Pat Hasler:
I can’t understand the scandal ? You use adblue (DEF) don’t you ? When I am in the bays at Ben & Jerry the engine is running to operate the liquid pump, they fit an extractor pipe to the exhaust and it broke a couple of weeks ago and they checked for carbon and particulates, all that comes out of the exhaust is nitrogen and water vapour, it even smells like soap.
Sounds a bit primitive, oh ■■■■, forgot you were in the USA
Wheel Nut:
Conor:
grumpyken52:
Strange that they haven’t given the diesel emissions scandal of all the cars such sensational headlines .
Stand by for a lot of truck industry bashing .Car owners aren’t going around putting devices in to get around adblue.
No VAG did that for them
No they are running around with re-maps , dpf delete and de-cats .
Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
saw the first 5 min,can’t help but feel it was a set up for the programme when the DVSA hitlers pulled the first wagon.
It’s not just emulators ,Ive heard the dvsa are on to the V8 ’ look at me boys ’ with the exhaust change over valves ,as its viewed as emissions tampering ect 
Does what it says on the tin.
Tells to an audience of ordinary people the basic facts. It`s not a dry college lecture, or a sensationalist fact-free rant. It uses personal anecdote with cold facts, as any 30 min TV programme can be expected to.
Pollution is caused by vehicles. Pollution causes health problems and premature death. Newer vehicles are cleaner than older ones, but cost more to run. Some owners are trying to keep costs down, and increase their profit by bypassing clean technology. Some are getting caught now, but others are using more complex methods to evade prosecution. Governments could catch more offenders if they spent more money and effort in detection.
Well, I reckon most of us knew all of that already, and this programme puts it out there for Joe Public to see too.
I liked the tipper drivers poor excuse when asked if he had noticed it wasnt using adblue 
Franglais:
Does what it says on the tin.
Tells to an audience of ordinary people the basic facts. It`s not a dry college lecture, or a sensationalist fact-Newer vehicles are cleaner than older ones, but cost more to run.
Try running a 1980 vehicle with no emission controls if you believe they are cheaper to run [emoji12]
Franglais:
Does what it says on the tin.
Tells to an audience of ordinary people the basic facts. It`s not a dry college lecture, or a sensationalist fact-free rant. It uses personal anecdote with cold facts, as any 30 min TV programme can be expected to.
Pollution is caused by vehicles. Pollution causes health problems and premature death. Newer vehicles are cleaner than older ones, but cost more to run. Some owners are trying to keep costs down, and increase their profit by bypassing clean technology. Some are getting caught now, but others are using more complex methods to evade prosecution. Governments could catch more offenders if they spent more money and effort in detection.
Well, I reckon most of us knew all of that already, and this programme puts it out there for Joe Public to see too.
+1 [emoji1360]
Trickydick:
I liked the tipper drivers poor excuse when asked if he had noticed it wasnt using adblue [emoji2]
To be fair he had to quickly think on his feet and that was the best he could come up with on the spur of the moment [emoji23]
Sort of a you know I know I’m lying and I know you know I know [emoji23]
Its fashionable to knock diesel, but what have we got instead? They mentioned the costs involved when Ad-blu systems “go wrong” ,do the consumers want to pay more for their goods ,I don’t think so.
I found this article about pollution eye opening …Says James Corbett, professor of marine policy at the University of Delaware: “Ship pollution affects the health of communities in coastal and inland regions around the world, yet pollution from ships remains one of the least regulated parts of our global transportation system.” It sounds serious, but how bad could it be? Staggeringly, if a report by the UK’s Guardian newspaper is to be believed. According to their story, just one of the world’s largest container ships can emit about as much pollution as 50 million cars. Further, the 15 largest ships in the world emit as much nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide as the world’s 760 million cars.
The problem isn’t necessarily with the ships’ 109,000-horsepower engines that endlessly spin away 24 hours a day, 280 days a year. In fact, these powerplants are some of the most fuel efficient units in the world. The real issue lies with the heavy fuel oil the ships run on and the almost complete lack of regulations applied to the giant exhaust stacks of these container ships.
