ulez

[faldO]

Khan tried to ‘silence’ scientists who questioned Ulez claims, emails show.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/k ... r-AA1fuOXm
Correspondence shows Khan deputy Shirley Rodrigues ‘really disappointed’ that Imperial College publicised findings questioning effectiveness of scheme.

So, Khan's office commissioned research from Imperial College to support his ULEZ policy and then didn't like it when the evidence for improvements to air quality was minimal.

[FrankOFile]

how many on hear affected by this £12 charge.
FFS think its outrageous if you live in the zone just to
go to work every day will cost a bomb.

No, it is only an issue if you drive a bomb.

[faldO]

More allegations of impropriety by Khan's Deputy Mayor Shirley Rodrigues, this time in relation to a study that looked at the impact of low emission zones in London on children's health.

Khan’s deputy urged scientists to alter study showing emissions scheme had no impact on child health.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/ ... r-AA1fDnoc

According to emails, Rodrigues asked Prof. Chris Griffiths of Queen Mary University whether he could "reword" the conclusion to his report on the basis that "it reads like Lez (low emissions zones) or similar have no impact at all." (on children's health)

He replied "Apologies - it’s difficult to alter the sentence you refer to as it’s what we set out to look for but didn’t find."

[ComeOnYouOs]

I have noticed that petrol cars only need to meet Euro4 to be able to come into London without charge.
This initially intrigued me, because Euro4 became Law in 2006, seventeen years ago.
Why use a 17 year old protocol, when there are more recent, more stringent Euro protocols, that produce even less pollutants?

I believe Mayor Khan knew there would be great resistance to the new ULEZ scheme, and to make life as easy as he could for himself, he didnt want to go the full hog at the beginning.
At the moment it is estimated that about 10% of cars, will fall foul of the new ULEZ regulations, and most of them will be diesels.
Imagine if he had decided that the Euro5 protocol would be the minimum criteria …..that would have meant 30% to 40% of cars would now not be eligible, and would have to be scrapped, and that would have caused him a lot more trouble, so by opting for the lowest Euro standard, the opposition would be the lowest he could get.

However, I believe within 18 to 24 months, the Euro4 criteria will be scrapped in favour of Euro5, so anyone with a petrol car registered in 2006,07,08,09, & 2010, will have to scrap it, or pay £12-50, every time they use it. ( By then the charge will almost certainly be raised to £15 or more)
This will mean thousands of perfectly good cars, will be heading to the crusher.
Probably another 2 years down the line, Euro5 will be surpassed by Euro6, and thousands more good cars will be scrapped.
Many people just cant afford to buy a new car these days. Electric cars are very pricey, so many people will be forced to live life without a car. ( Maybe thats the whole idea)

I believe this ULEZ scheme is a cash grab, partly ‘forced’ on the Mayor by this Tory government, but a cash grab nonetheless

[E10EU]

Seems that health and wellbeing (for children and adults) is of no interest to politicians when they see their own generous mealticket threatened.
Starmer was fully supportive of ULEZ until Labour didn't win the majority in Uxbridge byelection he had thought was 'in the bag'.

Quite ridiculous to hear people demanding that measures to reduce air pollution should be stopped. Backward - or what?

[Daily Express bot]

how many on hear affected by this £12 charge.
FFS think its outrageous if you live in the zone just to
go to work every day will cost a bomb.

It is £12.50

[Long slender neck]

I have noticed that petrol cars only need to meet Euro4 to be able to come into London without charge.
This initially intrigued me, because Euro4 became Law in 2006, seventeen years ago.
Why use a 17 year old protocol, when there are more recent, more stringent Euro protocols, that produce even less pollutants?

I believe Mayor Khan knew there would be great resistance to the new ULEZ scheme, and to make life as easy as he could for himself, he didnt want to go the full hog at the beginning.
At the moment it is estimated that about 10% of cars, will fall foul of the new ULEZ regulations, and most of them will be diesels.
Imagine if he had decided that the Euro5 protocol would be the minimum criteria …..that would have meant 30% to 40% of cars would now not be eligible, and would have to be scrapped, and that would have caused him a lot more trouble, so by opting for the lowest Euro standard, the opposition would be the lowest he could get.

However, I believe within 18 to 24 months, the Euro4 criteria will be scrapped in favour of Euro5, so anyone with a petrol car registered in 2006,07,08,09, & 2010, will have to scrap it, or pay £12-50, every time they use it. ( By then the charge will almost certainly be raised to £15 or more)
This will mean thousands of perfectly good cars, will be heading to the crusher.
Probably another 2 years down the line, Euro5 will be surpassed by Euro6, and thousands more good cars will be scrapped.
Many people just cant afford to buy a new car these days. Electric cars are very pricey, so many people will be forced to live life without a car. ( Maybe thats the whole idea)

I believe this ULEZ scheme is a cash grab, partly ‘forced’ on the Mayor by this Tory government, but a cash grab nonetheless

"Perfectly good" cars or polluting, health and climate destroying cars?

