4 ms·

Can someone who understands the political history around this explain why this is still legal in the UK? It's my understanding that no level of lead exposure i

• astronautjones 5y ago
  corruption. its use in aviation - and use of other chemicals involved in their engines - is not safe at all either - https://www.latimes.com/projects/toxic-chemicals-planes-covid-19-travel-woes/ https://www.latimes.com/projects/toxic-chemicals-planes-covi... https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-51633897 https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-51633897
  • namibj 5y ago
    oil-in-cabin-air issues are solved by not using bleed air for cabin pressurization.
    • compressedgas 5y ago
      I think that has problems which prohibit it from being implemented. I think a better option to just pass the air through a filter to remove oil particles before the air is used in the cabin.
      • namibj 5y ago
        IIRC it's not particles, but combustion/decomposition products. And no, it's not an issue with using non-engine air for cabin pressurization taking too much weight/power: even a large airplane needs only little actual airflow.
• tialaramex 5y ago
  Lobbying from interested parties. In this case, the Classic Car enthusiasts. The government most likely judged that allowing a dispensation for commercial sale would not in fact result in widespread continued use of leaded fuel due to the commercial realities of selling such a niche product, but it was worth the effort to say they supported this niche - and that's exactly how it turned out. The original 1999 UK legislation envisions retailers will be given a maximum quota on how much leaded they can sell, a permit holder could sell 0.5% of volume per month for example. But as anticipated ordinary motorists just put unleaded in the tank and carried on as before so the quota system was pointless. If your "quota" is 10 000 litres of leaded fuel per month and you sold a total of 45 litres to one bloke in that time, you not only don't need a bigger quota, you won't order any more of that fuel from your supplier. If perhaps, the next summer, a motorist in a Victorian outfit driving a 1926 Chevrolet enquires about the leaded fuel you tell them "Sorry mate, we're out of stock" and most likely they put unleaded in the tank, but either way they're not wasting your time and money with this weird "leaded" fuel nobody buys. Which is why there was an archive.org link above -- the actual site for the FBHVC now tells you that you probably can't get leaded fuel, and even if you could you shouldn't bother, even though that's the organisation identified in the legislation itself as asking for this exception. I assume it's still technically legal for whoever actually bothered to have a permit - but the actual emissions involved must be pretty tiny.
• lmm 5y ago
  No level of car exposure is safe, but we still allow people with the right licenses to drive on the roads. The UK has a long tradition of massive taxes rather than outright bans. E.g. absinthe was never illegal there, unlike many countries, it just had a punitive level of duty put on it.
  • acchow 5y ago
    Right, but we don't have any economically viable alternative to cars. If we outlaw cars, then what?
    • lmm 5y ago
      If you put actual effort into not having cars, you'd find a way to make it work. Plenty of people do. At the least you could have stricter driving tests and jail drivers who kill pedestrians.
• rkangel 5y ago
  Cynically, my guess is that the laws were passed by classic car owners. There have been similar looking dispensations on road tax for classic cars in the past.