Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue Nov 11, 2025 00:33

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Discussion Forums » Speed, Safety, Driving and The Law

All times are UTC [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 3
  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
stackmonkey
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 09:26 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 16:02
Posts: 372
I was following local bus this morning in chesterfield with an advert non the back with the phrase:

" Cars block more than roads - Just ask a child with asthma"

complete with picture of an inhaler.

Quite apart from the lack of proof of cars causing asthma, I was distinctly aware (an an asthma sufferer myself) of the clouds of black smoke being emitted from the same bus every time it accelerated after each speed bump on the road we were both travelling on.

The ad is sponsored by derbyshire County Council and Travelwise.
Top
 Profile  
 
SafeSpeed
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 09:34 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Absolutely astonishing.

Make a complaint to the ASA. It's easy and I can imagine no defence to this one.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Rewolf
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 09:38 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 16:12
Posts: 1040
Location: West Midlands
I think the ASA should be called in on this one. Not only is there no evidence at all that Cars contribute towards asthma (what is the rate in rural areas such as New Zealand compared to inner city London?), but as you say, by far the largest emmitters of carciogenic particulates are older busses and disgusting clouds of deadly smoke that they beltch out all the time.

You don't need many complaints for the advert to be withdrawn, but they do have to be submitted by someone that has actually seen the offending advert. The online form is on the link, why don't you fill it in? http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/complaints_form/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
andys280176
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 13:01 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 22:34
Posts: 603
Location: West Scotland
After the text on the advert You could draw a big arrow pointing to the bus exhaust :lol:

I also noticed a sticker inside a bus stating "this is a smoke free zone"...I thought 'how ironic'!

Regards


Andrew

_________________
It's a scam........or possibly a scamola


Homer Simpson
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
stackmonkey
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 13:28 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 16:02
Posts: 372
Thanks for the link, Rewolf.

Complaint submitted. Let's see how long it takes for a reply...
Top
 Profile  
 
stevei
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 13:54 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 19:14
Posts: 410
But just think how many cars you'd need to transport the same number of people as were on that bus, and how the total pollution from those cars would compare to that of one bus. Of course, buses should be well maintained and shouldn't be billowing black smoke out. I do agree that the advert is misleading in terms of generalising pollution from cars when different types of cars cause very different types of pollution; diesel, petrol, natural gas, electric hybrids etc.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
SafeSpeed
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 14:05 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
stevei wrote:
But just think how many cars you'd need to transport the same number of people as were on that bus, and how the total pollution from those cars would compare to that of one bus. Of course, buses should be well maintained and shouldn't be billowing black smoke out. I do agree that the advert is misleading in terms of generalising pollution from cars when different types of cars cause very different types of pollution; diesel, petrol, natural gas, electric hybrids etc.


The information is out there and STRONGLY favours multiple cars. For a start one bus produces the same quantity of particulates as 128 diesel cars (from memory). Average bus occupancy is about 7 and average car occupancy is about 1.6. I don't have time to dig out the references, but I did last year and it was a real eye opener.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
stevei
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 14:55 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 19:14
Posts: 410
SafeSpeed wrote:
The information is out there and STRONGLY favours multiple cars. For a start one bus produces the same quantity of particulates as 128 diesel cars (from memory). Average bus occupancy is about 7 and average car occupancy is about 1.6. I don't have time to dig out the references, but I did last year and it was a real eye opener.

I admit I don't know the figures for buses. I saw some figures for trains that suggested a train beats a single occupant car when the train is more than 25% occupied. If average bus occupancy is so low, it will most likely be because people complain when poorly utilised services are withdrawn. Where I live, buses are absolutely packed, but that's outer London, I can believe that if you include less populated areas utilisation will plummet.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
stackmonkey
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 15:15 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 16:02
Posts: 372
I think that 3 5-seater cars would have been enough cars...

I've also made a complaint to derbyshire CC at Matlock ( 2 separate depts) and to Travelwise and they've both said they'll get back to me. I've also asked for the research behind it.

I'll wait, but will breathe normally while i do.
Top
 Profile  
 
Pete317
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 15:38 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
Here's the figures from the National Environmental Technical Centre.

Code:
2.6  Emissions for road vehicles (per vehicle kilometre) in urban conditions



                                                          Index car without three-way catalyst: pre 1993 = 100 1


                                                                Carbon      Hydro-  Oxides of  Particu-  Carbon
                                                                monoxide   carbons  nitrogen 2  lates 3  Dioxide


Petrol car without three-way catalyst:                  pre 1993  100          100       100        11       100
Petrol car with three-way catalyst:                     1993-1996  15            9        19         5       108
Petrol car with three-way catalyst:                     1997-      10            4         9         5       108

DERV car:                                               pre 1993    7           10        43       100       111
DERV car:                                               1993-1996   4            4        29        25       111
DERV car:                                               1997-       3            3        21        11       111

Petrol light goods vehicle without three way catalyst:  pre 1994  151          120       114        22       216
Petrol light goods vehicle with three way catalyst:     1994-1997  30            6        21        11       216
Petrol light goods vehicle with three way catalyst:     1998-      21            3         9        11       216

DERV light goods vehicle:                               pre 1994   10           20        82       209       192
DERV light goods vehicle:                               1994-1997   8           15        40        66       192
DERV light goods vehicle:                               1998-       6            9        30        33       192

Heavy goods vehicle - Rigid:                            pre 1993   38          192       640       484       406
Heavy goods vehicle - Rigid:                            1993-1996  21          113       440       318       406
Heavy goods vehicle - Rigid:                            1997-      17          105       316       168       406

Heavy goods vehicle - Artic:                            pre 1993   44          183     1,704       700       661
Heavy goods vehicle - Artic:                            1993-1996  22           87       893       482       661
Heavy goods vehicle - Artic:                            1997-      18           78       650       185       661

