- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Chris BoardmanBoardman: air pollution deaths should be treated as "full-blown crisis"
Chris Boardman says a cycling strategy is the key to reducing the estimated 23,500 premature deaths each year caused by air pollution, a situation he says should be treated as a "national emergency".
The comments follow the release of a consultation paper by Defra to address nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels in the air, largely emitted by diesel engines, which are estimated to be responsible for those deaths.
Boardman says the forthcoming Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy, could be the answer, but only if it comes with meaningful commitments and adequate funding. Meanwhile, a study published this week states more than a third of all car trips in London are under 2km and could be walked in 25 minutes.
Boardman said: “The amount of deaths link to NO2 is a staggering figure, so I am mystified as to why these largely preventable deaths aren’t being treated as a national emergency; a full-blown crisis. This is particularly true since the solution is so obvious and is already being employed all across Europe.
“We know that more cycling and walking could drastically reduce the death toll caused by pollution if we committed to it like our European neighbours.
He said while 250 miles away, in the Netherlands, 44% of all train journeys start with a bike ride and 50% of kids cycle to school, much more could be done here, starting with the Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy that is currently being drawn up.
He said: “The forthcoming Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy could, with serious commitment and adequate funding, establish an infrastructure which would give people a genuine option to leave their car at home and travel to offices and schools on foot or by bicycle.
“Prioritising cycling and walking in our transport system is a proven, cheap, effective and sustainable solution to many of our problems. With so many needless deaths, the government shouldn’t be asking themselves ‘why should we?' invest in cycling, but rather, start explaining why they aren’t.”
In London a report by the Greater London Authority reiterates recent data that suggests NO2 is responsible for around 5,900 premature deaths a year in the capital. The people who suffer the most exposure are those who live and work on busy streets, while those in cars experience greater exposure than those who cycle.
Critics have said the government is passing the buck to local authorities by announcing on Saturday it would give them responsibility for their air quality without allocating additional funding to help them tackle pollution.
Latest Comments
- ktache 5 hours 51 min ago
The small frame, the aggressive posture, lots of standover height.
- mctrials23 6 hours 46 min ago
As i've said before, the police should be sued for a lot of money when someone they have knowingly ignored has gone on to commit a serious crime....
- David9694 6 hours 54 min ago
'Bad parking' blocks firefighters multiple times on same emergency call-out...
- David9694 6 hours 58 min ago
Cambridgeshire boy, 13, crashes Audi into garden wall after taking it from home...
- Adam Sutton 7 hours 43 min ago
Good stuff. Now do it on cycleway C9 through Hammersmith to Chiswick.
- mark1a 7 hours 53 min ago
It's technically allowed but it's not known as "London's Orbital Car Park" for nothing.
- Dogless 9 hours 1 min ago
You're defending bombing hospitals and refugee camps and starving children.
- mattw 11 hours 41 min ago
Used car salesman is a complete attention-seeking plank....
- tubasti 11 hours 58 min ago
I don't know if they're any better, but they's certainly become more boring.
- FionaJJ 12 hours 24 min ago
At risk of being cynical, and stereotyping the police, it's so they don't have to leave the comfort of their panda cars and pursue on foot when...
Add new comment
31 comments
The real problem is that the manufacture of cars is a significant industry in the UK with a substantial lobby. Before we destroy the primary market for cars we need a plan to deal with loss of jobs, taxes and balance of payments.
Shorter working week, higher minimum wage, all overtime at double-pay. More house/flats building (and more imaginative house/flat building. ) More support of renewables industry.
Around 8 out of 10 cars made in the UK are now exported. Domestic use isn't the primary market, it's now secondary.
Except it of course cycling infrastructure is working to a great extent in some European countries and it certainly isn't a fad.
I would have outlawed the insurance stipulation that vehicles parked on driveways can pay less insurance - this policy has wiped out a large proportion of front gardens in cities.
"More cycling and walking" isn't the answer - less driving is. Throwing money at promoting Shanks' Pony while luxury motoring is the alternative is never going to work, except for a fad phase.
