An item on Look North this evening showed the new pollution monitoring equipment the council are deploying in Sheffield. This isn't your average smog monitor but a very sophisticated directional gas analyser that can detect the emissions from each passing vehicle.

OK - so what ? Well this little baby is coupled to a camera that also records the registration details of the vehicle and tucks them away in a tidy little database.

And...? In fact the chap demontrating the kit said that 'at the moment' there are no plans to follow up on drivers whose vehicles exceed the emissions limits, - the object is to identify which types of vehicle cause the most pollution.

'At the moment' it's 25th. October 2007, - but what about next week, or next month...perhaps next year ? What will the plan be then ?

£30 fine plus 3 points on your licence if you don't produce an updated MOT certificate within 14 days sounds like a good start.

We have ways of making you pay :evil:

Seems reasonable, I don't particularly like polluted air and you always know when you get behind a vehicle that is belching out black smoke don't you?

Seems reasonable, I don't particularly like polluted air and you always know when you get behind a vehicle that is belching out black smoke don't you?

Yeah you do, most of them are buses!

pay pay pay again. some people can only afford an old banger that kicks out a lot of smog.

Sounds more to me like that should have ben put out on April 1st.
I'm no scientist but I can't see how they can possibly do this especially if traffic is travelling at 30mph,
But then again this is Sheffield!!

Sounds good to me. If they're going to tax newer cars based on vague environmental ideas of CO2 output, then I'd quite like to see some of the older, inefficient, black smoke producing rolling trash cans taxed extra, too.

Since I walk into work everyday, 40 ish mins each way, depending which route I take, it is relatively hard to avoid the cars and buses, I like the idea of actually punishing the cars that generate the most pollution. If it will make my walk nicer :)

Yeah you do, most of them are buses!

how incorrect, i mean im not a big fan of the buses in sheffield but as far as emmsions go they are much improved and dontspit out the horrid black smooke that they used to, and as a commitment to constantly improving the evironment, bus companies are throwing out more and more environmentally friendly buses or grren buses as we call them.

I am a car owner and strongly believe in park and rides and car shares, these are realistic things that we need to consider possibly to pretect the environment??? I mean im no Mr Brilliant i dont recycle as much as i shold and do use my car when i should really ned to at times, but simple things like park and rides should be used by far more people, however i do believe more incentive should be brought in to encorage doing so

Are we supposed to be complaining because people who break the law might now be caught at it?

Why do they need to do this? Cant they get all the data on the typically most polluting cars from MOT emissions results, which are all now computer based?

You can watch the news item from a link on this page:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/looknorthyorkslincs/latest_stories/index.shtml


....... and here is the AccuScan™ 4600 (http://www.esp-global.com/rsd/?P=sensing&S=accuscanproducts&T=accuscan4000)!

....... and here is the AccuScan™ 4600 (http://www.esp-global.com/rsd/?P=sensing&S=accuscanproducts&T=accuscan4000)!

I see that it also "Records the passing vehicle's speed for measurement validation"

- and ?

Perhaps after all it's just a speed camera disguised as an emmission monitor :hihi:

Wonder how much we paid for that.

pay pay pay again. some people can only afford an old banger that kicks out a lot of smog.

Not an excuse really is it, there are set standards the car has to pass, if it's not meeting them then it shouldn't be on the road.

.......

Wonder how much we paid for that.

I've been looking for prices, but can't find any.

Not an excuse really is it, there are set standards the car has to pass, if it's not meeting them then it shouldn't be on the road.

it's just another money making racket dressed up in an environmental veil.

This equipment being used would not provide calibrated information with which you could be prosecuted.

It could, however, be used to provide information that would justify you being pulled over (or written to) and required to undergo a legally acceptable direct test.

This equipment being used would not provide calibrated information with which you could be prosecuted.
.

maybe the next model will

it's just another money making racket dressed up in an environmental veil.

More likely that you'd get a letter through the post instructing you to get a new MOT certificate and present it within 14 days.

Thinking about the claimed technology here, I'm actually struggling to believe that it really exists or does what is claimed.

The air around a busy road is very turbulent due to the vehicles, and in close traffic there is roughly no chance at all that a road side detector could separate out the source of the waste gases.

On a quiet road it would work better, but only on a perfectly still day, a single gust of wind and the results would be meaningless.

Maybe all this 'high tech' van is really doing is looking for the vehicles kicking out black smoke, it's a fair guess then that black smoke = not meeting emissions targets.

Are we supposed to be complaining because people who break the law might now be caught at it?

