ULEZ expansion ruled lawful by High Court

[Earl Aelfheah]

New data also suggests ULEZ is working in reducing air pollution:

https://www.london.gov.uk/media-centre/mayors-press-releases/new-data-shows-mayors-ulez-expansion-working-better-expected-bringing-cleaner-air-five-million-more 

[Spartacus]

According to Bromley, it's not made a positive difference 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-pollution-levels-report-bromley-b1180676.html

Guess the truth depends on where you stand at the time 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

8 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

According to Bromley, it's not made a positive difference  

“The increase was blamed on “seasonal weather and temperature variations” and only eight of the [32] locations saw more nitrogen dioxide by December last year than in August 2023.”

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

18 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

According to Bromley, it's not made a positive difference 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-pollution-levels-report-bromley-b1180676.html

Guess the truth depends on where you stand at the time 

Wow, that's the most misleading headline. It didn't show an increase, except for at a handful of monitoring sites at specific times, which it accepts were down to weather. The council is openly hostile to ULEZ, and yet:

"When comparing the data with 2022, the report concludes: “What cannot be seen at present is an overall lowering in pollution levels that can be directly attributed to the implementation of Ulez in outer London.”

Meanwhile, serious, London wide monitoring shows clear and significant reductions in air pollution.

[malumbu]

Daft speculation by many people, dependent on multiple factors, measurements supplemented by sophisticated modelling.  Essentially cleaner vehicles equals less pollution.  The academics will get some handle on how much ULEZ accelerated air quality improvements.  And as for Bromley the 30 mph borough......

[malumbu]

Found this interesting article on Mayor Khan being found not guilty of bringing  mayoralty into disrepute over anti-Ulez protester remarks and similarly an accusation of bullying, following a meeting in Ealing last year.  His comments refer to the conspiracy theorists who attached themselves to any measures to reduce pollution and carbon emissions.  We have a few of them in my street, who also don't believe in Covid, vaccinations and the like.

Hooray for free speech.  https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-ulez-protesters-joining-hands-with-far-right-ealing-meeting-b1124552.html

 

 

[Spartacus]

13 hours ago, malumbu said:

 His comments refer to the conspiracy theorists who attached themselves to any measures to reduce pollution and carbon emissions.  We have a few of them in my street, who also don't believe in Covid, vaccinations and the like.

 

 

Love the tenuous way you try to lump motorists in with covid deniers 

As with any two groups of people (as viewed as a Venn diagram) some will fall into each group and a small minority will fall into both. 

You must try harder 3/10 

[malumbu]

And an even lower score for you in not comprehending my post.  This is people objecting to measures that impinge on motorists.  That is not the majority of motorists who either are on side, not bothered or grumpily accept it.  The protests in Oxford against LTNs and the fabricated notion of 15 minute cities being imposed, were very much infiltrated by the conspiracy theorist brigade who no doubt joined in some of the anti ULEZ expansion campaigns.

[shuntman]

Why do some useless idiots continue to use such smear terms as C theorists?

You can see on the C40 website what their agenda is for yourself

Were the electorate consulted? No?

If you see any comment saying phrases such as "tin foil hat wearer" or "conspiracy theorist" these are usually deliberate trolls who are paid to promote the main narrative on behalf of the wef/globalists/bankers

The previous comment includes such derogatory phrases such as "fabricated" but that's to smear those of us who can see clearly through their narxist bolshevik propaganda.

 

On 09/09/2024 at 20:18, malumbu said:

Daft speculation by many people, dependent on multiple factors, measurements supplemented by sophisticated modelling.  Essentially cleaner vehicles equals less pollution.  The academics will get some handle on how much ULEZ accelerated air quality improvements.  And as for Bromley the 30 mph borough......

Note the typical narxists propagandists communication.

1. Talk down pretending valid opinions are inferior to their propaganda without any evidence.

2. Attempt to muddy the waters with phrases such as "muitiple factors" again with no supporting evidence

3. Use of modelling rather than actual real life measurements. This can be twisted and distorted to fit their NetZero nutters agenda. And it's usually distorted for worst case scenarios that never occur.

