Stop expanding the ULEZ to all the London boroughs in 2023

[clk320x]

Not many on here mentioning the London is in the top few percent for city air quality globally.......which makes me think even more it about money than any perceived danger to the relatively few that are even that sensitive to NOX and particulates.

But you can avoid paying the charge if you switch to a compliant car, so then they aren’t making any money off you…

 

[ALFAitalia]

Harmful?.....London air is not that harmful compared to many places...even places in the UK

According to the latest WHO figures, the five worst towns and cities in the UK for air pollution are:

• Warrington
• Bristol
• Stanford-Le-Hope
• Storrington
• Swansea

London Air Quality Index (AQI) and United Kingdom Air Pollution | IQAir

London Air Quality Index (AQI) is now Good. Get real-time, historical and forecast PM2.5 and weather data. Read the air pollution in London, United Kingdom with AirVisual.

www.iqair.com

World Air Quality Index (AQI) Ranking | IQAir

Keep track of the most polluted cities in the world with our air quality index (AQI) ranking.

www.iqair.com

 

[ALFAitalia]

But you can avoid paying the charge if you switch to a compliant car, so then they aren’t making any money off you…

I don't ever drive into London.....so it has no affect on me. But just because it does not affect me does not mean I have to agree with it. I don't agreed the the US death sentance either!!!

 

[TC350]

If you click on your user name above and then Account details, there is the option to change your username.

Thanks, so it does. I just have to think of another username now.

 

[clk320x]

Harmful?.....London air is not that harmful compared to many places...even places in the UK

According to the latest WHO figures, the five worst towns and cities in the UK for air pollution are:

• Warrington
• Bristol
• Stanford-Le-Hope
• Storrington
• Swansea

London Air Quality Index (AQI) and United Kingdom Air Pollution | IQAir

London Air Quality Index (AQI) is now Good. Get real-time, historical and forecast PM2.5 and weather data. Read the air pollution in London, United Kingdom with AirVisual.

www.iqair.com

World Air Quality Index (AQI) Ranking | IQAir

Keep track of the most polluted cities in the world with our air quality index (AQI) ranking.

www.iqair.com

Ah the classic ‘whataboutism’
Sadiq isn’t the mayor of Swansea so he can’t do anything about that.

 

[JHS]

But you can avoid paying the charge if you switch to a compliant car, so then they aren’t making any money off you…

What part of "not everyone can afford to just go out and change their car" do you not understand?

Link that to the reduction in market value of their non compliant car, increase in interest rates and a lack of capital which all conspires to the plebs not being in a position to change their rotboxes.

 

[TC350]

To my knowledge there has only ever been a single case where ambient exhaust pollution was cited as a cause on a UK issued death certificate, and in that case it was notable that other pre existing comorbidities were also stated.

Like smoking, air pollution is seen as a contributory factor, so is rarely listed on death certificates.

Imperial College London, globally renowned experts in air quality research, have looked at the health burden of air pollution in London.  Their research found that in 2019, toxic air contributed to the premature deaths of around 4,000 Londoners. This includes deaths from all causes, including respiratory, lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases.  

The current ULEZ in central and inner London is projected to help avoid one million air pollution-related hospital admissions and save the NHS and social care sector £5bn by 2050.

What is the evidence that air pollution leads to around 4,000 premature deaths?

www.london.gov.uk

 

[ALFAitalia]

"Contributed to"....not caused by. Much like most COVID victims died WITH Covid....not OF Covid. How many deaths can be put directly down the particulate matter?....if it "only" contributed to 4000 deaths. The number who died directly as a result of pollution must be tiny....not saying any is acceptable.....just needs to be taken in proportion with all the other daily risks.

 

[markjay]

[/QUOTE]

..Link that to the reduction in market value of their non compliant car...

And why would that be? Ex-London older Diesel cars are being sold to happy customers elsewhere in the UK for good money. The ULEZ expansion is a London thing, the market for Diesel cars in the rest of the UK (with a few exceptions) is still going strong.

Obviously, trading-in any car via a trader will involve a cost, the trader had to make money, I am not denying that, but other than that there's no reason to assume that Londoners won't be getting market value for their Diesel cars.

 

[TC350]

"Contributed to"....not caused by. Much like most COVID victims died WITH Covid....not OF Covid. How many deaths can be put directly down the particulate matter?....if it "only" contributed to 4000 deaths. The number who died directly as a result of pollution must be tiny....not saying any is acceptable.....just needs to be taken in proportion with all the other daily risks.

That’s nonsense. It’s like saying that nobody has died from smoking, so cigarettes are perfectly safe. People don’t die from smoking, they die from heart attacks or respiratory failure, with smoking being a contributory cause.

 

[ALFAitalia]

Not really the same thing! Heart attacks or respiratory failure are a direct result of smoking....where does it say in that report how many people died as a direct consequence of breathing in London air? Same as most covid victims were suffering from other conditions. Which is why I, like most, didn't die from it the two or three times I had it.

 

[W1ghty]

Some interesting articles cropping up today , that the signage may be incorrect because the fine for the zone isn’t detailed

Ulez signs ‘could be unlawful’ after tribunal ruling

Business owner’s fines overturned after he complains that signs about existing low emission zone do not make charges clear

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[JHS]

And why would that be? Ex-London older Diesel cars are being sold to happy customers elsewhere in the UK for good money. The ULEZ expansion is a London thing, the market for Diesel cars in the rest of the UK (with a few exceptions) is still going strong.

