a video too: 

 

[Zenbasses]

This is a great video when looking at the benefits of stop start 

 

 

High level of you are stationary for more the 7 seconds then you save fuel with stop start 

 

Also I still love the Superbs quirk where it will stop the engine before the car stops moving , time to time 

 

I also love the fact that you have the choice to engage the stop start when pulling up at junctions and roundabout's by feathering the brake and not fully depressing it once the car stops , I think it's a sensor ....

 

Well that's how mine and my partners DSG Tiguan works , once I got used to it I very rarely engage it at the most  inconvenient of times ....

 

Auto hold 

 

It's never been turned off , mines a DSG and I've never had a problem with slow speed driving ,DSGs are not renowned for the low speed smoothness from what I gather and again is just a quirk of the design ?

 

 

[digifish]

6 hours ago, maffyou said:

1. Do idling cars burn fuel and expel exhaust fumes? Yes.

2. Do switched off engines burn fuel and expel exhaust fumes? No.

 

The only logical conclusion is that using stop-start results in fewer emissions.

And here's a video too: 

 

As per the paper its between 3.3% and 7.8% which is around the 5% I have been quoting you.

 

This sort of reduction in emissions is NOT going to make any difference to the environment (and so air quality in your city), given that between 93.2% and 96.7% of emissions are still happening. Indeed, it's far more than that, since start-stop equipped cars only represent a tiny fraction of the fleet and electric cars are about to start replacing them (rapidly).

 

As I have said, only Hybrids and Electric cars will actually make a difference.

 

Idling is not the problem. The size of your car. The way you drive, and where you drive it is.

Edited 14 June, 2019 by digifish

[Ootohere]

@digifish

Maybe you are sniffing too much petrol or glue.  Get out and get some fresh air.

 

It is raining, raining in my heart, but luckily not acid rain this morning. 

 

PS

Petrol / Diesel Hybrids will make not much of a difference more than stop start, just maybe reduce fuel consumption a little, but then that is kidology if you drive big fat elephants of vehicles that are still fitted with a ICE / generator for a battery.

Burning Coal / Gas to generate the electricity to charge vehicles or manufacturer them is not saving the planet.

So renewables, less plastic, lighter materials, as it all requires Oil / Gas to produce vehicles.

Maybe driving old cars less often and keeping them for decades is the Green Way.

http://gridwatch.co.uk

 

 

 

Edited 14 June, 2019 by Skoffski

[IanJD]

9 hours ago, digifish said:

 

As per the paper its between 3.3% and 7.8% which is around the 5% I have been quoting you.

 

This sort of reduction in emissions is NOT going to make any difference to the environment (and so air quality in your city), given that between 93.2% and 96.7% of emissions are still happening. Indeed, it's far more than that, since start-stop equipped cars only represent a tiny fraction of the fleet and electric cars are about to start replacing them (rapidly).

 

As I have said, only Hybrids and Electric cars will actually make a difference.

 

Idling is not the problem. The size of your car. The way you drive, and where you drive it is.

Let's have one more try at this, since you don't seem to understand basic mathematics...

 

[all the figures below are backed by evidence]

 

Say I drive a muckspreader which holds 100kg of ****, and the rate it's chucked out depends on how fast the engine is turning.

 

60kg of the **** is spread while I'm driving fast in the countryside, where it's spread thinly and anyway hardly anybody  lives to complain about the smell.

 

40kg of the **** is spread while I'm driving through towns and going more slowly, so it's spread more thickly. People who live there don't like it landing in their gardens and complain.

 

Out of this 40kg, 10kg is spread while I'm in traffic jams, 5kg while moving slowly and 5kg while stationary. All this **** lands in your front garden because you live near a set of traffic lights. You're very unhappy because you're up to your neck in ****.

 

Now I install a magic device which stops the ****-spreader when I'm stationary. It has no effect while driving (in country or town) but saves 5kg of the traffic-jam ****.