Urban areas should prohibit on-street parking, close minor roads - especially residential ones - to mechanically-propelled vehicles and the driving licence should be renewable on a max 5 year basis. Pavements should never be dropped for driveways - very old people with poor sight struggle with the variations in height of their next foot plant. I know some who say it's easier to walk in the road!
Can someone with a greater legal mind than me explain why if if so many deaths are being caused by this pollution and nobody is doing anything meaningful to reduce it why is nobody getting prosecuted for corporate manslaughter?
IDK about corporate manslaughter for govt they seem to be immune from that kind of prosecution unfortunately.
The EU has threatened a £300 million fine for missing the target and then failing to take action promised to meet the target. But that was last year and all that's happened since AFAIK is the UK supreme court order UK again to clean up it's act. Haven't found UK's response yet.
UK faces £300m fine over failure to meet air pollution targets ...
Supreme court orders UK to draw up air pollution cleanup plan | Environment | The Guardian
The solution is obvious: compulsory gas masks for pedestrians. I, for one, am sick of paying taxes to fund the hospital treatment of people who refuse to protect themselves, just because covering their entire faces in thick rubber is a bit uncomfortable and sweaty.
Hear hear! I do not understand why people refuse to protect themselves. It's only common sense, and I for one never leave the house without one unless I'm only going down to the corner shop.
I think that you and I are setting a good example for children that would otherwise think that it is "uncool" to wear a gas mask.
I don't understand. Is this saying that people are suddenly dropping down dead as a result of what they are breathing? Or is this a statement around people dying of respiratory conditions that develop over months/years?
It's really not clear what people are actually dying from, heart attack? Stroke? Lung collapse? Suffocation?
"Critics have said the government is passing the buck to local authorities by announcing on Saturday it would give them responsibility for their air quality without allocating additional funding to help them tackle pollution."
This is a cop out. Local authorities can only do so much. One example is restricting traffic in town centres, but they will lose too much money from parking, money needed because central government have cut and cut. Promote buses. Except my local council have cut them because they can't afford to run them. Plans to impose a permanent 50mph limit on sections of the m3 - for air quality, not safety - surely there is another way. They build new road layouts but can't afford the extra costs for cycle facilities. Central government is directly and indirectly responsible. Teflon shouldered morons.
One thing that irritates me is how often someone will start banging on about fatties and diet, and the cost to the NHS of obesity - when they themselves are frequent drivers, usually of diesel cars.
At least pie-eaters don't shove their pies down my throat.
You wish!
It is not just NO2, there are a whole range of other air pollutants, the political class have had their heads in the sand over this for 20 years. People are dieing needlessly because they won't take the science seriously, we need change now!
When I first started work on the UK Air Pollution Information System (APIS) in 2001, the science at that time was already clear. Since then no substantial effort has been made to reduce air pollutants from motor vehicles, which are a major source for NOx and particulate pollutants.
As you're probably in the know on this sort of thing, any idea what part of the EU emissions standards the UK is enacting/obligated to ? That at least seems like a substantive reduction schedule but i've no idea if we're doing much with it (history of such things would probably indicate that's wishful thinking...)
EU Commission write the directives, but doesn't seem to do much other than sabre-rattle when the targets are missed, they threatened us with a £300million fine for each year for missing the target and again failing to make changes to meet the target - that was over a year ago and all's gone quiet.
Air Quality - Existing Legislation - Environment - European Commission
This story says NO2 kills. It doesn't say how - it just refers to the DEFRA report.
The DEFRA report says NO2 kills. It doesn't say how - it just refers to a World Health Organisation report.
Thankfully the WHO report (all 309 insomnia curing pages of it) is very detailed. Still, It's hard to take Boardman seriously when he can't say something like "particulates, from diesel cars, in the blood stream have a major impact on the pulmonary system slowing it down. If you get something else that slows it down you might drop below the survival thresh hold - meaning you'll die. The coroner will say you died of whatever second thing you got which is why if you google how many people die of NO2 poisoning it will tell you a big fat zero".