4. Use of one of the generalised propaganda smear labels, denier, far right, conspiracy theorist, 

And yes I am now, after much reasearch and experience, happily and proudly anti vaxx. Why would I put something into my body that contains aluminium, thiomersal or nano particles into my body? No thanks.

Since you brought the subject up where did flu disappear to in 2020/21 according to WHO? You can see the graph on this page for medical professionals.

Just scroll down a bit

https://www.mednet.ca/en/report/flu-is-back-understanding-and-preventing-influen.html

I wonder what the flu was rediagnosed as during that time eh?

[malumbu]

In deed, nutter is the appropriate term.  You appear to have identified as one.

So a few facts, medical experts, epidemiologists (people who look at statistics on illness and death) and other experts have determined that Nitrogen dioxide and soot particles are toxic.  In amounts seen in ambient air, that is the stuff that we breath in, they lead to lung and heart issues, and other illnesses.  The main source is from motor vehicles.  A coroners' court in Lewisham found that air pollution was the cause of death of a teenager.

'Reduce the number of older more polluting vehicles with newer cleaner vehicles will reduce this pollution.

Until maybe 15 years ago education and knowledge was seen to be a good thing, something we should aspire to, and something that would improve society.  And then along came the populist politicians, most from rather entitled backgrounds, money, private education and the like, spreading the message that it is good to look down on expertise and education, and that we can all find information that supports some extreme counter-argument, particularly on line.  And people fall for this.

Generally this nonsense is shared on FB, Nextdoor.com and LinkedIn. Not often here

You ask what the multiple factors are that determine levels of pollution, these include:

Weather, atmospheric turbulence, wind direction, determines how pollution is dispersed

Topography (hills etc)

Urban environment, buildings can stop pollution dispersing, trees and greenery can trap pollution

Vehicle speed and density

Vehicle type, trucks, buses, cars, motorbikes, diesel/petrol, electric, exhaust treatment and the condition of this, engine tuning, engine condition, condition of air filters, temperature of the exhaust.

How vehicles are driven, smoother driving = less emissions

Can you tell me all about these? 

So this is not an easy thing to assess going forward (you cannot measure things that have not happened).  Forecasting the weather is a similar matter, and the development of super computers in the 60s and 70s, ultimately leading to the digital age we now live in.  But there are downsides too, including the amount of nonsense made up that is on line.   Going back to the start of my conversation above

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercomputer

I'm not sure if you are for real or some hoax trying to stir things up (and if you are, well you've caught me out, but on the positive allowed me to post some truths).

 

 

Edited October 21, 2024 by malumbu

[Dulwich dweller]

17 hours ago, shuntman said:

Why do some useless idiots continue to use such smear terms as C theorists?

You can see on the C40 website what their agenda is for yourself

Were the electorate consulted? No?

If you see any comment saying phrases such as "tin foil hat wearer" or "conspiracy theorist" these are usually deliberate trolls who are paid to promote the main narrative on behalf of the wef/globalists/bankers

The previous comment includes such derogatory phrases such as "fabricated" but that's to smear those of us who can see clearly through their narxist bolshevik propaganda.

 

Note the typical narxists propagandists communication.

1. Talk down pretending valid opinions are inferior to their propaganda without any evidence.

2. Attempt to muddy the waters with phrases such as "muitiple factors" again with no supporting evidence

3. Use of modelling rather than actual real life measurements. This can be twisted and distorted to fit their NetZero nutters agenda. And it's usually distorted for worst case scenarios that never occur.

4. Use of one of the generalised propaganda smear labels, denier, far right, conspiracy theorist, 

And yes I am now, after much reasearch and experience, happily and proudly anti vaxx. Why would I put something into my body that contains aluminium, thiomersal or nano particles into my body? No thanks.

Since you brought the subject up where did flu disappear to in 2020/21 according to WHO? You can see the graph on this page for medical professionals.

Just scroll down a bit

https://www.mednet.ca/en/report/flu-is-back-understanding-and-preventing-influen.html

I wonder what the flu was rediagnosed as during that time eh?

That tweet is absolute bonkers.

No cars, meat, dairy and 3 items of clothing per year? So the end of at least two industries plus billions in lost revenues for the exchequer! Where's the jobs and shortfall coming from?