No we are complaining because when there is insufficient revenue being collected by existing laws then we need to invent new or more stringent laws to make sure they are broken with a greater frequency with a wider captive victim potential.

Fines somehow legitimises the word for cash collection whereas the true meaning of taxation often escapes the attentions of the uneducated.

pay pay pay again. some people can only afford an old banger that kicks out a lot of smog.

If you can afford a car and all the expenses that go with it, then surely you can afford repairs and maintenance.

It sound like the TV detector van myth to me, but regardless of that what's it got to do with the Council and why do they need a database of vehicles? :huh:

If you can afford a car and all the expenses that go with it, then surely you can afford repairs and maintenance.

afford to keep it going and to keep it safe, but not necessarily to meet more and more stringent emissions tests. like i've said before, if they are even able to provide accurate readings, they will be used as revenue makers and nothing else.

afford to keep it going and to keep it safe, but not necessarily to meet more and more stringent emissions tests.

Then you have to realise that car ownership is not an automatic right.

What are you going to do if road tax goes up, or your car insurance increases - just not pay it? Take responsibility for your actions.

Then you have to realise that car ownership is not an automatic right.

What are you going to do if road tax goes up, or your car insurance increases - just not pay it? Take responsibility for your actions.

Well said !

So many people seem to think that they have no responsibility to ensure that their vehicle is maintained, taxed, insured and safe to be on the road ! If something isn't fit for the road, the driver should be given a fair period to fix it, if they are unable, then have it removed from them.

Haydn1971, you might know more than the rest of us on this one.

Is this story true? Does it work? What's it got to do with SCC?

afford to keep it going and to keep it safe, but not necessarily to meet more and more stringent emissions tests. like i've said before, if they are even able to provide accurate readings, they will be used as revenue makers and nothing else.

Any old car has to meet the tests every year anyway.
So unless they are driving with no MOT they have nothing to worry about really.
And if they are driving with no MOT, then they simply can't afford a car.

Then you have to realise that car ownership is not an automatic right.

What are you going to do if road tax goes up, or your car insurance increases - just not pay it? Take responsibility for your actions.

who said it was an automatic right? certainly not me.

and i do take responsibility for my actions thankyou, my car is perfectly fine and passed it's mot with flying colours.

Any old car has to meet the tests every year anyway.
So unless they are driving with no MOT they have nothing to worry about really.
And if they are driving with no MOT, then they simply can't afford a car.

yes this is true. so the devices are pointless.

Any old car has to meet the tests every year anyway.
So unless they are driving with no MOT they have nothing to worry about really.
And if they are driving with no MOT, then they simply can't afford a car.

You may find The Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) (England) Regulations 2002 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20021808.htm#7) of interest.

MOT or not, you commit an offence if your emissions are not up to scratch?

Haydn1971, you might know more than the rest of us on this one. Is this story true? Does it work? What's it got to do with SCC?

The city council has various targets on emmissions - some are linked with the Local Transport Plan - so like most things, if the targets are not met, the council gets penalised in future years funding settlements...

Looking at the website that cgksheff links to, I would guess that the equipment uses a laser with spectrum analysis at the recieving end - the degree of colour change would help determine the pollutants - I'm guessing like the rest of you ! I'd also guess the equipment was rented via a third party rather than bought outright.

The data collected would help determine where particular problems are and with info about traffic flow and speed you could establish some form of model to help identify problem locations

I can't see any revenue generation potential here, as far as I'm aware, the legislation isn't in place to require the emmissions to be within certain tolerances other than at an MOT - anyone know any more than this ????

EDIT - Just seen cgksheff's post above ;¬)

You may find The Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) (England) Regulations 2002 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20021808.htm#7) of interest.

MOT or not, you commit an offence if your emissions are not up to scratch?

True, but if you're caught by a roadside check you're normally given the option of getting a new MOT certificate and producing it at a station.
Seems like a fairer way to police it than immediate fines/points.

yes this is true. so the devices are pointless.

well no, if they could do this they could inform you and require that it be fixed.
I'm sceptical that it can target specific cars though, if it's laser spectroscopy based then it's probably good for determining general pollution levels in a location.

OK, so if the council asks the Sec for State for powers, then they can be granted.... Sounds a fair idea - badly maintained car ? get a fine for £60 from your local council ! (see part 4 of the regs)

Perhaps the roadside test was to see what percentage return the equipment would get, thus determining the rate of return on the cost of purchase - sounds like a quite reasonable business case research idea.