Instead Boardman sounds like the embarrassing uncle you're forced to invite to your wedding and have to ask your best mate to keep a watch over.
That's like saying smoking doesn't kill...cancer does
How many of these fumes are from slow moving or stationary buses and lorries in town centres? My guess is more than from newer diesel cars zipping along on motorways.
We need to look at vehicles doing short, start/stop journeys using cleaner fuels such as gas and electricity or even human power!
It is only a matter of time before car fumes are proven to be a major factor in the development of dementia in the elderly. A lot of our older generation only have a relatively small number of years of exposure, but people exposed to current (and constantly increasing) levels for a number of decades could easily have all sorts of nasty conditions develop.
The consultation and strategy documents make for depressing reading, since they bang on constantly about 'improving traffic flow' and 'improving junctions' to 'prevent vehicle idling'. Cycling and walking get a couple of mentions, but the authors think most of the solutions will come while maintaining existing traffic levels instead of trying to reduce them.
I remember back a long while (decades) diesel exhausts were thought of being very dirty and dangerous, then somehow diesel cars were marketed or perceived as being more green than petrol (I guess with the introduction of exhaust filters) and were adopted by the masses instead of being less common.
Even now diesel is cheaper at the pumps than petrol, surely in light of the damage that this fuel is causing the fuel tax should be increased significantly as well as each vehicles VED.
I believe the main issue that, for a while, tipped the balance of public opinion in favour of diesel was higher mpg, and hence lower fuel use, lower CO2 emissions and lower contribution to global warming. There are other environmental factors too, relative pros and cons to each of diesel and petrol.
But we can all agree with Boardman that walking and cycling are far, far healthier and less polluting than either.
23,500 deaths was just from one of the pollutants, the total deaths is over 50,000 another estimate says 60,000 deaths.
Or to put in perspective vehicle pollution kills 20x to 30x more people than traffic accidents.
I'm a big fan of Boardman but I'm also interested in these sorts of stats. Partly an occupational hazard. It is a bit like the cold that kills of a lot of pensioners each year. In Greece and other places it tends to be heatwaves. But that's just because it was the last straw for a lot of elderly people. What is actually happening is that people likely to die from old age and frailty over the next few months are all affected at the same time by extra strain.
The same is happening here. People with heart disease and respiratory problems already and who are very vulnerable are severely affected by air quality. When it deteriorates in cities usually in the summer die to environmental factors such as high pressure that allows fumes to just sit in the centre of cities.
I'm not saying that's not a problem just that you need to be careful implying that 60,000 normal healthy people are struck down by air pollution every year when that's not quite what the stats mean.
@ oozaveared
That's pure hypothesis and I don't buy it. Traffic pollution is also stunting the lungs of children in cities - that's not hypothesis.
Lost me there pal. Of course air pollution exists and is harmful. I just warned about the loose use of statistics to imply one simple thing when in fact their meaning is often more complex. That's all.
There isn't any hypothesis as such. Who do you think is likely to die from a spike in air pollution? Someone with already acute cardiopulminary challenges or just some random person with no such conditions.
You just have to think about it. They are more vulnerable, their risk is higher and the results for them are fatal.
I don't think we are disagreeing just that bandying around stats as proof of a specific number without explanation adds a lot of heat but precious little light.
They're still premature deaths, still caused by pollution, whether the people were unhealthy or not. I bet they'd all have liked a few more hours, days, months or years.
"Meaningful investment and adequate funding" is the key phrase here.
As it stands cycling gets approximately £150m per year, whereas the oil and gas industries receive around £1.5bn in subsidies alone. Meanwhile renewable energy subsidies are being slashed in the name of austerity.
It's almost like the government is just paying lip service and doesn't really give a shit.
The Tories are like wife-beaters, they say they care about their wives, they say they do everything to look after them and they really sound convincing, and then they beat their wives again.
Pages