[Daily Express bot]

Crazy that you can pay to pollute in an old if you have unlimited funds available, whereas this on a tight budget have ti get rid of their trusty old runaround car they use perhaps on a weekend to go shopping.

[gshaw]

Seems that health and wellbeing (for children and adults) is of no interest to politicians when they see their own generous mealticket threatened.
Starmer was fully supportive of ULEZ until Labour didn't win the majority in Uxbridge byelection he had thought was 'in the bag'.

Quite ridiculous to hear people demanding that measures to reduce air pollution should be stopped. Backward - or what?

Except a) the air in the expansion area isn't anywhere near as bad as Khan is making out and b) the scientific studies are showing little to no benefit of implementing it

"Follow the science"... apart from when it doesn't suit the political agenda then you can say "no not *that* science"

[Long slender neck]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-envi ... 610600.amp

Fake news gshaw

[gshaw]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-envi ... 610600.amp

Fake news gshaw

BBC are doing what Khan tells them to, just repeating this one to highlight the kind of chancers we're dealing with here

More allegations of impropriety by Khan's Deputy Mayor Shirley Rodrigues, this time in relation to a study that looked at the impact of low emission zones in London on children's health.

Khan’s deputy urged scientists to alter study showing emissions scheme had no impact on child health.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/ ... r-AA1fDnoc

According to emails, Rodrigues asked Prof. Chris Griffiths of Queen Mary University whether he could "reword" the conclusion to his report on the basis that "it reads like Lez (low emissions zones) or similar have no impact at all." (on children's health)

He replied "Apologies - it’s difficult to alter the sentence you refer to as it’s what we set out to look for but didn’t find."

[o-no]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-envi ... 610600.amp

Fake news gshaw

BBC are doing what Khan tells them to, just repeating this one to highlight the kind of chancers we're dealing with here

More allegations of impropriety by Khan's Deputy Mayor Shirley Rodrigues, this time in relation to a study that looked at the impact of low emission zones in London on children's health.

Khan’s deputy urged scientists to alter study showing emissions scheme had no impact on child health.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/ ... r-AA1fDnoc

According to emails, Rodrigues asked Prof. Chris Griffiths of Queen Mary University whether he could "reword" the conclusion to his report on the basis that "it reads like Lez (low emissions zones) or similar have no impact at all." (on children's health)

He replied "Apologies - it’s difficult to alter the sentence you refer to as it’s what we set out to look for but didn’t find."

Is that like "Read the news report"... apart from when it doesn't suit your argument then you can say "no not *that* news report, this completely unbiased one from the Telegraph"

[faldO]

The science around ULEZ has been an almost textbook example of marking your own homework.

Khan and City Hall commissioned a number of research reports to support ULEZ policy. When that research didn't support their claims they appear to have tried to get the findings altered.

From the BBC article quoted above by LSN:

By October 2022, Ulez had reduced NO2 levels next to the roadside by an estimated 46% in central London and by 21% in inner London, according to a City Hall report reviewed by Imperial College London.

Peer reviews are usually done by a minimum of 2 independent experts. This City Hall report was peer reviewed by one person, Gary Fuller, author of "The Invisible Killer - The Rising Global Threat Of Air Pollution".

Reports like this are then used as "debate over, science settled", the benefits of ULEZ are unequivocal.

It is no wonder some people have genuine concerns around the "science" behind ULEZ and the real motives behind the policy.

[RedDwarf 1881]

I have noticed that petrol cars only need to meet Euro4 to be able to come into London without charge.
This initially intrigued me, because Euro4 became Law in 2006, seventeen years ago.
Why use a 17 year old protocol, when there are more recent, more stringent Euro protocols, that produce even less pollutants?

I believe Mayor Khan knew there would be great resistance to the new ULEZ scheme, and to make life as easy as he could for himself, he didnt want to go the full hog at the beginning.
At the moment it is estimated that about 10% of cars, will fall foul of the new ULEZ regulations, and most of them will be diesels.
Imagine if he had decided that the Euro5 protocol would be the minimum criteria …..that would have meant 30% to 40% of cars would now not be eligible, and would have to be scrapped, and that would have caused him a lot more trouble, so by opting for the lowest Euro standard, the opposition would be the lowest he could get.

However, I believe within 18 to 24 months, the Euro4 criteria will be scrapped in favour of Euro5, so anyone with a petrol car registered in 2006,07,08,09, & 2010, will have to scrap it, or pay £12-50, every time they use it. ( By then the charge will almost certainly be raised to £15 or more)
This will mean thousands of perfectly good cars, will be heading to the crusher.
Probably another 2 years down the line, Euro5 will be surpassed by Euro6, and thousands more good cars will be scrapped.
Many people just cant afford to buy a new car these days. Electric cars are very pricey, so many people will be forced to live life without a car. ( Maybe thats the whole idea)

I believe this ULEZ scheme is a cash grab, partly ‘forced’ on the Mayor by this Tory government, but a cash grab nonetheless

It's a great way to tax the poor off the roads and of course its nothing more than a cash grab .

[Long slender neck]

Are you conspiraloons trying to claim that taking the most polluting vehicles off the road WONT reduce pollution? Because that sounds idiotic.

