Diesel pollutes; shocker!

[Brandane]

So it seems the tide is turning against diesel cars.
I could never understand why VED was so much less for diesels when you can clearly see the muck coming out their exhausts. So there might be less co2 than petrol cars, but that would appear to be outweighed by carcinogenic particles.
Perhaps now they will increase VED for diesels, while cutting it for sensible sized petrol engines - such as my 1600cc Toyota, Mr Chancellor?

 

[Accy cyclist]

When i start my old VW Golf's diesel engine up after a few days rest a cloud of smoke comes out the exhaust. My dad died of esophageal cancer 13 years ago after working as a coachbuilder/fitter for 49 years. The oncologist said that breathing in diesel fumes for all those years could have caused his cancer,

 

[ufkacbln]

This is one of big red herrings and a panacea that fails to address the real issues.

Making Diesel the "bad guy" and then making a few cosmetic changes fails to address the issues of vehicle dependnce as a whole

 

[KneesUp]

This may make medium-sized secondhand cars very expensive.

 

[The Jogger]

I recently got rid of my diesel guzzling Land Rover Defender. I now have two bikes as my main mode of transport, train to London then commute around the capital on bike breathing in the black taxi and other diesel fumes, makes you wonder but I'm still glad I did it. Use Mrs Js 1.25 fiesta for shopping and trip to outlaws.

 

[helston90]

We already pay more at the pumps- is that not enough of a penalisation for having a diesel?
Hadn't noticed the VED was any less/ more for diesel/ petrol vehicles- they're all banded in together aren't they? (happy to be proved wrong)

 

[helston90]

What constitutes enough?

Well that depends how much @Brandane was trying to put up my VED by.
Using ~750 litres a year at 7ppl price difference I already pay £60 a year more to buy the same amount of fuel as a petrol.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

[QUOTE 3418384, member: 9609"]I'm sure we could but the change to our lifestyles would be far more dramatic than if we just had less cars. Unlike cars there are very few vans or trucks getting driven around for no good reason[/QUOTE]
Trucks I could kind of believe just because they are so expensive to run that I'd like to think most companies that run them are now very careful about how they use them. Vans. Nah, if it's anything like when I used to drive a van for a building firm around 75% of our journeys didn't need a van at all and 40-50% were pretty pointless, we basically used it as a shed with wheels on carrying all sorts of pointless crap.

 

[Cycleops]

I bet we could survive perfectly well without a lot of them.

There's only so much those Amazon drones can do.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I bet there are trucks going about the place filled with all sorts of rubbish that no one has any real need, or even much desire for.

No real need certainly. Not much desire for? There I'm not so sure.

I'll wager every single one of the folk in the picture below already owned an operational TV but, boy, do they desire a new one.

Marketeers are geniuses in creating artificial wants and then turning those artificial wants into perceived needs.

 

[Accy cyclist]

[QUOTE 3418365, member: 9609"]I know of several people who worked as HGV fitters who have died early from lung problems - too often trucks are started up indoors with little ventilation and you end up breathing the stuff in for hours on end, if not all day everyday.
It's yet another health worry for me, smoked 40 a day, worked with asbestos and spent too much time breathing in diesel fumes under trucks[/QUOTE]

I worked in a loading bay just after my dad died. I was aware of the risks so i'd ask the drivers to turn off their engines for the hour or so it took to load up the wagon. They didn't give a toss,their concern was keeping warm so the engine stayed on while we choked on their fumes! The formica and the MDF he/they used in coachbuilding was also mentioned as a possible killer.

 

[Cycleops]

No real need certain. Not much desire for? There I'm not so sure.

I'll wager every single one of the folk in the picture below already owned an operational TV but, boy, do they desire a new one.

Marketeers are geniuses in creating artificial wants and then turning those artificial wants into perceived needs.

I agree, but I'm not so sure the marketing men are to blame. I think it is something inside the acquisitive side of our brains that says I must have a bargain, even though we don't need it. Once we get onto the shop floor the red mist descends.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I agree, but I'm not so sure the marketing men are to blame. I think it is something inside the acquisitive side of our brains that says I must have a bargain, even though we don't need it. Once we get onto the shop floor the red mist descends.

Precisely the sort of mechanism the marketeers seek to exploit even whilst not fully understanding it, though neuroeconomics is seeking to help us with that.

 

[KneesUp]

I bet there are trucks going about the place filled with all sorts of rubbish that no one has any real need, or even much desire for.

Like new bikes and stuf? It makes me laugh reading on here about "n+1" and so on (not necessarily you @User) when there is nothing wrong with the 'n' and then imagining that they are being environmentally friendly

 

[Brandane]

Well that depends how much @Brandane was trying to put up my VED by.
Using ~750 litres a year at 7ppl price difference I already pay £60 a year more to buy the same amount of fuel as a petrol.

I was more hoping for a reduction in my VED; but that could be offset by an increase in yours!
Re your claim that you pay more for fuel; well that probably isn't the norm as diesel cars get more mpg, so for an equivalent mileage petrol cars use more fuel and therefore pay more.
Overall though, it is supposedly the case that diesels are more expensive to run, unless you are doing high mileages.