I see the idiots at the Welsh Assembly are to introduce roadside emission checks on cars very soon. It will begin in South Wales and then might spread to the whole country.
If the car fails, there will be a £60 fine. If you can prove you have your car serviced regularly, then the fine will be reduced.
I was not aware that emission checks are part of a service. What about the chap who does his own servicing because he does not trust garages to do the job correctly?
It will do wonders for tourism in this foggy, wet little country.
"Better not go to Wales. My car might be emission tested..... £60.
I could be speed-trapped because of the Chief Constables apparant obsession with speed limit offences..... £60 and three points per offence for harming no-one.
If I break down on the A55, the police can have my car removed and taken to a compound up to 20 miles away at a cost of £120 plus £20 for every day I leave it there.
I think I'll go to Beirut. It less hassle".
And of course, that's the whole idea.
|
I don't see how they can do roadside checks to the same standard as at an MOT centre.
Will the engine be thoroughly warmed up, thrashed to clear the exhaust, etc, etc.. Whose liability is it if they wreck the engine in the process?
If it is done in town then a 100% failure rate is almost guaranteed.
Why do we have to put up with this?
|
|
|
|
maybe we should introduce what the French did. If youhad a car over 10years old the government gave about £800 towards getting a new one. Not only did this get rid of polluting older cars it helped stimulate demand for new cars and being France most of these were French ones. (I presume they make more than £800 back from the VAT on the car and taxing the dealer).
|
|
|
|
Manila Traffic Authority just introduced roadside emission checks for buses on Monday. Yesterday tested 900, 892 failed.
|
|
|
Alwyn
My memory's a bit hazy on this one, but I think Bristol City council tried it on about 3 years ago. It was, of course, a revenue raising "scam". All sorts of problems, including a bloke with a 4x4 (full service history) who went to an MOT test station to prove that his vehicle was OK.
I think it all died a death, but maybe some Bristolian Backroomer will remember the details better than I can.
Ian
|
|
|
As I near busy road, I think that roadside emission checks are a jolly good idea.
While they are at it, the authorities should set up roadblocks and/or patrol the streets and tow away and crush all vehicles without a valid tax disc. The chances are that the car is either abandoned or the owner also doesn't have insurance and a valid MOT certificate.
The honest motorist who regularly services their car and has a valid tax disc, MOT certificate and insurance has nothing to fear from these measures.
I am sick and tired of seeing people taking the p!ss out of the system and getting away with it. The people that suffer are the honest law-abiding motorist.
|
|
Two things. Firstly, what makes you think your car will pass the emissions test? Secondly, how do you suffer when a car in Wales puts out 251g/km of C02 instead of 250g/km? It's a stealth tax, and is designed to take money off people whether innocent or not.
|
|
|
Crimestopper,
Do you also then agree that central heating flues should be checked and if they fail the owner fined?
The same chemicals come out of a heating boiler flue as come from a car exhaust. Indoor pollution is up to 10 times greater than outdoor; we are all living longer, healthier lives; air is cleaner now than it was in the 16th century.
As the air gets cleaner, asthma cases are rising. So if anyone thinks there is a connection, then perhaps we should start polluting more to reduce asthma attacks.
These clowns try to convince us that pollution is a major problem, all caused by the car. No concerns at all about the stuff thrown into the air when burning old railway sleepers, dead cows and sheep.
Reports on BBC 2 most days show pollution levels to be low and if these fools are talking about carbon dioxide, then words fail me.
|
Don't you know that car exhaust gases are harmless?
To prove itblock off all the ventilation points in your garage and run your engine for a bit!
|
I imagine Alwyn would probably not want to try that in the Volvo! There was a well documented case several years ago of some chap who tried to top himself and hadn't realised his SAAB was catalysed. He was found about 30 mins later by a passer-by suffering of oxygen starvation but was taken away by the paramedics and made a full recovery.
Alwyn is right with what he says though - In central London, chances are a car on recent emissions regs will be putting out cleaner exhaust than the air it is taking in. Cars are easily taxed, owned by all of us and the finger of blame can be easily pointed at motorists in such a way that "we can all share the blame". Sadly the exhaust gasses from many industrial plants and processes etc etc are completely unregulated and significantly more dangerous than anything your average car is pushing out but noone cares about that as it would seem.
If you want REALLY bad air I have two places to try:
1) Have a walk round the industrial areas of Runcorn and Widnes alongside some of the chemical works. The average age for residents there isn't ten years below the national average for nothing! Smell those lovely toxins in the air - See if you can pick out local specialities such as chlorine and chloroform from many recent spillages - But nothing to worry about, the fines imposed are miniscule compared to the costs of doing it "cleanly" so it can't be THAT bad can it!
