Carbon monoxide: the cause for alarm

Not me, Duncan. We live in Norfolk where the air is good [except in Norwich which suffers from high pollution levels in the city centre, a lot of it coming from buses and taxis that have exclusive use of certain streets].

The smogs in London used to be thick and yellow suggesting a high sulphur content. There were many deaths and illnesses caused by the London smogs. We get thick mists in certain low-lying areas that make driving hazardous but they are not fume-laden.

The Mayors of London after Ken Livingstone haven’t done much to relieve London of pollution except some new buses and taxis with lower emissions. Boris Johnson even cancelled the extension of the Congestion Zone because it was going to interfere with the lifestyles of the residents of Kensington and Knightsbridge. And Mayor Khan seems hell-bent on filling every square centimetre of London and its environs with more development leading to more commuting and more traffic.

I can’t believe that the proliferation of air conditioning isn’t having a harmful effect on the atmosphere, and not just from the production of electricity that is required to operate it but from the hot air and its contents that is exhausted from buildings. Climate change? – We’re in it.

Nitrogen oxide levels frequently exceed limits in parts of London. Most is due to motor vehicles. How ever much we try to reduce engine emissions in my view only by restricting the volume of traffic, particularly at peak times, can we hope to improve air quality to acceptable levels. Who will be brave enough to do that?

Although not strictly CO-centric, George, I wonder if Which? has ever thought to look at coach and bus companies and their stubborn refusal to turn off their engines while awaiting passengers?

For as long as I can recall coaches and buses will sit and idle, their engines pumping out NO for all the world to breathe and it seems to me that this is an area that Which? could usefully explore.

I’m not talking about bus stops but small termini in rural locations whee the bus has to wait between 5 and 20 minutes before setting off. Or near schools, where buses and coaches will almost always sit, engines idling away, and refuse to shut them down. This is a health issue, with potential for long-term problems for many.

At each bay in our bus station in town there is a sign: “Switch your engine off”. The drivers are good at following the instruction.

Diesel engines don’t normally produce much carbon monoxide (petrol engines did in the days before three-way catalytic converters) and I doubt they put out much nitrogen dioxide at idling speeds, but it is unpleasant for those waiting in bus stations.

@gmartin, Hello George.
Your campaign ends with
“Which? has a long track record of improving safety standards for UK consumers, and we can do it again with your support.
implying the problem lies with “safety standards”. It does not, in the main. We have extremely good product safety standards that are well designed and have, in principle, protected the consumer for decades.

However, it is no good having safety standards if they are ignored by some, and if the goods placed on the market are not properly monitored for compliance with standards.

In the first case, there are rogue companies (like for your CO alarms) that deliberately manufacture products that do not comply with standards but claim they do. The way these get onto the market is through distributors and importers. Amazon and Ebay were prime offenders in your report. But if the only action taken was to ask them to stop selling these fake CO monitors then you achieve virtually nothing. How many more fake or dangerous products are these organisations, and other importers, putting on the market that you do not pick up on?

The only way we might hope to curb this dangerous practice is to prosecute these sellers, impose heavy penalties, to deter them in future – make it unprofitable financially. Why has Which? not tried to get prosecutions of Amazon and Ebay in this instance, let alone over the continuing 2 pin plug issue?

In the second case, you have probably only picked up the tip of an iceberg. It is Trading Standards regulatory job to police the market for fake and dangerous products, to remove them or prevent them from getting in to circulation, and to deal with offenders. We know they are hugely under-resourced and under-funded. Until we have appropriate product policing I see there being no change.

Do Which? agree we need to deal severely with offenders and build Trading Standards into an adequate organisation to protect consumers. Will Which? use their influence to try to achieve this? Better than seeming to, wrongly, try to cast doubt on existing safety standards.

Totally agree. If they take a sale on, then they take the responsibility for that sale and that company on too. Failure to do so should be noted when ever a bad product is purchased, though that relies on the consumer reporting the fault or the fake. Perhaps there should be a specific part of the sales site that is easily accessed, and such products can be listed at the click of a mouse. The supermarket has a help desk that does this in the non-virtual shopping world and most -though not all – shops we use regularly, don’t sell fake and dangerous goods; though, again, some white goods have potential hazards that the well known manufacturers should sort out. It would be unfair to ask a shop to police these, unless they are aware of the risk from negative publicity. Banning them, then, would chivvy the manufacturer to do something about the danger.