Buses:                                                  pre 1993   63           83       795       458       596
Buses:                                                  1993-1996  28           90       859       304       596
Buses:                                                  1997-      22           84       614       187       596

Motorcycle (less than 50cc): two stroke                            37          135         2         -         -
Motorcycle (greater than 50cc): two stroke                         74          338         4         -         -
Motorcycle (greater than 50cc): four stroke                        67           68        13         -         -

1   For diesel particulates index is DERV car: pre 1993 = 100.                                     020-7944 6399
2   Figures based on non methane hydrocarbons.                         The figures in this table are outside the
3   Legislative standards exist only for diesel vehicles.              scope of National Statistics.
    Petrol figures included for comparison.                    Source - National Environmental Technology Centre


As you can see, buses pump out hugely larger amounts of NOx and particulates than modern petrol cars.

IIRC average bus occupancy in London runs at around 36%, which sounds about right.
Bus occupancy can only average 100% if it's filled to capacity, terminus to terminus, on both the outward and inward journey, on every scheduled journey throughout the day.

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
teabelly
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 16:13 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:19
Posts: 1795
Do you have a url for that data? Do they have any data on the use of energy in car production vs emissions ie it would give people an idea of whether it is more environmentally friendly to run an older car for X thousand miles rather than buy a new one.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Rewolf
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 16:19 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 16:12
Posts: 1040
Location: West Midlands
I was just finding the same sort of figures from an official source - this one is the DfT. See the emmisions by vehicle type table about 3/4 of the way down. Just below that (section 36) it notes that the vast majority of busses are pre-euro1 state, and I have read that while new ones are fitted with Cats, the impact on fuel efficiency (i.e. costs) is so high that bus companies are disconnecting them as soon as they can.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_506888-03.hcsp

Not being a great believer in cars being the cause of a global warming disaster, I am however concerned about the immediate health effects of the particulates, and so are the authorities. There is loads about it on the net, this site is quite detailed, but you can find detailed scientific ones if you can read them - http://www.abc.net.au/health/regions/features/diesel/default.htm

The idea of an advert on a bus blaiming health problems on a cars is so ridiculous I want to cry. Dump the cars, get everyone onto a bus and the problem will get substantially worse. Ironically tests have shown that modern petrol cars with good cats actually clean up much of the muck spewed out by buses.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
FJSRiDER
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 16:21 
Offline
Suspended
Suspended

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 14:55
Posts: 364
Location: Ignoring the mental pygmies (and there are a lot of them here)
..


Last edited by FJSRiDER on Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:19, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Pete317
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 16:41 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
teabelly wrote:
Do you have a url for that data? Do they have any data on the use of energy in car production vs emissions ie it would give people an idea of whether it is more environmentally friendly to run an older car for X thousand miles rather than buy a new one.


I'm afraid I don't have the url - I downloaded the file several years ago.
shouldn't be too difficult to find, though.

I really don't put too much store in the "energy use = CO2 emissions = environmentally bad" stuff - next thing they'll be telling us that cycling is not environmentally friendly because you breathe out more CO2 when you're exerting yourself.

Having said that, I don't think you can calculate the "environmentally friendliness" of new cars vs old cars etc. They will manufacture new cars whether you buy them or not, and if they don't then they'll make something else which also uses energy - either that or send the workforce home. And disposing of old cars also has a 'cost' if you look at things that way.

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
FJSRiDER
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 16:46 
Offline
Suspended
Suspended

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 14:55
Posts: 364
Location: Ignoring the mental pygmies (and there are a lot of them here)
..


Last edited by FJSRiDER on Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:18, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Rewolf
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 16:53 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 16:12
Posts: 1040
Location: West Midlands
Except that if the old one is pre-cat then it will be substantially more polluting than later ones, and will also be relatively more dangerous as it may not have ABS or any of the other safety improving driver aids.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Pete317
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 16:55 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
FJSRiDER wrote:
Not necessarily.

I don't think Rover are any more.....


..which was arguably more down to bad management and marketing than anything else.
Globally, the manufature of new cars is set to continue increasing for at least another decade.

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
JJ
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 16:56 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
Oh dear! It looks as if they will be in trouble for this one. Your stats look like sewing it up pretty tight unless they come up with busses with 100's hanging out of the windows to make them advantagous to the coughing fraternity.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
SafeSpeed
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 16:58 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Rewolf wrote:
Except that if the old one is pre-cat then it will be substantially more polluting than later ones...


Even that isn't clear. It takes 15 tons of mountain and god knows how much energy to get the precious metals for just one cat.

And the pollutants that the cat takes out aren't stable in the atmosphere and break down completely in a day or two - unless you're in one of the two cities in the world that suffer from photochemical smog due to weather and geography (Los Angeles and Athens).

And if CO2 is really a problem the cat makes it about 10% worse. (8% clearly shown in the table above, top right two figures).

(edited to add:) And the cat only does what is say on the box once it's good and hot, and for a limited life (gradually gets 'poisoned'). Lots of short runs (school runs?) and the cat never gets up to temp...

I hate cats.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Gizmo
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 17:24 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 09:16
Posts: 3655
Cats increase C02, that has always been known. This is because they also rob power and increase fuel consumption.

In the Mid 80s there were OEMs that were developing "lean burn" technology that reduced ALL emissions without the need for a cat. Not all car manufacturers had a solutions so cats were the universal fix.

As ususal the idiot polititions only listened to the people that they wanted to and legislated for the use of cats. Lean burn technology was never looked at.

Why-oh-why do we not go back and look at the technology... :x

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 3
  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Board index » Discussion Forums » Speed, Safety, Driving and The Law

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.027s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]