RedDwarf 1881 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 9:37 am
Considering the amount of complaints I'm hearing on the radio I don't believe its only 10% of vehicles.
That's because the way the figure was calculated was suspect
(from BBC News)
In June, following a complaint, the UK Statistics Authority asked the mayor and TfL to provide data supporting the claim that nine out of 10 cars seen on automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras driving on an average day in outer London were Ulez-compliant. TfL has now published limited data, but did not tell the BBC how many vehicles in total were captured on camera and how many came into the capital from outside London.
In July, TfL disclosed information about the number of cameras used to lawyers for the five councils seeking to challenge the Ulez expansion at the High Court. It shows the mayor's claim was based on data from 106 cameras in outer London. By comparison, more than 1,100 cameras capture data in inner London, a smaller area.
If the Mayor was only interested in improving the quality of the air we breath, then thats a very noble aim, but its not that is it?
Basically, the mayor is saying, i dont want your polluting vehicles in London, unless of course you pay me a fee, then you can come and pollute the air.
This is all about money & finance, and to say otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme
ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 3:22 pm
If the Mayor was only interested in improving the quality of the air we breath, then thats a very noble aim, but its not that is it?
Basically, the mayor is saying, i dont want your polluting vehicles in London, unless of course you pay me a fee, then you can come and pollute the air.
This is all about money & finance, and to say otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme
RedDwarf 1881 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 9:37 am
Considering the amount of complaints I'm hearing on the radio I don't believe its only 10% of vehicles.
That's because the way the figure was calculated was suspect
(from BBC News)
In June, following a complaint, the UK Statistics Authority asked the mayor and TfL to provide data supporting the claim that nine out of 10 cars seen on automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras driving on an average day in outer London were Ulez-compliant. TfL has now published limited data, but did not tell the BBC how many vehicles in total were captured on camera and how many came into the capital from outside London.
In July, TfL disclosed information about the number of cameras used to lawyers for the five councils seeking to challenge the Ulez expansion at the High Court. It shows the mayor's claim was based on data from 106 cameras in outer London. By comparison, more than 1,100 cameras capture data in inner London, a smaller area.
In what way does that quote indicate that the method was 'suspect'?
RedDwarf 1881 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 9:37 am
Considering the amount of complaints I'm hearing on the radio I don't believe its only 10% of vehicles.
That's because the way the figure was calculated was suspect
(from BBC News)
In June, following a complaint, the UK Statistics Authority asked the mayor and TfL to provide data supporting the claim that nine out of 10 cars seen on automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras driving on an average day in outer London were Ulez-compliant. TfL has now published limited data, but did not tell the BBC how many vehicles in total were captured on camera and how many came into the capital from outside London.
In July, TfL disclosed information about the number of cameras used to lawyers for the five councils seeking to challenge the Ulez expansion at the High Court. It shows the mayor's claim was based on data from 106 cameras in outer London. By comparison, more than 1,100 cameras capture data in inner London, a smaller area.
In what way does that quote indicate that the method was 'suspect'?
Using an inaccurate sample size then making headline claims off the back of it, then refusing to provide full detail of how they arrived at their conclusion when requested.
That's because the way the figure was calculated was suspect
(from BBC News)
In June, following a complaint, the UK Statistics Authority asked the mayor and TfL to provide data supporting the claim that nine out of 10 cars seen on automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras driving on an average day in outer London were Ulez-compliant. TfL has now published limited data, but did not tell the BBC how many vehicles in total were captured on camera and how many came into the capital from outside London.
In July, TfL disclosed information about the number of cameras used to lawyers for the five councils seeking to challenge the Ulez expansion at the High Court. It shows the mayor's claim was based on data from 106 cameras in outer London. By comparison, more than 1,100 cameras capture data in inner London, a smaller area.
In what way does that quote indicate that the method was 'suspect'?
Using an inaccurate sample size then making headline claims off the back of it, then refusing to provide full detail of how they arrived at their conclusion when requested.
Given that inner London currently does have a Low Emission Zone - not to mention a congestion charge - whereas outer London currently does not, it's not really unreasonable to assume that there are significantly more ANPR cameras in the smaller (but more regulated) area than in outer London, is it? And given that they were publishing data on the number of compliant Vs non-compliant vehicles using roads in the outer London area, they could only collect data from the cameras available. It's not even a sample - it's all the 106 cameras in the outer London area.
ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 3:22 pm
If the Mayor was only interested in improving the quality of the air we breath, then thats a very noble aim, but its not that is it?
Basically, the mayor is saying, i dont want your polluting vehicles in London, unless of course you pay me a fee, then you can come and pollute the air.
This is all about money & finance, and to say otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme
For me the congestion charge is a bigger con. I don’t think many drive in London unless they have to and could the transport system cope if a majority did ditch their car.
Scuba Diver wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 8:20 pm
Out of sheer curiosity, I checked back to this thread and have been monitoring the air pollutions day by day for the last fortnight for the last 2 weeks for these 3 areas - 1 urban, 2 very rural, and can conclude the averages as:
Uxbridge = 2 (low)
Lizard, Cornwall (the middle of nowhere) = 2 (low)
Orkney Islands = 2.5 (low)
So, whatever His Majesty Khan has up his sleeve, this Isn't about air pollution as we can see. Unless there are plans afoot for a ULEZ on The Lizard which I'm not party to.
I wonder what this is really about. Can anyone explain?