Edited October 22, 2024 by Dulwich dweller
to add another sentence

[Rockets]

Has RaptorTruckman gone full circle?

[shuntman]

On 22/10/2024 at 04:02, Dulwich dweller said:

That tweet is absolute bonkers.

No cars, meat, dairy and 3 items of clothing per year? So the end of at least two industries plus billions in lost revenues for the exchequer! Where's the jobs and shortfall coming from?

Why is the post bonkers when it quotes from the C40 website eh?

Don't you really mean the the C40 plan that The Khan't has signed London up to is bonkers?

That's what the tweet quotes, it's informative but I guess you are just another low information online useless idiot that will just go along with the blind

Yes the agenda is totally and 100% nuts but so is paying farmers not to produce food, importing more food as the UK's food self sufficiency continues to drop, buying up good farmland for wind turbines which will always need to be backed up with other energy such as gas and the current nonsense about rewilding too.

As Voltairs said & I will say this in reference to the NetZero nutters agenda " It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere" and also "It is more difficult to convince people that they have been fooled than it is to fool them in the first place"

But that hasn't stopped the Pretty Vacant administration from honoring over £11bn for NetZero when they took power and now allocated a further £22bn to carbon capture ....which is only what trees do naturally anyway via a process that used to be taught in schools: photsynthesis.

Edited October 24, 2024 by shuntman

[Dulwich dweller]

18 hours ago, shuntman said:

Why is the post bonkers when it quotes from the C40 website eh?

 

18 hours ago, shuntman said:

No cars, meat, dairy and 3 items of clothing per year?

^^^^^^^^^That is why.

 

18 hours ago, shuntman said:

that The Khan't has signed

Oooh, very creative and original.

 

18 hours ago, shuntman said:

That's what the tweet quotes, it's informative

No meat, No cars. dairy and three items of clothing per year isn't informative. It's cobblers,hyperbole and stinks of conspiracy theorists usual OTT sensationalism.

18 hours ago, shuntman said:

but I guess you are just another low information online useless idiot that will just go along with the blind

Irony isn't your strong point is it!!

If you can prove to me that there'll be no meat, cars. dairy and only three clothing items allowed per year i might consider you not to be a complete and utter moon unit that's down a very very dark rabbit hole. If not i'll have to accept that you're running with the blind sheeple who haven't done ' their research '. Now some proof please. Cheers.

18 hours ago, shuntman said:

photsynthesis.

Correct spelling is ' Photosynthesis '

 

18 hours ago, shuntman said:

As Voltairs said

Wrong geezer. I think you'll find it was Voltaire that said it.

 

18 hours ago, shuntman said:

and also "It is more difficult to convince people that they have been fooled than it is to fool them in the first place"

Indeed!!!!

Edited October 25, 2024 by Dulwich dweller
Mistake

[malumbu]

https://www.london.gov.uk/media-centre/mayors-press-releases/new-evidence-reveals-all-londoners-are-now-breathing-cleaner-air-following-first-year-expanded-ultra

Long report from GLA on the impact (success) of the ULEZ.  My criticism is exactly that, it is too long making it difficult to assess unless you want to give up a couple of hours.  There has been a knee jerk/party line response from a few politicians, but I've not seen anything considered,  so perhaps many opponents are begrudgingly accepting that it is here to stay, and is improving things even if this is being exaggerated.  Or just put off by the length! As for the accusations of a  'cash grab', if that was the case (which it isn't) it's self defeating as revenues fall year by year.

A shorter report with links and Annexes would have been more helpful.

Interestingly a quick scan through HYS on the Beeb website, comments were predominately in support of the ULEZ, suggesting, as I have said, that many think it's a battle not worth fighting. 

Edited March 9, 2025 by malumbu

[Earl Aelfheah]

It's pretty clear that the ULEZ has improved air quality in London. Like you say, the idea that it's about revenue generation doesn't stack up (it's cost a lot to implement and the revenues will recede with time). The usual suspects, who vehemently oppose anything that seeks to limit or mitigate the negative impacts of motor vehicles, will not be happy whatever the data shows, or how you present it. But it's pretty clear that the ULEZ has been a success.  

