ulez

[Proposition Joe]

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.

You demean yourself with a response like this.

[Daily Express bot]

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.

You demean yourself with a response like this.

Why? There is never a good time to breath in other people’s fumes. Glad they banned it in the ground but I have seen people smoking and vaping even in East Stand

[Proposition Joe]

You demean yourself further.

[Daily Express bot]

You demean yourself further.

Instead of speaking in code why don’t you explain yourself please as I do not have a clue what you mean.

[Daily Express bot]

You demean yourself further.

Instead of speaking in code why don’t you explain yourself please as I do not have a clue what you mean.

[Long slender neck]

Tiresome alias. Why do you keep coming back?

[o-no]

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.

There isn't really any doubt that the chemicals and particles that come out of exhausts are bad for people though is there?

And if there isn't, and it's just a question of how much difference would it make then really the question over the science is just a convenient smokescreen (ho,ho) for people who don't want to do something that might be a bit of an inconvenience to them, but is actually for the greater good.

Perfectly good compliant cars can be bought just a couple of hundred pounds.

Honestly, if we can't do this small thing what hope is there for the big decisions people need to make to keep the climate in check?

[Daily Express bot]

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.

There isn't really any doubt that the chemicals and particles that come out of exhausts are bad for people though is there?

And if there isn't, and it's just a question of how much difference would it make then really the question over the science is just a convenient smokescreen (ho,ho) for people who don't want to do something that might be a bit of an inconvenience to them, but is actually for the greater good.

Perfectly good compliant cars can be bought just a couple of hundred pounds.

Honestly, if we can't do this small thing what hope is there for the big decisions people need to make to keep the climate in check?

Couple hundred pounds? Get me one please I’ll give you a fee on top

[o-no]

They’re right there in Autotrader, not hard to find

[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.

There isn't really any doubt that the chemicals and particles that come out of exhausts are bad for people though is there?

And if there isn't, and it's just a question of how much difference would it make then really the question over the science is just a convenient smokescreen (ho,ho) for people who don't want to do something that might be a bit of an inconvenience to them, but is actually for the greater good.

Perfectly good compliant cars can be bought just a couple of hundred pounds.

Honestly, if we can't do this small thing what hope is there for the big decisions people need to make to keep the climate in check?

A quick search on Gumtree and Autotrader suggests that there are very few of any kind <= £200, let alone ULEZ-compliant ones.

Yes, there is no doubt that cars pollute, but even the reports cited by Khan say the impact of ULEZ is small to negligible in improving air quality.

Many more people die from the effects of poverty than pollution, and if ULEZ puts a disproportionate hit on 1000s of poorer people and families, then where is the real benefit - it just becomes a trade-off.

[o-no]

If you’re taking a couple of hundred pounds to mean less than £200 then you’re probably right, my point is that you don’t have to spend a huge amount to get a ulez compliant car, if you’re not too choosy. I don’t know how many die from the effects of poverty or how you would even measure that, it’s too subjective, but I don’t think that means we shouldn’t try to reduce pollution which effects everyone.

[faldO]

I don’t know how many die from the effects of poverty or how you would even measure that, it’s too subjective, but I don’t think that means we shouldn’t try to reduce pollution which effects everyone.

Look up, for example, fuel poverty deaths in the UK. They are at least to some extent measurable and quantifiable. And that's just one aspect of poverty.

[Adz]

My mum has a micra, that must be about 15 years old, worth virtually nothing but is ulez compliant.

[E10EU]

ULEZ is essentially about promoting cleaner air. Seems to me quite an important objective for a city with about 7 million inhabitants.
Quite incredible that opposition to cleaner air is being weaponised for Tory party political purpose!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... sts-london

[Long slender neck]

Londoners can get money to scrap their old banger, so no need to spend as little as £200

[Long slender neck]

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.

There isn't really any doubt that the chemicals and particles that come out of exhausts are bad for people though is there?

And if there isn't, and it's just a question of how much difference would it make then really the question over the science is just a convenient smokescreen (ho,ho) for people who don't want to do something that might be a bit of an inconvenience to them, but is actually for the greater good.

Perfectly good compliant cars can be bought just a couple of hundred pounds.

Honestly, if we can't do this small thing what hope is there for the big decisions people need to make to keep the climate in check?

A quick search on Gumtree and Autotrader suggests that there are very few of any kind <= £200, let alone ULEZ-compliant ones.