.........
I'm sceptical that it can target specific cars though, if it's laser spectroscopy based then it's probably good for determining general pollution levels in a location.

See the pages around the manufacturers site that I linked to earlier, you will see that it is based upon InfraRed and UltraViolet absorption.

An IR/UV Beam is cast across the narrowed carriageway and reflected back to a sensor.
Background readings are taken and the variation from this is sensed as cars pass.

As I have suggested earlier, it can never be accurate enough to bring a charge, but it can be enough for you to be pulled over for a 'proper' test or to be required to be tested elswhere and 'produce' the results.

Sheffield is not the first authority to use this equipment.

I think London for Transport may have been an early runner and Leeds have had it for a while.

Perhaps the roadside test was to see what percentage return the equipment would get, thus determining the rate of return on the cost of purchase - sounds like a quite reasonable business case research idea.

Perhaps so, but why would SCC need or want to monitor and record emissions from individual vehicles? I know it's not your call here Haydn1971 but there seems to be something a bit sinister and unnecessary about this.. if it's actually happening.

No problem with this. All for making our air as clean as possible.

Perhaps so, but why would SCC need or want to monitor and record emissions from individual vehicles? I know it's not your call here Haydn1971 but there seems to be something a bit sinister and unnecessary about this.. if it's actually happening.

It's not my thing, but why do you feel it sinister ? If a vehicle is polluting, the city council is working within data protection and emmissions legislation, I don't really see a problem with it.

How many times have you followed a car/bus/van that was burning rich, churning black/blue smoke etc... I service, tax, test and insure the cars at our house, and it annoys me that others get away with it !

Surely it's a job for the DVLA / DOT? It's got nothing to do with SCC so why should they record and store the data? It's not as though they can do anything about it.:huh:

Surely it's a job for the DVLA / DOT? It's got nothing to do with SCC so why should they record and store the data? It's not as though they can do anything about it.:huh:
Would the Sheffield public health department have a some powers they could enforce if someone is polluting? Or whichever department is responsible for the enviroment.

Since I walk into work everyday, 40 ish mins each way, depending which route I take, it is relatively hard to avoid the cars and buses, I like the idea of actually punishing the cars that generate the most pollution. If it will make my walk nicer :)
I agree with you.I often walk along Birley Lane & it is terrible when an old diesel passes belching out smoke.

Surely it's a job for the DVLA / DOT? It's got nothing to do with SCC so why should they record and store the data? It's not as though they can do anything about it.:huh:

"Application for designation
3. - (1) Where any part of the area of a local authority is for the time being designated as an air quality management area in accordance with section 83, that authority may apply to the Secretary of State to be a designated local authority."

I imagine all metropolitan distrcts would be already designated as air quality management areas ?

The worrying thing about this is that the guy who was operating this equipment, in the interview said something along the lines of..a car that is properly serviced and passes the emissions check could fail the emissions check a couple of weeks later.

Aren't the servicing/MOT checks done statically under 'no-load' conditions ?

You make a good point about the validity of the information against a legally MOT'd vehicle. If anyone wants to get mucky vehicles off the road surely the Council should start by appointing school bus providers that don't belch black smoke? Or is that different? ;)

LA's already monitor environmental air quality but I don't see why that extends to individual vehicles because that has nothing to do with air quality, it's about enforcement and that's got nothing to do with SCC.

I don't have a beef with improving air quality, but I have a huge problem with role creep of public bodies.

Perhaps instead of charging us the consumer and tax payer, the VOTER, why not find a way of changing/altering and bettering the problem, dare I even say tackling the problem?

All the money in the world won't save the planet.

Shaun

www.sheffieldcleaning.com

Like a rectification notice, giving you 14 days to fix the problem with the emissions and get a new MOT certificate. Much like they currently do.

Sounds good to me. If they're going to tax newer cars based on vague environmental ideas of CO2 output, then I'd quite like to see some of the older, inefficient, black smoke producing rolling trash cans taxed extra, too.

Well, black smoke aside, apparently a large proportion of a car's carbon footprint (circa 70% IIRC?) actually comes from its manufacture. So fuel efficient or not, someone who changes their car for a new one every 3 years is contributing much, much more to global warming than someone who keeps a 'rolling trash can' on the road (legally MOT'd of course, ahem) for as long as possible. Of course the car manufacturers' lobby don't want you to see it that way...

pay pay pay again. some people can only afford an old banger that kicks out a lot of smog.

So what, I don't see why my health should be compromised because someone cannot to run a well maintained car. I don't have a car myself so why, as an asthma suffer, should I suffer and millions of people like me?