Obviously, trading-in any car via a trader will involve a cost, the trader had to make money, I am not denying that, but other than that there's no reason to assume that Londoners won't be getting market value for their Diesel cars.
[/QUOTE]
That would may well apply if they were to part ex out of London, but can you really see any London dealer giving market part ex?
"Sorry guv, no demand for non euro 6 diesels now"

 

[JHS]

Sorry, hit quote button!

 

[clk320x]

What part of "not everyone can afford to just go out and change their car" do you not understand?

Link that to the reduction in market value of their non compliant car, increase in interest rates and a lack of capital which all conspires to the plebs not being in a position to change their rotboxes.

The point is that you can find a ULEZ compliant car for the same price - you may be buying something older though.

It’s a disadvantage for some, but a lot of people CAN afford to but wouldn’t have switched had it not been for the scheme.

 

[clk320x]

Not really the same thing! Heart attacks or respiratory failure are a direct result of smoking....where does it say in that report how many people died as a direct consequence of breathing in London air? Same as most covid victims were suffering from other conditions. Which is why I, like most, didn't die from it the two or three times I had it.

Air pollution is not often put on death certificates because it directly leads to the incidence of other ailments which is what in turn lead to death. There’s so much peer reviewed research supporting the link between NoX and Pm2.5 to a vast array of health outcomes which shorten life expectancy. Have a look on PubMed if you want to read research journals on PM2.5 and NoX effects on humans.

 

[TC350]

Not really the same thing! Heart attacks or respiratory failure are a direct result of smoking....where does it say in that report how many people died as a direct consequence of breathing in London air? Same as most covid victims were suffering from other conditions. Which is why I, like most, didn't die from it the two or three times I had it.

I think it's very much the same thing. Very many people die from heart attacks or respiratory failure, without smoking being a contributory reason. Whilst many others die early from those two reasons as a consequence of having been smokers. Fortunately, not everyone who lives and/or works in London will die early as a result of breathing in its air. But research suggests that many will.

You were fortunate to have survived Covid, most likely because you're not one of the more than 15 million people - 30% of the UK population - that live with one or more long-term conditions. As with Covid, it's those 15 million people who are at greater risk of their conditions worsening and resulting in earlier deaths as a result of inhaling polluted air. Should we just ignore all those people because they may die early anyway?

 

[tonysmb]

The problem in the UK, as is often the case, is that individual councils are doing their own thing and there isn't any consistency in policies. France has a simple, nationwide system, which is easily understood and the same standards/policies apply wherever you are in the country. Why can't we do that?

 

[JHS]

The point is that you can find a ULEZ compliant car for the same price - you may be buying something older though.

It’s a disadvantage for some, but a lot of people CAN afford to but wouldn’t have switched had it not been for the scheme.

Deleted

 

[TeddyRuxpin]

Like smoking, air pollution is seen as a contributory factor, so is rarely listed on death certificates.

Imperial College London, globally renowned experts in air quality research, have looked at the health burden of air pollution in London.  Their research found that in 2019, toxic air contributed to the premature deaths of around 4,000 Londoners. This includes deaths from all causes, including respiratory, lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases.  

The current ULEZ in central and inner London is projected to help avoid one million air pollution-related hospital admissions and save the NHS and social care sector £5bn by 2050.

What is the evidence that air pollution leads to around 4,000 premature deaths?

www.london.gov.uk

Did you actually bother reading these reports or are you just happy to copy/paste whatever it says on government websites? Your sources are only from 1) the London.gov website 2) A report commissioned by TFL/GLA and published AFTER the plans were already made for ULEZ to be introduced and expanded.

Press release for the Imperial paper: London pollution has improved with evidence for small initial ULEZ effect: study | Imperial News | Imperial College London
Full paper: ShieldSquare Captcha

Here are some quotes for you picked at random:

"Between 2016 and 2020, the number of Londoners living in areas with illegally high levels of nitrogen dioxide fell by 94 per cent, and alongside this there were other reductions in London’s air pollution. New research from Imperial has found that changes in air pollution around the introduction of the ULEZ in April 2019 were small in comparison to these longer-term improvements."

"They found that, compared to the overall decrease in London’s air pollution levels, the ULEZ caused only small improvements in air quality in the weeks following its start date: an average reduction of less than 3 per cent for nitrogen dioxide concentrations, and insignificant effects on ozone and particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations."

"They also found that the biggest improvements in air quality in London in fact took place before the ULEZ was introduced in 2019."

"Among these sites, changes in air pollution varied quite significantly and at some sites pollution actually worsened, with relative changes ranging from -9 per cent to 6 per cent for nitrogen dioxide, -5 per cent to 4 per cent for ozone, and -6 per cent to 4 per cent for PM2.5."

If you read that paper properly and truly think that the introduction of this policy is primarily been for health benefits given the relatively tiny impact on pollution (and when electric car uptake in London is already rapidly increasing and EURO 5 and earlier diesels are 'naturally' dying anyway) then... I don't know what to tell you. The source matters - and if you can only provide supporting info from the people pushing the policy...

Since everybody is keen to make a reference to smoking, the introduction of a New Zealand style ban on the registration of non ULEZ compliant cars to anybody in London ULEZ zones after e.g. 29th August 2023 (as I mentioned earlier in the thread) would have been a much fairer way to implement it (at least for those living in London and not driving in) - especially given how minimal the impact of ULEZ is on pollution. It would stop the introduction of more polluting cars to the area and wouldn't have required thousands of cameras all over the capital, only on the edges. But that kind of approach didn't happen did it... can't think why.

It's so obviously primarily about money and bankrolling the installation of cameras across the capital.