2) Oxford and Regent Street in London. For somewhere so popular and cosmopolitan and close to all the "powers that be" I could never get over the fact noone seems to give a toss about all the Routemasters and sh*gged old black cabs sat stationary belching out particulate laden thick black smoke which is so bad at certain times such as foggy or very hot summer days that it can leave you feeling ill and out of breath.
|
Hey Dan,
My Volvo has a cat. Smells awful on first start-up. Rotten eggs.........
|
|
|
|
Don't you know that heating flue gases are harmless, as are gas cooker fumes.
Try making your kitchen airtight and let us know how you fare. Or perhaps your surviving relatives might.
Ever heard of anyone being killed because of inadeqate ventilation for gas appliances?
|
|
|
|
|
|
The main air-quality problem in towns is not CO2, but particulate output. Diesels are worse than petrol vehicles in this respect, and buses are by far the worst offenders, followed by black cabs.
But as these tests are really only intended to annoy (and charge) the private motorist, what's the betting that buses will not be stopped?
By the way, did you read that report about the USA-style school buses soon to be trialled over here? Particulate output over 120 times that of a modern petrol car! Same as the figure (which the government refuses to acknowledge) for our 'Routemaster' buses which Red Ken wants us to use.
|
Wasn't there a thread on the subject of particulates a few weeks ago? Petrol cars throw out sooty particles as well, but they're finer so you don't see them. I don't know if that makes them less carcinogenic. Now that VW have brought out the first diesel engine to fully meet Euro4 standards, that might put the spotlight back on petrol.
I find that old petrol engines that burn oil and emit acrid fumes are the worst to follow, but maybe not the most dangerous.
|
|
Smaller particulates are acually more harmful, as they can get further into the lungs and get absorbed into the blood stream.
|
|
|
|
Such tests will be difficult to administer because it may be difficult to operate them in a manner which achieves suitable quality control. The classic case will be the person whose car is stopped shortly after a cold start. Further the average owner, who has concientiously serviced their vehicle, kept the MOT up to date etc is not unreasonably expecting their vehicle to be emissions compliant, but has no way of checking this on a day to day basis. To penalise them in this way would be iniquitous, but, of course, lucrative.
What standards will be applied? They certainly could not be tighter than the MOT standards, so the testers would need to have the full vehicle data as used for an MOT. Unless the test can be shown to be of a similar standard, I imagine it would be defendable in court if an unreasonable prosecution is attempted.
The concern is that this is attempting to duplicate the MOT system. If the MOT system were accurately linked to a Vehicle Registration database, then vehicles without valid MOTs would be easily identifiable, and roadside tests would be unecessary. However, the Government has handed various powers to local authorities, usually without the necessary funding, which means that local authorities with particular interest groups are able to embark on (unregulated?)schemes of this type. The limited funding is likely to result in pooor quality schemes being implemented, leading to the various concerns raised.
I seem to recall that similar schemes have run into problems. These I believe only imposed a penalty if the offending vehicle was not corrected in reasonable period (7 days?). Not surprisingly, a high proportion of owners of failed cars found that a proper emissions test at an MOT centre indicated compliance, without any corrective action being necessary, which lead to the schemes being withdrawn.
The problems will be greatly magnified if these proposals are for the 'drive-by' type of monitoring, rather than a 'stop and check' system.
Regards
John
|
|
|
Perhaps a better idea would be to introduce a six monthly emissions test, half way between the annual MoTs. If the car passed, you would get a little sticker to put on your numberplate, like they have in California. This scheme limits the extent to which bone-idle motorists can neglect basic servicing, and given that a full MOT test is £30, an emissions-only check shouldn't cost more than a tenner, and garages could set up a drive-through facility which would have the whole thing over in a couple of minutes.
And I bet you could come up with a sticker that could be automatically read by roadside detectors, to make sure the system is enforced. No valid sticker = big fine, and I for one would be quite happy with that. Getting hit with a big fine because my car has been spot checked 500 yards after a cold start - that's a different matter.
|
Richard,
You are being far too sensible and this method would not raise money for the local authority!
Perhaps they should check out the local council vehicles - and employees cars -first to see how well they all do! The standard of the equipment and how it is used is apparently quite important and one of the reasons the Bristol scheme failed.
Rob S
|
|
|
|
|
my next door neighbour has a cat and that stinks too
|
|
|
