Thread: This story in today's @thesundaytimes raises ethical questions. It's about car drivers and passengers in some makes of popular small car being more exposed to diesel soot and other toxins thanks to flawed filters in the air con. thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/f… (£) 1/14
@ThreadReaderApp unroll
The three cars named as being particularly poor are the Ford Fiesta, VW Polo and Toyota C-HR, while the Mercedes H-class scored highly. The Toyota filter was worst, removing just 1% of particles compared with the Merc’s 90%.
The study was by UK company emissionsanalytics.com. EA boss Nick Molden says: “Drivers can be exposed to high pollution levels while believing themselves to be protected by the air filtration and ventilation system.”
The problem is blamed on there being no government regulation covering car ventilation. Filters have come about due to consumer demand — bottom up rather than top down. But think about this, it is drivers who are causing the pollution problem, and largely needlessly.
Some 65% of them will be making short journeys by car < 5 miles that can usually be made by walking, cycling or public transport, while others have, through choice of where they live, made themselves “daily dependent” on the car. Their “essential journeys” are of own making
Perhaps we should revive the WW2 question of “Is your journey really necessary?” Just as motorists create danger while themselves being relatively safe (UK vulnerable road users, peds, cyclists and M/Cs made up more than half of road deaths last year), and create fear …
…so that others can’t walk or cycle,the suggestion is that they should be free to create pollution and not breathe it themselves. “Leave our bad air for the oiks who don’t drive” could be the attitude.
Would that have included nine-year-old Ella Kissi-Debrah, one wonders. bbc.co.uk/news/science-e…
Honestly, it’s like chain smokers having giant filter tips on their cigarettes and condemning the nonsmokers around them to breathe their mucky residue.
Two more gripes while I’m about it. The super-rich are putting their millions into supporting car use by campaigning against alternatives. How much does that happen in the UK one wonders. What is influence of the road lobby (car makers / tarmac layers) … nytimes.com/2018/06/19/cli…
… that stops decent cycling infrastructure and public transport here? If you read about their dirty tricks in Mick Hamer’s Wheels Within Wheels and multiply their influence by a thousand or more you’ll probably arrive at the right answer.
Electric cars the answer? Sadly, no. While they don’t emit local exhaust, they still pollute via dust from brake and clutch linings, and stir it up more because they are heavier.
Also they won’t solve congestion or questions of public health because of the lack of active travel. (don’t mention the rare earths).
We put governments in to govern, not to support carmakers at the expense of the interests of us all. As for drivers worried about pollution in their private cabins: let them carry on breathing their own muck.
Correction: for "clutch" read "tyre". HT @Synchronicity34
After a thorough, and deserved, beating-up by @Synchronicity34 I'm a lot more enlightened about electric cars and pollution. There are still other issues - congestion, incentive for active travel and road danger - that must be taken into account.