[gshaw]

Are you conspiraloons trying to claim that taking the most polluting vehicles off the road WONT reduce pollution? Because that sounds idiotic.

Here's the thing, for the cost of all the cameras, installation, data network, admin, advertising etc etc etc you could create a well funded vehicle trade-in scheme to help people into newer cleaner vehicles (or offer them multi year public transport passes as an alternative)

However it's all about ongoing fines and revenue stream hence the focus is on enforcement. Same reason we have some of the worst value public transport in Europe yet the hypocrites in Government harp on about Net Zero. All about the money, as always.

Some eye watering numbers here

Each camera 10-15k to install

https://www.google.com/amp/s/uk.finance ... 31983.html

The network now comprising 2750 cameras (big jump from that 2021 figure)

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transpo ... 96311.html

Is that a good use of £75 million if your first priority is to help people move into new vehicles? No it's a nice little earner in fines, especially once the next stage of their published plan comes in and the compliance threshold gets moved.

[Daily Express bot]

So because China pollutes, London shouldn't bother trying to give it's own citizens cleaner air? Righto. I'll just tell my kid that he has to breath in emissions at their current levels because a new coal mine has opened outside Beijing and that means it'd be hypocritical of us to do anything positive.

I’m more worried about breathing in second hand nicotine, vape smoke and skunk closer to home than traffic fumes. Especially on the underground these days where smoking seems to have made a comeback .

[Long slender neck]

Are you conspiraloons trying to claim that taking the most polluting vehicles off the road WONT reduce pollution? Because that sounds idiotic.

Here's the thing, for the cost of all the cameras, installation, data network, admin, advertising etc etc etc you could create a well funded vehicle trade-in scheme to help people into newer cleaner vehicles (or offer them multi year public transport passes as an alternative)

However it's all about ongoing fines and revenue stream hence the focus is on enforcement. Same reason we have some of the worst value public transport in Europe yet the hypocrites in Government harp on about Net Zero. All about the money, as always.

Some eye watering numbers here

Each camera 10-15k to install

https://www.google.com/amp/s/uk.finance ... 31983.html

The network now comprising 2750 cameras (big jump from that 2021 figure)

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transpo ... 96311.html

Is that a good use of £75 million if your first priority is to help people move into new vehicles? No it's a nice little earner in fines, especially once the next stage of their published plan comes in and the compliance threshold gets moved.

I agree that a national trade in/scrappage scheme is needed.

I also agree that it is a revenue stream. (Any idea why tfl might need that?) But its also the right thing to do for the environment.

It is so sad that something to encourage people out of the most polluting vehicles has become a political football. We should just be doing this no arguments.

[Currywurst and Chips]

Kind of feel for the people who bought their diesel cars after being encouraged to and financially incentivised by Gordon Brown only to now be taxed by Brown’s transport secretary for making said purchase.

Hardly surprising though given the constant creep of taxing from the 2-4 mile wide inner London ring road to the entirety of London

[Proposition Joe]

So because China pollutes, London shouldn't bother trying to give it's own citizens cleaner air? Righto. I'll just tell my kid that he has to breath in emissions at their current levels because a new coal mine has opened outside Beijing and that means it'd be hypocritical of us to do anything positive.

I’m more worried about breathing in second hand nicotine, vape smoke and skunk closer to home than traffic fumes. Especially on the underground these days where smoking seems to have made a comeback .

Then you are not a serious person. Hope this helps.

[Daily Express bot]

So because China pollutes, London shouldn't bother trying to give it's own citizens cleaner air? Righto. I'll just tell my kid that he has to breath in emissions at their current levels because a new coal mine has opened outside Beijing and that means it'd be hypocritical of us to do anything positive.

I’m more worried about breathing in second hand nicotine, vape smoke and skunk closer to home than traffic fumes. Especially on the underground these days where smoking seems to have made a comeback .

Then you are not a serious person. Hope this helps.

I don’t know what you mean exactly. I am serious and find people smoking near me very unpleasant indeed as I have asthma.

[Stowaway]

I wonder how many of the foamy-mouthed gammons slagging off the policy on here actually live in London? Because I do. I’m also a car owner, an asthmatic and very definitely not wealthy, and I absolutely endorse the ULEZ zone.

[Daily Express bot]

I wonder how many of the foamy-mouthed gammons slagging off the policy on here actually live in London? Because I do. I’m also a car owner, an asthmatic and very definitely not wealthy, and I absolutely endorse the ULEZ zone.

I live in Waltham Forest . I only have an old car which I have had for over 20 years maintaining it throughout. Use it weekends mainly . I have to get rid of it now and cannot afford a newer one at moment. Have you got a newish car? I know so many builders hard done by with this daft policy. Why should people who have money be able to poison the poor?

[Long slender neck]

They shouldn't, what do you suggest?

[faldO]

I don't think anyone on here is a "foamy-mouthed gammon" over this issue, though if questioning the veracity of the science used to justify the ULEZ expansion qualifies me then count me in.

And I live in London too.