 

Overall **** reduction is 5kg/100kg = 5% -- agrees with your numbers. Not a big reduction, but every little helps when the world has a problem with too much ****.

 

**** reduction in towns is 5kg/40kg = 12.5% -- agrees with the first paper I posted. A bigger reduction, and affects more people directly so more of them think it's a good idea.

 

**** reduction in your front garden is 5kg/10kg = 50% -- agrees with the second article I posted and my estimate. A massive reduction for the people who are deepest in the ****, all of who think it's a great idea.

 

Now do you get it? 😉

 

Edited 14 June, 2019 by IanJD

[KeteCantek]

I do not use the hold function. I find that with it off (as default) my car still has auto hold on inclines which is what I find useful anyway. 

 

As for stop start, always disable it manually since it's annoying to me. Being a 280, fuel consumption isn't the top priority anyway. Less cycles on the starter and battery is just a bonus. 

[digifish]

1 hour ago, IanJD said:

Now do you get it? 😉

 

 

The problem is not idling in cities. It's ICE driving, and acceleration in particular (there is very rarely complete gridlock and people are always moving forward a car-length or two every 30 seconds or so). 

 

90+ % of the pollution comes from moving vehicles, not idling ones. If ALL vehicles had stop-start activated, it would not make any (functionally significant) difference to air quality.  

 

This is not a thought experiment it is a fact of the way vehicles pollute. Stop-start is not any real solution. 

 

Removing ICE cars (burning fossil fuels) from areas with poor air quality is the only real way to solve this issue.

Edited 14 June, 2019 by digifish

[Sagalout]

I am beginning to wonder whether there should be a stop/start switch for esoteric discussions on forums.  

[KeteCantek]

1 hour ago, digifish said:

 

The problem is not idling in cities. It's ICE driving, and acceleration in particular (there is very rarely complete gridlock and people are always moving forward a car-length or two every 30 seconds or so). 

 

90+ % of the pollution comes from moving vehicles, not idling ones. If ALL vehicles had stop-start activated, it would not make any (functionally significant) difference to air quality.  

 

This is not a thought experiment it is a fact of the way vehicles pollute. Stop-start is not any real solution. 

 

Removing ICE cars (burning fossil fuels) from areas with poor air quality is the only real way to solve this issue.

I agree that stop start effect is very minimal in the real world especially the 12v type. Newer 48v systems that can recuperate energy and last being OFF longer is better. Both still require the engine to actually move, even a bit. 

 

Proper hybrids like the Prius or PHEVs actually work in traffic and crawling traffic as the engine can be off for much longer. 

 

In any case, these systems make complying with regs easier as on a test cycle, every little helps. 

[IanJD]

3 hours ago, digifish said:

 

The problem is not idling in cities. It's ICE driving, and acceleration in particular (there is very rarely complete gridlock and people are always moving forward a car-length or two every 30 seconds or so). 

 

90+ % of the pollution comes from moving vehicles, not idling ones. If ALL vehicles had stop-start activated, it would not make any (functionally significant) difference to air quality.  

 

This is not a thought experiment it is a fact of the way vehicles pollute. Stop-start is not any real solution. 

 

Removing ICE cars (burning fossil fuels) from areas with poor air quality is the only real way to solve this issue.

Yes, more than 90% of the pollution overall comes from moving vehicles, which is *exactly* what I said -- except I had 95%...

 

Stop-start doesn't help much on overall pollution, but it can help a lot (50% reduction?) on pollution levels in hotspots, as the reference I gave you showed. These are where the levels have the worst effect on people, and where governments (including the UK) are breaking legal pollution limits -- look at the numbers for places like Oxford Street (or any congested town centre). It's why the mother of a child who died from respiratory problems triggered by pollution is suing the UK government.

 

If you don't understand this basic fact that *where* pollution happens matters -- which is backed up by the numbers I provided at your request -- I can't help you 😉