The tories weaponising ULEZ

[LaPennaBianca]

I just put the Lewisham postcode for the high Street in the link. The result was 99.
Lewisham has been in the Ulez zone from the beginning. Does that mean Ulez does not work?

It's national percentiles, not the actual amount of pollution. So London remains terrible in comparison to the rest of the country (as it remains the busiest part of the country) but the actual pollution level is lower than before.

 

[BoroMart]

Nothing silly about that whatsoever. The silly bit was when we decided to base our entire society around the motor car. It's a collective madness.

I’d say it was much sillier when we decided to base it around social media

 

[JM14]

There are many other ways to keep pedestrians safe other than just been all cars. What else you gonna ban, bikes? I agree that a pedestrians shopping area is desireable, but that doesn’t need to be very big otherwise people can’t move around it easily

A city centre should be pedestrian only shopping areas, bars/restaurants. Zero need for any cars. Imagine how much nicer that would be that what we currently have

 

[BoroMart]

A city centre should be pedestrian only shopping areas, bars/restaurants. Zero need for any cars. Imagine how much nicer that would be that what we currently have

I agree, but it should be possible to drive to the outskirts of that city centre, particularly with electric cars

 

[Markburke]

London needs to do this. The air is awful. So many kids have asthma and breathing conditions. People die all the time and its usually the poorest people who live in the most badly affected areas. It's been on the cards for a very long time so I don't know why people are saying it's a shock. I'm no particular fan of Sadiq Khan but he's been the only grownup in town on this.

 

[Laughing]

It's to make money and clear the roads for rich people in their Chelsea tractors who don't give a toss about paying the fee because its peanuts to them !

b***ks I am afraid. 4 thousand premature death per year in London attributed to poor air quality tells me so.

 

[Spraggons Den]

Simple way around the issue is to get an historic vehicle over 40 years old and drive that as they are not only vehicle tax exempt but ULEZ exempt also.

 

[Fridgeman]

b***ks I am afraid. 4 thousand premature death per year in London attributed to poor air quality tells me so.

Again the report is being miss quoted it suggests that the ten million who live in London could have their life expectancy shortened by a few weeks so a 92 years and 37 week old would be reduced to 92 years 35 weeks for example then multiply these weeks by 10 million and they came up with the 4000 figure

I don’t believe there has been a reported released into the potential lose to life expectancy of the Ulez introduction ie people not going to doctor’s hospitals carers not travelling families not visiting vulnerable relatives or even people using their cars but trying to subsidise this by forging meals or medical prescriptions as well as the mental health issues so it’s not so black and white

 

[r00fie1]

Again the report is being miss quoted it suggests that the ten million who live in London could have their life expectancy shortened by a few weeks so a 92 years and 37 week old would be reduced to 92 years 35 weeks for example then multiply these weeks by 10 million and they came up with the 4000 figure

I don’t believe there has been a reported released into the potential lose to life expectancy of the Ulez introduction ie people not going to doctor’s hospitals carers not travelling families not visiting vulnerable relatives or even people using their cars but trying to subsidise this by forging meals or medical prescriptions as well as the mental health issues so it’s not so black and white

I agree with "laughing". Youre talking absolute nonsense. When I have the time I`l dig out the scientific evidence.
Never mind what you "believe" - try researching the facts.
And dont accuse medical professionals in colluding with providing "false" prescriptions and diagnosis.
If you have evidence of gross misconduct by clinicians you need to report it immediately.

 

[Fridgeman]

I am no scientist you maybe right

I did say the REPORT was MISS QUOTED or I will rephrase this there have been numerous statements made to this effect they are easily found if I am wrong about the report being miss quoted again I apologise, if I am misunderstanding again I apologise but it’s worth taking a look

 

[RedAsABeetroot]

14 for my address and, whilst I live on Teesside, I'd imagine I live further from Teesport than you (as you say you live 'fairly close').

I do live on a main road though, which just goes to demonstrate the point. It's cars which cause the greatest problem with air pollution, not industry.

I'd rather cycle behind a car than the buses we have here. The fumes from them are awful.

 

[r00fie1]

I'd rather cycle behind a car than the buses we have here. The fumes from them are awful.

Try Notts "Red" - all bio-fueled double deckers.
By-product is water vapour, so you keep warm but need your wellies

 

[Fridgeman]

Again the report is being miss quoted it suggests that the ten million who live in London could have their life expectancy shortened by a few weeks so a 92 years and 37 week old would be reduced to 92 years 35 weeks for example then multiply these weeks by 10 million and they came up with the 4000 figure

I don’t believe there has been a reported released into the potential lose to life expectancy of the Ulez introduction ie people not going to doctor’s hospitals carers not travelling families not visiting vulnerable relatives or even people using their cars but trying to subsidise this by forging meals or medical prescriptions as well as the mental health issues so it’s not so black and white

I can’t for the life of me find the example I quoted so fair enough(if I find it I will post it) to ignore

 

[Billy Horner]

I can’t for the life of me find the example I quoted so fair enough(if I find it I will post it) to ignore

That’s not how life expectancy (or any other statistic) works. If life expectancy reduces for the overall population by a few weeks, it doesn’t neatly follow that everyone within that population will simply die a few weeks earlier.