(as before, when it went unanswered) Genuine question.
He really does seem to be taking the people of London for complete and utter Tobys. At least, that's how it looks from here. Happy as always to be corrected, or even abused, which is more likely I imagine. Please share with me what I am missing here.
Where are you getting your pollution data from?
Various phone based weather apps. All saying the same thing really. Air pollution variable, but also very near to identical in the areas mentioned.
Scuba Diver wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 8:20 pm
Out of sheer curiosity, I checked back to this thread and have been monitoring the air pollutions day by day for the last fortnight for the last 2 weeks for these 3 areas - 1 urban, 2 very rural, and can conclude the averages as:
Uxbridge = 2 (low)
Lizard, Cornwall (the middle of nowhere) = 2 (low)
Orkney Islands = 2.5 (low)
So, whatever His Majesty Khan has up his sleeve, this Isn't about air pollution as we can see. Unless there are plans afoot for a ULEZ on The Lizard which I'm not party to.
I wonder what this is really about. Can anyone explain?
(as before, when it went unanswered) Genuine question.
He really does seem to be taking the people of London for complete and utter Tobys. At least, that's how it looks from here. Happy as always to be corrected, or even abused, which is more likely I imagine. Please share with me what I am missing here.
Is the answer to the thing you are missing an utter inability to know what you are talking about?
Ah. Good news!!
Someone (Max) is gonna tell me exactly where I'm going wrong.
Thank you Max!
Scuba Diver wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 8:20 pm
Out of sheer curiosity, I checked back to this thread and have been monitoring the air pollutions day by day for the last fortnight for the last 2 weeks for these 3 areas - 1 urban, 2 very rural, and can conclude the averages as:
Uxbridge = 2 (low)
Lizard, Cornwall (the middle of nowhere) = 2 (low)
Orkney Islands = 2.5 (low)
So, whatever His Majesty Khan has up his sleeve, this Isn't about air pollution as we can see. Unless there are plans afoot for a ULEZ on The Lizard which I'm not party to.
I wonder what this is really about. Can anyone explain?
(as before, when it went unanswered) Genuine question.
He really does seem to be taking the people of London for complete and utter Tobys. At least, that's how it looks from here. Happy as always to be corrected, or even abused, which is more likely I imagine. Please share with me what I am missing here.
Is the answer to the thing you are missing an utter inability to know what you are talking about?
Ah. Good news!!
Someone (Max) is gonna tell me exactly where I'm going wrong.
Thank you Max!
Even better news now that you have accepted you have gone wrong.
Uxbridge is right on the Western border of London and the air is relatively clean. Try your comparison with another borough nearer the centre and you'll see a very different picture. Secondly, I don't have a lot of confidence that your data is accurate anyway. Try posting a reputable data source rather than "I've been looking at various phone based weather apps" for a start. References to "His Majesty Khan" might be construed as having a possible bias against anything than comes out of the Mayors office. This might come as a shock, but have you considered that the Mayor is trying to clean up the air in London and it's as simple as that?
BoniO wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 8:04 pm
Uxbridge is right on the Western border of London and the air is relatively clean. Try your comparison with another borough nearer the centre and you'll see a very different picture. Secondly, I don't have a lot of confidence that your data is accurate anyway. Try posting a reputable data source rather than "I've been looking at various phone based weather apps" for a start. References to "His Majesty Khan" might be construed as having a possible bias against anything than comes out of the Mayors office. This might come as a shock, but have you considered that the Mayor is trying to clean up the air in London and it's as simple as that?
Or a blatant cash grab to cover the financial hole he's got TfL into. There's far harsher sources and claims than this blog but those will be met with cries of bias so we'll go for the softer option that's written from a pretty balanced standpoint...
BoniO wrote: ↑Wed Aug 16, 2023 8:04 pm
Uxbridge is right on the Western border of London and the air is relatively clean. Try your comparison with another borough nearer the centre and you'll see a very different picture. Secondly, I don't have a lot of confidence that your data is accurate anyway. Try posting a reputable data source rather than "I've been looking at various phone based weather apps" for a start. References to "His Majesty Khan" might be construed as having a possible bias against anything than comes out of the Mayors office. This might come as a shock, but have you considered that the Mayor is trying to clean up the air in London and it's as simple as that?
Or a blatant cash grab to cover the financial hole he's got TfL into. There's far harsher sources and claims than this blog but those will be met with cries of bias so we'll go for the softer option that's written from a pretty balanced standpoint...
I recall reading recently that ULEZ accounts for 6% of the TFL ££ hole; I don’t think the expansion will go too far in solving Mr Khan’s headache.
The benefits achieved in the current zone are tangible. However, the area in the expansion is less densely populated so the benefits return will be lower and this is one of the driving arguments against simply spreading ULEZ further afield. I sense those affected seek other clean-air protocols rather than a straight tax.
Orient_Man_And_Boy wrote: ↑Thu Aug 17, 2023 5:18 am
I recall reading recently that ULEZ accounts for 6% of the TFL ££ hole; I don’t think the expansion will go too far in solving Mr Khan’s headache.
The benefits achieved in the current zone are tangible. However, the area in the expansion is less densely populated so the benefits return will be lower and this is one of the driving arguments against simply spreading ULEZ further afield. I sense those affected seek other clean-air protocols rather than a straight tax.
It will once it gets to stage 3 of the plan where every car is subject to pay per mile