Yes, there is no doubt that cars pollute, but even the reports cited by Khan say the impact of ULEZ is small to negligible in improving air quality.

Many more people die from the effects of poverty than pollution, and if ULEZ puts a disproportionate hit on 1000s of poorer people and families, then where is the real benefit - it just becomes a trade-off.

Ulez has covered inner London since 2021, and central London since 2019.

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

Doesn't sound negligible.

[Long slender neck]

Ulez has had a smaller effect away from roadsides. A 2021 study suggested the first stage of Ulez - which covered only central London - reduced NO2 levels by less than 3% when averaged across London, and PM2.5 changes were insignificant.

However, the study highlighted that Ulez had been part of a wider air-quality scheme, including an original low-emission zone - which has covered all of London since 2008 - and measures to switch to cleaner buses and taxis. Taken together, these measures have led to much greater improvements to air quality.

I guess the likes of Faldo and a gshaw are going by the above but even then ignoring the bits they don't like.

[spen666]

If you’re taking a couple of hundred pounds to mean less than £200 then you’re probably right, ...

How stupid of people to take a couple of hundred pounds as meaning a couple of hundred pounds

[o-no]

If you’re taking a couple of hundred pounds to mean less than £200 then you’re probably right, ...

How stupid of people to take a couple of hundred pounds as meaning a couple of hundred pounds

No, my mistake, I was thinking a couple of hundred pounds was more like £200-£300 or so. Not sure the stupid quote was called for.

[faldO]

Ulez has had a smaller effect away from roadsides. A 2021 study suggested the first stage of Ulez - which covered only central London - reduced NO2 levels by less than 3% when averaged across London, and PM2.5 changes were insignificant.

However, the study highlighted that Ulez had been part of a wider air-quality scheme, including an original low-emission zone - which has covered all of London since 2008 - and measures to switch to cleaner buses and taxis. Taken together, these measures have led to much greater improvements to air quality.

I guess the likes of Faldo and a gshaw are going by the above but even then ignoring the bits they don't like.

Nothing is being ignored and your quote makes the case for me - that the current ULEZ expansion coming into force tonight has minimal benefits without being considered alongside other measures.

I am not against LEZs per se, but I am against a universal charge coming in now that will hit poorer people unfairly at a time when people are squeezed financially and many people simply cannot afford to pay it.

The science upon which the ULEZ expansion policy is based is at least inconclusive, and when Khan and his office don't like the results from the reports they paid for they seek to change them.

There is also evidence that particulate matter from brakes and tyres is at least as dangerous to health as exhausts emissions (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51049326). Why not then put a charge in place for all cars, or on the huge gas guzzlers being driven around in London, the Range Rovers/Mercs/Audis/4x4s or on cars above a particular price point, targeting people who are much more likely to be able to afford the charge.

It is always the benefits of ULEZ that are espoused, because they are emotive - who wouldn't want to save the lives of children? But there are costs, tangible and intangible, and they should be considered too.

[Long slender neck]

Ulez has had a smaller effect away from roadsides. A 2021 study suggested the first stage of Ulez - which covered only central London - reduced NO2 levels by less than 3% when averaged across London, and PM2.5 changes were insignificant.

However, the study highlighted that Ulez had been part of a wider air-quality scheme, including an original low-emission zone - which has covered all of London since 2008 - and measures to switch to cleaner buses and taxis. Taken together, these measures have led to much greater improvements to air quality.

I guess the likes of Faldo and a gshaw are going by the above but even then ignoring the bits they don't like.

Nothing is being ignored and your quote makes the case for me - that the current ULEZ expansion coming into force tonight has minimal benefits without being considered alongside other measures.

I am not against LEZs per se, but I am against a universal charge coming in now that will hit poorer people unfairly at a time when people are squeezed financially and many people simply cannot afford to pay it.

The science upon which the ULEZ expansion policy is based is at least inconclusive, and when Khan and his office don't like the results from the reports they paid for they seek to change them.

There is also evidence that particulate matter from brakes and tyres is at least as dangerous to health as exhausts emissions (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51049326). Why not then put a charge in place for all cars, or on the huge gas guzzlers being driven around in London, the Range Rovers/Mercs/Audis/4x4s or on cars above a particular price point, targeting people who are much more likely to be able to afford the charge.