Some will die much earlier than expected, whilst others won’t be affected at all. The overall average might only be reduced by a few weeks, but for the individuals concerned the impact will be much more dramatic.

If you think about it, overall life expectancy at the moment is something like 79 for men and 83 for women, but we all know of people who died much, much younger than that. If you reduce overall life expectancy (even by a few weeks weeks), you shift the distribution of those deaths to the left and increase the number of deaths at ALL ages below the previous average.

 

[Fridgeman]

Yes I do understand that, it has come to me where this came from I will dig it out later

I think a lot of the language needs interpretation I honestly don’t know who’s right or wrong I have heard it said that the report says that the air pollution contributes to 4000 early deaths but if you swap contributes to causes the sentence takes on a whole new meaning , maybe it’s meant to cause confusion anyway it’s an interesting debate it’s just a shame it doesn’t take the down side for example people moving out of their cars to the tube which probably has a significantly higher %of air pollution

 

[Markburke]

I used to work on policy on lots of things and always found the GLA officials absolutely spot on in their analysis. In a world where you don't always know which source to trust I found them balanced and expert. But if you want to look wider the World Health Organisation reports into things like air pollution, noise pollution etc are great places to read about it. They are about as beyond reproach as you can get.

 

[Fridgeman]

I used to work on policy on lots of things and always found the GLA officials absolutely spot on in their analysis. In a world where you don't always know which source to trust I found them balanced and expert. But if you want to look wider the World Health Organisation reports into things like air pollution, noise pollution etc are great places to read about it. They are about as beyond reproach as you can get.

You know I think your right there is so much information getting batted about that I really don’t know who or what to believe so maybe a more sensible approach is just watch from afar to try and gain a better understanding

 

[Soutra]

That’s not how life expectancy (or any other statistic) works. If life expectancy reduces for the overall population by a few weeks, it doesn’t neatly follow that everyone within that population will simply die a few weeks earlier.

Some will die much earlier than expected, whilst others won’t be affected at all. The overall average might only be reduced by a few weeks, but for the individuals concerned the impact will be much more dramatic.

If you think about it, overall life expectancy at the moment is something like 79 for men and 83 for women, but we all know of people who died much, much younger than that. If you reduce overall life expectancy (even by a few weeks weeks), you shift the distribution of those deaths to the left and increase the number of deaths at ALL ages below the previous average.

All true. But the ULEZ is about INCREASING life expectancy. It's really hard to extrapolate forward. If you prolong someone's life - especially a child - who may have been susceptible to air pollution, that person may gain years and years, or on the basis that they are likely to be susceptible to more than just air pollution, it may only be a few weeks.

The only way is to look at it is in retrospect, but looking backwards at 2023 from 2043 doesn't help at all with government and local authorities' air pollution policies in 2023.

The row here is whether City Hall is rewriting science to meet Khan's agenda. How can you strip out all the other variables like diet and lifestyle and project into the future? Is an increased average lifespan by 2123 really "saving thousands of lives"?

 

[Laughing]

All true. But the ULEZ is about INCREASING life expectancy. It's really hard to extrapolate forward. If you prolong someone's life - especially a child - who may have been susceptible to air pollution, that person may gain years and years, or on the basis that they are likely to be susceptible to more than just air pollution, it may only be a few weeks.

The only way is to look at it is in retrospect, but looking backwards at 2023 from 2043 doesn't help at all with government and local authorities' air pollution policies in 2023.

The row here is whether City Hall is rewriting science to meet Khan's agenda. How can you strip out all the other variables like diet and lifestyle and project into the future? Is an increased average lifespan by 2123 really "saving thousands of lives"?

Soutra here is one of many studies done on the dangers of air pollution, from public health england. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-air-pollution/health-matters-air-pollution

Are you seriously suggesting that this and other studies are being subverted by the London Mayoral office to support Khans ULEZ expansion?

The one I have linked estimates the number of deaths that airpollution contributes to, 30k would be somwhere in the middle of the estimates. It also estimates what a 1 microgram in everymetre cubed reduction would mean to public health.

The science doesn't need to be re-written or misinterpreted. It is what it is. Shocking!

 

[Fridgeman]

I can’t for the life of me find the example I quoted so fair enough(if I find it I will post it) to ignore

Can’t find it but Just heard something remarkable similar in this video (YouTube) sorry I wasn’t able to link it from my phone obviously I have no idea if it’s fact or fiction

“More Fool Them!” | Julia Hartley-Brewer’s FURIOUS Clash Over Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ Expansion

Where do you draw the line? The Ulez expansion supposedly will have a small to negligible impact on air quality but will hit some people and businesses very hard but if we consider life expectancy and general health do we start taxing people for eating too much meat, drinking too much or even going out on a sunny day without sun cream on it sounds absurd but don’t all the above also have a detrimental effect on people’s lives and the NHS