|
That might be going a bit too far, though it might still happen (to a degree) if people let the green lobby and leftwingers who really run councils and government get their way - unfortunately being an armchair critic (I am just as culpable as most) won't advance the cause of the motorist.
I would say though, that whilst all forms of fossil fuels are obviously pollutants and, to varying degrees harmful to human health, diesel still seems to be worse of the two, as its been noticeable that since diesel cars became vastly more popular and prevelent in the UK, and especially in cities, respiratory diseases and complaints have increases a great deal.
As an asthma sufferer myself, I can vouch for that - I went to college in London in the early 1990s, before the rise in diesels, and worked in the same area (of London) much more recently, and I noticed my asthma was far worse in recent years than when I was at college, and yet I was out and about at least as much, if not more so at that earlier time, including when vehicles were far more polluting generally on a like-for-like basis than today .
As I've said in another post (part 1 of the letters), having public (consumer) pressure brought to bear on the car and van manufacturers would easily get them (as they do for HGVs) to introduce DPF (or similar) warning/control/information systems so that they can be used more wisely, including the adpation of driving styles to suit passive regens, as well as to force manufacturers to start offering cars specifically designed for city use that either had automatic DPF systems that wouldn't be harmed by short use, new tech so they weren't required at all or at least a combination of the info/warning systems I previously mentioned and higher use of hybrid systems that would reduce the need for the fossil-fuelled engines for very short or exclusively low speed urban journeys.
|
