The UK’s first National Clean Air Day was on 15 June 2017. It came with some dire warnings about problems with pollution on our roads and the dangers to motorists and their passengers, as well as to children and cyclists.
According to research commissioned by the Global Action Plan (GAP) and the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change, drivers and their passengers are exposed to more pollution than pedestrians or cyclists. The research found that people in cars breathe in nine times as much pollution as those who are walking or cycling. However, a change of route can reduce this exposure by as much as 70%.
The report also warned parents that by driving children to school, they are increasing their exposure significantly compared to if they walked to school along the same route.
Pollution findings
The separate studies from GAP and the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change both found that children are more vulnerable to the effects of pollution due to one simple factor – their height. The risk to a child is 11% higher than to the average adult due to children’s lower height, because they are nearer the source of the pollution.
The studies looked at the problem of pollution, including air conditions inside and outside vehicles. The aim was to release them for the first National Clean Air Day and to help raise awareness of the dangerous levels of air pollution being experienced in parts of the country. The reports also hope to inspire people to push for change to improve the situation.
Finding solutions
One group of those questioned said that both the government and car manufacturers needed to do more to deal with the problem. But nearly two-thirds of the same group said they were willing to pay out from their own pockets to help deal with problem, with an average of around £2.50 a month being the figure they were willing to contribute. This would equate to £1 billion a year if a corresponding number of people in the general population were willing to contribute.
These two reports are among several additional studies being released with the aim of shocking people into action around the subject and to help find solutions. One from King’s College London discovered that the amount of pollution a person inhales while travelling inside a vehicle is significantly higher than if you were cycling the same route.
Today a “Pay as you Pollute” tracking technology was again highlighted in the media as the best way to manage the rising pollution problem, charging high polluters who drive around high risk zones such as schools. However, critics see it as a stealth tax on families and low income groups, who are most likely to drive higher polluting vehicles near high risk areas.
Mistaken assumptions
A poll of 2,000 adults found that 96% incorrectly thought they were inhaling less pollution as a driver or passenger in a vehicle than when they were walking or cycling. In the same poll, 43% said they thought that closing a car window made them safe from harmful emissions, even though harmful particles from emissions can be just as damaging inside a car as outside.
Face masks are another idea that people believe in, yet which seem to have little material benefit. Air quality scientists say that they have little effect at filtering out the microscopic particles that have such a huge effect on the heart. Heart-related problems account for around 72% of the UK’s 40,000 premature deaths from outdoor pollution, including strokes. The remaining 28% are from respiratory problems.
Can you limit the risk?
As part of National Clean Air Day, motorists are being asked to study their routes and to look at them from a pollution perspective. A new app has been launched covering London, Birmingham and Glasgow, to show which areas of the city are most polluted. It helps people avoid these areas, easing the problem and reducing the health risk.
As a driver, there are other ways you can limit risk. The first thing to do is ALWAYS switch on air con to circulate air inside the cabin of the car only. This cannot stop harmful fumes coming in, but it can reduce them by 20-30%. Keep the windows shut at all times while commuting and, if possible, limit journeys by car if other means of transport can be used instead.
What do you think about these results? Are you shocked that drivers and passengers are affected more by toxic fumes than cyclists and pedestrians? Will this be a wake up call for people to act? Let us know in the comments below.
Another load of rubbish reports as air pollution is far less than just after WW2 until the late 60’s. Nobody mentions the empty buses and taxis pounding the roads day in day out. One of the worst polluters that is a current rage is those wood burning stoves. The air is full of smoke from these infernal items on cold days.
Having this morning fitted a new carbon activated pollen filter to my Landrover Freelander 2, am I wasting time and effort? Surely this must clean the air better than the stuff I would be breathing if riding a push bike?
The atricle is very good at repeating its premise but woefully short of reasons why and detailed statistics. Why is pollution greater inside a car? Was the comparison made in town centres, suburbs or the countryside? When the traffic was stop/start, flowing slowly or running freely? What were the weather conditions? All these will have significant impact on the absolute pollution figures and, I would suggest, the variation – I expect the nine times figure in the headline is the worst case found. All in all not a very scientific report.
My car is 7and a half years old and has only done 17.036 genuine miles,not yet run in,and has flown through it’s 4
MOTs.
Well done, Geoff Bell. As you so rightly say, a lot more information is required to justify the comments so that we may believe or disbelieve as appropriate.
Is it 9 times more (headline) or 9 times as much (text)?
the two are not the same.
