Expanded ULEZ

[johnny2007]

Apart from the fact that air pollution does kill people every day, and every year of delay is extra people dying.

Proof please.
There is only 1, ONE death on record for pollution for the past 10 years.
Given that ulez pollution reduction will be negligible accordingly to the midget own report, this is total boll@x.

For the proposed expanded area, I would phase those non-complying vehicles out naturally. He could have said all those that have cars registered inside the proposed zone at this very moment will be allowed to continue until the vehicle is sold, stolen or scrapped. No cars in the expanded zone to be allowed into the original inner zone. No new non-complying vehicles can be registered in either zone from the date of the announcement. I think that would have been a much fairer process. Yes, it would take time but no individual or company would take an immediate financial hit and be forced into getting rid of a perfectly serviceable vehicle and paying an over inflated price for a complying one.

Exactly!
Unfortunately the midget is determined to make a ton of money from this scam.
Zero will be reinvested in roads.
ZERO.
(See first ulez inside north/south circular)

 

[Justin Passing]

Starting with the fact that pollution is not good, and then trying to reduce it, is probably better than trying to prove or argue over how much pollution 1 car mile produces?

I don't think anybody would argue that having an exhaust running directly into the house would be good, so we accept it is polluting ?

Whether we like it or not, reducing pollution is good for us, the environment and the world. The issue is surely over the best way to reduce pollution at the same time as improving the environment.

Bullshít.
Childish, stupid argument.
I've already explained.
Yes pollution is bad, but it isn't worth an infinite amount of money and grief to get rid of an infinitesimal amount of it, is it?

Come on, you aren't that moronic, are you.

 

[JohnD]

Most people who are damaged by vehicle pollution are old, or in poor health, and go unnoticed even when they die early.

What do you think happens to the elderly, or people with bronchitis, asthma or copd?

Have you ever been in the Euston underpass?

Only one youngster's death was publicised.

UK: Air pollution listed as cause of 9-year-old's death

A British coroner has ruled that excessive air pollution from traffic fumes contributed to the death of a 9-year-old girl who died of a fatal asthma attack

www.independent.co.uk

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Bullshít.
Childish, stupid argument.
I've already explained.
Yes pollution is bad, but it isn't worth an infinite amount of money and grief to get rid of an infinitesimal amount of it, is it?

Come on, you aren't that moronic, are you.

So you would be ok if exhaust fumes were pumped directly into your house? If it's not that bad it wouldn't matter. It is only the walls windows and doors that stop such fumes entering houses en masse.

It is not moronic to try and work out the best way to limit pollution is it. it may be moronic just to ignore it because it is expensive. Money doesn't buy health.

Is the Ulez the best way to control pollution is the argument surely? Not whether cars (and other things) pollute or not, that is fairly obvious, to me anyway.

 

[Justin Passing]

Most people who are damaged by vehicle pollution are old, or in poor health, and go unnoticed even when the die early.

What do you think happens to the elderly, or people with bronchitis, asthma or copd?

Only one youngster's death was publicised.

UK: Air pollution listed as cause of 9-year-old's death

A British coroner has ruled that excessive air pollution from traffic fumes contributed to the death of a 9-year-old girl who died of a fatal asthma attack

www.independent.co.uk

Any evidence, or numbers, for any of that?

And, so what, exactly?

 

[JohnD]

Giving people a few years time won't kill anybody.

Sure it will.

The dangers of diesel particulates are now well known. Did you know there are still drivers who remove or disable their particulate filters?

How many years do you need? Ten? Twenty?


"In 1998, California identified diesel PM as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) based on its potential to cause cancer. Other agencies, such as the National Toxicology Program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, concluded that exposure to diesel exhaust likely causes cancer.

The most recent assessment (2012) came from the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC’s extensive literature review led to the conclusion that diesel engine exhaust is “carcinogenic to humans,” thereby substantiating and further strengthening California’s earlier TAC determination."

 

[Justin Passing]

So you would be ok if exhaust fumes were pumped directly into your house? If it's not that bad it wouldn't matter. It is only the walls windows and doors that stop such fumes entering houses en masse.