It is always the benefits of ULEZ that are espoused, because they are emotive - who wouldn't want to save the lives of children? But there are costs, tangible and intangible, and they should be considered too.

A 2021 study suggested the first stage of Ulez - which covered only central London - reduced NO2 levels by less than 3% when averaged across London, and PM2.5 changes were insignificant.

Why would you average out the results of a scheme at the time covering just central london, across the whole of london?

Its not inconclusive, ulez reduces roadside pollution significantly.

Glad to hear you are in favour of additional taxes on the motorist.

[Daily Express bot]

Ulez has had a smaller effect away from roadsides. A 2021 study suggested the first stage of Ulez - which covered only central London - reduced NO2 levels by less than 3% when averaged across London, and PM2.5 changes were insignificant.

However, the study highlighted that Ulez had been part of a wider air-quality scheme, including an original low-emission zone - which has covered all of London since 2008 - and measures to switch to cleaner buses and taxis. Taken together, these measures have led to much greater improvements to air quality.

I guess the likes of Faldo and a gshaw are going by the above but even then ignoring the bits they don't like.

Nothing is being ignored and your quote makes the case for me - that the current ULEZ expansion coming into force tonight has minimal benefits without being considered alongside other measures.

I am not against LEZs per se, but I am against a universal charge coming in now that will hit poorer people unfairly at a time when people are squeezed financially and many people simply cannot afford to pay it.

The science upon which the ULEZ expansion policy is based is at least inconclusive, and when Khan and his office don't like the results from the reports they paid for they seek to change them.

There is also evidence that particulate matter from brakes and tyres is at least as dangerous to health as exhausts emissions (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51049326). Why not then put a charge in place for all cars, or on the huge gas guzzlers being driven around in London, the Range Rovers/Mercs/Audis/4x4s or on cars above a particular price point, targeting people who are much more likely to be able to afford the charge.

It is always the benefits of ULEZ that are espoused, because they are emotive - who wouldn't want to save the lives of children? But there are costs, tangible and intangible, and they should be considered too.

Yes I agree with what you say , especially ‘who would not want to save the lives of children’. This is where I find it odd. We want to save their lives but if you pay £12.50 it does not really matter , carry on polluting!

[JimbO]

I guess the likes of Faldo and a gshaw are going by the above but even then ignoring the bits they don't like.

Nothing is being ignored and your quote makes the case for me - that the current ULEZ expansion coming into force tonight has minimal benefits without being considered alongside other measures.

I am not against LEZs per se, but I am against a universal charge coming in now that will hit poorer people unfairly at a time when people are squeezed financially and many people simply cannot afford to pay it.

The science upon which the ULEZ expansion policy is based is at least inconclusive, and when Khan and his office don't like the results from the reports they paid for they seek to change them.

There is also evidence that particulate matter from brakes and tyres is at least as dangerous to health as exhausts emissions (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51049326). Why not then put a charge in place for all cars, or on the huge gas guzzlers being driven around in London, the Range Rovers/Mercs/Audis/4x4s or on cars above a particular price point, targeting people who are much more likely to be able to afford the charge.

It is always the benefits of ULEZ that are espoused, because they are emotive - who wouldn't want to save the lives of children? But there are costs, tangible and intangible, and they should be considered too.

Yes I agree with what you say , especially ‘who would not want to save the lives of children’. This is where I find it odd. We want to save their lives but if you pay £12.50 it does not really matter , carry on polluting!

Yep but if you have a few quid you're car will much more likely be newer and much more likely to qualify. We've got a 13 year Old motor which qualifies by about 18 months. Can't afford a new one due to having had a new boiler put in and needing new windows and probably a new roof.

[ComeOnYouOs]

There are many that have the opinion that these cameras that are now being used for ULEZ, will in a couple of years be used for road pricing scheme.
This is possible, although the Mayor has denied he has plans to do this.
If this does come in, and I say if, then cars designed to a less stringent emissions protocol, will pay more per mile than new cars, again meaning the poorest in society will again suffer the most.
The whole idea is to drive (excuse the pun) people out of their cars, to have a car free city.
I am willing to bet, that when all petrol cars have disappeared, then the taxes will start on electric cars too.
It's all a money grab

[faldO]

Yes I agree with what you say , especially ‘who would not want to save the lives of children’. This is where I find it odd. We want to save their lives but if you pay £12.50 it does not really matter , carry on polluting!

Indeed...