The good news is that pressure is building from various governments around the world, including the United States, which just recently introduced legislation to keep these ships at least 230 miles away from U.S. coastlines. Similar measures are likely to follow in other countries like the United Kingdom. …Puts it into perspective somewhat, and the best figure I can find is that there are 52,000 ships in the world , also in the Air at anyone time their is an average of 10,000 Planes all burning fuel at a huge rate, so I dont feel guilty driving my diesel car, and the pollution from trucks is, if you excuse the pun, a drop in the ocean.
alamcculloch:
Its fashionable to knock diesel, but what have we got instead? They mentioned the costs involved when Ad-blu systems “go wrong” ,do the consumers want to pay more for their goods ,I don’t think so.
biggriffin:
O how wrong you are, dpf delete software, removal of dpf’s and egr’s being blanked off, and ad-blue on certain Audi and 4x4 being switched off to increase power.The above is FACT not statistics, or copy n pasted from Wikipedia or Google.
I don’t dispute the fact there’s your usual law breaking selfish scum who are running cars they can’t afford who do this but hopefully any which are MOT’d from May won’t be on the road without being put right.
One can only hope VOSA have a witch hunt on MOT testers who think it’s OK to still pass like this and ban them for life.
OssieD:
Kept on about the allegedly 23000 deaths a year caused by us vile killers on the road, did not mention how many of that 23000 deaths are lorry drivers who have to work all-day in this so called toxic environment
Unless you’re on local multidrop you don’t. The problem is in cities where the concentration is higher and there isn’t the air movement to blow it away like there is when you’re running over Shap.
I didn’t see the programme so don’t no if it was just about emissions but if so why do they make us pay for everything when the vehicle is new but then allow it to be exported with everything taken off, it’s still the same air just a different part of the world. I was in India 4 months ago and the pollution in the cites was that bad you could see it but no ad blue
mac12:
I didn’t see the programme so don’t no if it was just about emissions but if so why do they make us pay for everything when the vehicle is new but then allow it to be exported with everything taken off, it’s still the same air just a different part of the world. I was in India 4 months ago and the pollution in the cites was that bad you could see it but no ad blue
We can’t dictate to other countries what their emissions laws should be. We can encourage them to change to cleaner technology and try through agreement such as the Paris Accord to improve international standards.
To do nothing good because someone else is doing worse is a depressing attitude.
And the programme was asking about some UK hauliers gaining a monetary advantage by polluting more than law abiding ones. Only half an hour, so maybe worth the time?
Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk
So if we can’t dictate to other countries should the government buy all used vehicles to stop them being exported or is it a case of one rule for them that can pay and another for those that cant which shows it’s not about emissions but making money.
mac12:
So if we can’t dictate to other countries should the government buy all used vehicles to stop them being exported or is it a case of one rule for them that can pay and another for those that cant which shows it’s not about emissions but making money.
Do you want us all to save a few quid today by increasing pollution levels? We could save cash by burning coal in cities again?
Us paying for better technology in developing countries would improve air quality for us all it’s true.
We can also of course refuse to trade with countries with less strong pollution laws than we have.
Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk
mac12:
I didn’t see the programme so don’t no if it was just about emissions but if so why do they make us pay for everything when the vehicle is new but then allow it to be exported with everything taken off, it’s still the same air just a different part of the world. I was in India 4 months ago and the pollution in the cites was that bad you could see it but no ad blue
Did they explain the pollution in India is not allowed to cross borders under an international agreement [emoji14]
Hi, franglais wrote about using coal again as its cheaper. I recall in the 1940/50s we used to get fogs mixed with smoke in London where your vision was limited to a couple of feet, until the use of coal was outlawed. Incidentally a cyclist passed me the other day ■■■■■■■ like a goodun. When are they going to come under the governments legislations?,