Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Loin Cloth Lenny wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 7:42 pm

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 7:31 pm

Loin Cloth Lenny wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 6:14 pm

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.

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:05 pm

Loin Cloth Lenny wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 7:42 pm

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 7:31 pm

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.

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:31 pm You demean yourself further.

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:31 pm You demean yourself further.

faldO wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:02 pm 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.

o-no wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:49 pm

faldO wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:02 pm 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?

o-no wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:49 pm

faldO wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:02 pm 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?

o-no wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 9:45 pm 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 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 9:37 pm

o-no wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:49 pm

faldO wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:02 pm 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 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.

o-no wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 9:45 pm If you’re taking a couple of hundred pounds to mean less than £200 then you’re probably right, ...

spen666 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 9:39 am

o-no wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 9:45 pm 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

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 7:53 am

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.

faldO wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 10:06 am

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 7:53 am

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.

faldO wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 10:06 am

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 7:53 am

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.

Loin Cloth Lenny wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 10:13 am

faldO wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 10:06 am

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 7:53 am

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!

Loin Cloth Lenny wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 10:13 am 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!