VW scandal rocks the industry – do you still trust car makers?

And I think the government should think long and hard before abandoning some railway electrification schemes and stopping short on others. We have the upcoming nonsense of electric passenger trains having to be retro-fitted with diesel engines to enable them to complete their journeys on many long distance routes. This will add weight to the trains, pollution to the atmosphere, filth to the maintenance depots, and noise to the station areas. When running under the wires, electric trains will be hauling an extra tonnage of diesel engines and fuel.

I agree with Duncan on the madness of successive governments trying to manipulate motor taxes for largely political reasons and ending up with little environmental benefit.

Personally, I stopped buying diesel cars several years ago. This was after a close colleague explained to me that he was an asthmatic and told me about the undesirable side effects of diesel particulate emissions.

What about commercial vehicles, public transport, taxis, diesel-powered plant…………………? There is a huge legacy of old higher-polluting vehicles, public and private. It would make much more sense to limit their access to towns and cities, think of limiting engine size, work hard on anti-pollution measures. Can you give a link to the government report where you say 37 diesel cars exceed the legal limit. Make sure this refers to the official EU’s NEDC test and not “on-the-road”, for which a legal limit does not exist.

The tail pipe of my diesel car shows no sign of soot after more than four years thanks to the particulate filter but I am aware that it still produces small particles of soot, which are believed to be more harmful than visible soot. I wonder if the answer is a high temperature catalytic converter, as fitted to petrol-engined cars.

Even if we never sold another diesel car, diesel engines are likely to be with us for many years, powering commercial and public transport, so it’s worth devoting effort to make diesels as clean as possible. It’s not so long since the engines of petrol cars were exhaling lead and a cocktail or carcinogenic chemicals. Three way catalytic converters removed most of the carcinogens and the lead had to go because it would have wrecked the catalytic converters.

These electrification problems seem to stem from people either unable to do their sums, or manipulating the numbers so the contract looks good – as in PFIs and, almost certainly HS2 – so when found out it has reached the point of no return.

We do need a real motor vehicle strategy, which is what I imagine you are alluding to John. Simply letting people pay to pollute might raise more money but will not help the environment. That strategy will need unpopular measures. As pollution is most serious in towns and cities, particularly I imagine around rush hours with high traffic numbers sitting in jams, controlling numbers would control the effects. But that would be unpopular with some, and would require a better public transport system and out-of-town parking.

Malcolm it was a government report published in April -2016 -the DoT found all of 37 top selling cars exceeding the the legal limit after testing for 90 minutes when driven on normal roads. As only MOT tests are a measure of legal judgment they were found NOT to have broken the law. As I know you always want 100 % verification then click on : https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-publishes-findings-of-diesel-emissions-testing-preogramme

Thanks for the link duncan. I was only really querying whether these cars were “illegal” but, as there are no legal limits for on-the-road emissions (yet) , they would not be.

On the road emissions testing is starting this year and will lead to legal limits being imposed in the future (the Real Driving Emissions test)

Incidentally, if anyone wants to look at this report, delete the extra “e” in “preogramme” in the link.

The link begins “Vehicles tested in the UK programme showed no evidence of car manufacturers, apart from the VW Group, fitting devices to defeat the approved emissions test programme.”

It may well be the extra emissions controls come at a cost. It is for the EC (in this case) to set regulations and for manufacturers to abide by them. So perhaps we should ask the EC why they have not set lower emissions regulations. It may be some manufacturers do give lower emissions – the NEDC sets only a maximum level.

That’s what I assume, but surely there are enough people prepared to pay a little more for cleaner cars. I am disappointed that VED is based on carbon dioxide emissions rather than nitrogen oxides, particulates and other carcinogens.

“pay a little more for cleaner cars”. If the comments about domestic appliances are correct, many people seem unwilling to pay for more than they need. If we all had a social conscience, one way to reduce emissions is to stop driving older vehicles. But that won’t happen, we know.

I think concentrating on individual vehicle emissions is only sensible up to a point. The other factor that contributes to unacceptable pollution is the number of vehicles in an area – particularly a densely populated one – all at the same time – rush hour and traffic jams. We could deal with this straight away by introducing capacity limits, restricted vehicle access, providing we also ensure sensible alternatives are available – e.g. park and ride with acceptable charges.

Some of us are prepared to make an effort and I would have liked to have had the option of a cleaner version of my present car if that had been available at the time of purchase.

I agree that we cannot rely on individuals and legislation is the answer and that keeping cars out of city centres must be a priority. Park & ride is a sensible solution, and electric buses would be better. I don’t know how much park & ride costs across the country, but last week I paid £2 and tomorrow it will be £1 – substantially less expensive than city centre parking.