It is not moronic to try and work out the best way to limit pollution is it. it may be moronic just to ignore it because it is expensive. Money doesn't buy health.

Is the Ulez the best way to control pollution is the argument surely? Not whether cars (and other things) pollute or not, that is fairly obvious, to me anyway.

Nobody's saying any of that stupid stuff.
Why "surely"? Do you have any figures? Which other sources do you have figures for?

A fact you need to absorb is that money, and inconvenience, DOES buy health. Are you prepared to walk everywhere to prevent all the pollutants that you car does produce, and in its manufacture?

 

[Justin Passing]

Sure it will.

The dangers of diesel particulates are now well known. Did you know there are still drivers who remove or disable their particulate filters?

How many years do you need? Ten? Twenty?


"In 1998, California identified diesel PM as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) based on its potential to cause cancer. Other agencies, such as the National Toxicology Program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, concluded that exposure to diesel exhaust likely causes cancer.

The most recent assessment (2012) came from the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC’s extensive literature review led to the conclusion that diesel engine exhaust is “carcinogenic to humans,” thereby substantiating and further strengthening California’s earlier TAC determination."

How much, how many?

 

[Mottie]

Most people who are damaged by vehicle pollution are old, or in poor health, and go unnoticed even when they die early.

What do you think happens to the elderly, or people with bronchitis, asthma or copd?

Have you ever been in the Euston underpass?

Only one youngster's death was publicised.

Any fumes are bad for you, even catalyst equipped exhaust fumes. Out of interest, what was your fuel of choice when you used to make a hundred trips a year to London just to visit friends and relatives?

 

[Justin Passing]

One thing he could have done is make the scrappage scheme available to everyone, not just disabled, PIP recipients etc.

It's £2000 to ditch a car. That would take out a lot of old people's cars.
The same group of people is getting 3 years (IIRC) to get rid of their cars of their cars. They have to pay to register ( not sure if that's annual or just once) but then it's free to go into the ULEZ for that time.

Old folk hate changing things like a car if it works for them. How about a scheme for actually helping them find a reasonable replacement?

I still think it would be good to develop an effective catalyst (etc) to fit to vehicles. They could be theft-proofed by identifiers.

 

[JohnD]

Any evidence, or numbers, for any of that?

And, so what, exactly?

Where are your figures to support your opinion that it is not enough to worry about?

How many deaths, and how much ill health, do you consider is acceptable, balanced against the wish of owners to save money?

 

[Justin Passing]

Reminder
When they make road improvements, a figure is attached to the worthwhileness of the job, by how many lives it would save.
When I heard it last, a long time ago, it was £100,000.
You spend the money, you save a life; simple, so saving a life once in 10 years wouldn't justify much of a road improvement.

 

[IT Minion]

Given that ulez pollution reduction will be negligible accordingly to the midget own report, this is total boll@x

Which report was that? I had a quick look but didn't find it

 

[Ihavenojob]

It is unusual for wider contextual factors such as exposure to pollution or air quality to be recorded among the causes of death. One death in England and Wales in the period 2001 to 2021 had exposure to air pollution (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth revision (ICD-10) code Z581) recorded on the death certificate.

Deaths in London due to poor air quality - Office for National Statistics

 

[Justin Passing]

Where are your figures to support your opinion that it is not enough to worry about?

Dumbo. I'm asking the question, for the action proposed. Otherwise all manner of action get taken without reason. SO if someone wants to support the action, provide numbers. Another childish argument.
When you give the numbers I asked for, you will need to compare with other possible expenditures by ordinary people (many with cheap cars are poorish) and assess the comparative benefits.

How many deaths, and how much ill health, do you consider is acceptable, balanced against the wish of owners to save money?

More childishness. The changer has to justify the change. I just illustrated for road junctions. Same principle applies.
By saying "the wish of owners to save money" you betray your proclivity for idle brainless thinking. That - obviously - isn't the only issue.

EG You wouldn't - because you're a troll - consider the carbon footprint of producing thousands of new cars which wouldn't othrwise have been needed.