The time difference of the person exposed over the same journey by a pedestrian would be far longer than that of a cyclist or bus traveller or driver of a car. It also fails to take into account the time a bus traveller has to wait at a busbstop.
The one thing that everyone, including climatologists and ‘green’ party members, ignore is that motorbikes put out far higher levels of NOx and CO than petrol cars (as demonstrated by the Discovery Channel Mythbusters team) but they are NOT checked at MoT tests and Catalytic converters can be removed if the owner wants to make a ‘better’ noise. It is very likely that they are also worse than diesel vehicles which are checked and controlled.
That is, probably, why China and India, whose use of motorcycles is greater than cars, are amongst the most polluted countries in the world.
I, however, have reached my destination vastly quicker, easier, predictably and more enjoyably on a motorbike than any other form of transport in London and have thus stopped producing ANY pollutants at that stage.
Surely it is not beyond the ability of UK Universities / research labs to invent a better exhaust filtration system that captures the harmful diesel particulates.
The results of this finding are not really new. Twenty years ago research showed that drivers were more at risk from exposure to pollution than those alongside the road (although those exercising, eg. joggers and cyclists, were also at higher risk). Height was also a factor in exposure as has been written here. Therefore, as someone suggested above, using air conditioning with the settings on ‘recirculate’ will help – certainly with particulates (pollen, diesel fumes etc) – if not with actual gases which will be unaffected by filters. Other than this, completely close all air admitted to the vehicle or have your windows only slightly open. What is really needed is for car ventilation to be admitted high up (top corners of the windscreen?) rather than low down through the grill as is almost universal now. This needs to change.
Another load of rubbish reports as air pollution is far less than just after WW2 until the late 60’s. Nobody mentions the empty buses and taxis pounding the roads day in day out. One of the worst polluters that is a current rage is those wood burning stoves. The air is full of smoke from these infernal items on cold days.
Having this morning fitted a new carbon activated pollen filter to my Landrover Freelander 2, am I wasting time and effort? Surely this must clean the air better than the stuff I would be breathing if riding a push bike?
The atricle is very good at repeating its premise but woefully short of reasons why and detailed statistics. Why is pollution greater inside a car? Was the comparison made in town centres, suburbs or the countryside? When the traffic was stop/start, flowing slowly or running freely? What were the weather conditions? All these will have significant impact on the absolute pollution figures and, I would suggest, the variation – I expect the nine times figure in the headline is the worst case found. All in all not a very scientific report.
My car is 7and a half years old and has only done 17.036 genuine miles,not yet run in,and has flown through it’s 4
MOTs.
Well done, Geoff Bell. As you so rightly say, a lot more information is required to justify the comments so that we may believe or disbelieve as appropriate.
Is it 9 times more (headline) or 9 times as much (text)?
the two are not the same.
The time difference of the person exposed over the same journey by a pedestrian would be far longer than that of a cyclist or bus traveller or driver of a car. It also fails to take into account the time a bus traveller has to wait at a busbstop.
The one thing that everyone, including climatologists and ‘green’ party members, ignore is that motorbikes put out far higher levels of NOx and CO than petrol cars (as demonstrated by the Discovery Channel Mythbusters team) but they are NOT checked at MoT tests and Catalytic converters can be removed if the owner wants to make a ‘better’ noise. It is very likely that they are also worse than diesel vehicles which are checked and controlled.
That is, probably, why China and India, whose use of motorcycles is greater than cars, are amongst the most polluted countries in the world.
I, however, have reached my destination vastly quicker, easier, predictably and more enjoyably on a motorbike than any other form of transport in London and have thus stopped producing ANY pollutants at that stage.
Surely it is not beyond the ability of UK Universities / research labs to invent a better exhaust filtration system that captures the harmful diesel particulates.
The results of this finding are not really new. Twenty years ago research showed that drivers were more at risk from exposure to pollution than those alongside the road (although those exercising, eg. joggers and cyclists, were also at higher risk). Height was also a factor in exposure as has been written here. Therefore, as someone suggested above, using air conditioning with the settings on ‘recirculate’ will help – certainly with particulates (pollen, diesel fumes etc) – if not with actual gases which will be unaffected by filters. Other than this, completely close all air admitted to the vehicle or have your windows only slightly open. What is really needed is for car ventilation to be admitted high up (top corners of the windscreen?) rather than low down through the grill as is almost universal now. This needs to change.