[Spartacus]

Is it just the ULEZ ? 

Two of the biggest polluters have been going green, with black cab taxis and buses moving towards electric. 

I personally suspect that the removal of diesel from both fleets has had an impact on air quality and it may well he that the ULEZ has had a large impact, but along side it being introduced, other changes wete occurring. 

 

[Penguin68]

Just to note that what is lawful may not thus be necessarily beneficial or e.g. morally right. You need different sorts of tests for that. Face validity would suggest that if there are fewer 'more polluting' vehicles in an area, air quality might improve, as indeed it has been for a number of years in London. Dating indeed to (well) before the introduction of the original ULEZ. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

I don't think anyone is claiming that ULEZ is the only reason that air quality is improving. But it's clear that it's contributing. It has removed a lot of the highest polluting vehicles off our streets.

Which I think is something everyone should welcome personally.

[malumbu]

The London bus fleet has long since been cleaned up, moving to the latest Euro standard many years ago, modifying the remaining older vehicles and the general shift to hybrid and electric buses.  This all predates the ULEZ by five years or more.  Similarly older diesel taxis have long since been phased out.  The failure to meet air quality standards and the supreme court ordering government to sort this out was predominantly due to cars; commercial vehicles generally sorted out.  Johnson jumped the gun and went further on this; principally to take on his old Eton chum Cameron.  But whatever the reasons for the adoption of the ULEZ it's improved air quality and should be welcomed, rather than looking for problems, most of which will be due to fake news, political differences and/or intransigence from a few die hard drivers.

[Spartacus]

@malumbu

Diesel and petrol taxis are still on the streets of London, they are being phased out when they reach a certain age, to be replaced by electric ones but still over 50% of the fleet is not there yet.

Buses are not all electric yet and the hybrid ones only use electric motors when they sometimes move below a certain speed, but often idle when they regulate their service pumping fumes out. 

 

[malumbu]

The most polluting of London taxis are long since gone, with the earlier Low Emission Zones that ensured that they were not chucking out soot, ie black particles,  The stuff that caked old buildings.

The age limit means most of the older ones are the far less polluting Euro 6 engines.  The modern hybrids are usually three cylinder petrol engines, similarly they will all be Euro 6,  These (particularly since changes following the VW cheating scandal) throw out far less nitrogen oxides and as long as the filters are maintained and not illegally removed will catch particles of pollution.

If you see them pumping fumes out there is something wrong with the car.  I worked on much of the above.

Biggest issue I expect is cabs waiting in line leaving engines on; I recall a lot has been done to stop or dissuade this.  The black cab market is not an ideal one as it is based on expensive licenses rather than need.  Hence it all kicks off when mini cabs and Uber undercut it, that discussion is for another thread.

Cant find a picture of a black cab chucking out visible smoke so have one from South India instead

[Rockets]

On 09/03/2025 at 10:16, malumbu said:

Long report from GLA on the impact (success) of the ULEZ.  My criticism is exactly that, it is too long making it difficult to assess unless you want to give up a couple of hours.  There has been a knee jerk/party line response from a few politicians, but I've not seen anything considered,  so perhaps many opponents are begrudgingly accepting that it is here to stay, and is improving things even if this is being exaggerated.  Or just put off by the length! As for the accusations of a  'cash grab', if that was the case (which it isn't) it's self defeating as revenues fall year by year.

Any time someone puts out a very long report with a short press release summarising the "findings" you should be suspicious and rightly so. When you spend a little time looking at it you can see some glaring spin elements....for example...see point 4 of the press release...now everyone has to admit that the way it is is written you would believe that all four of the bullets are due to ULEZ....

 

https://www.london.gov.uk/media-centre/mayors-press-releases/new-evidence-reveals-all-londoners-are-now-breathing-cleaner-air-following-first-year-expanded-ultra

 

 

But look at what the actual report says....that the points raised in bullet 4 of the press release "are not attributable to ULEZ". The press release was clearly written to mislead as the authors know full well that in the first to post media world few will actually look at the detail and will just regurgitate the press release headlines. It's basic PR spin 1-0-1 - be less than 100% transparent, your supporters will parrot the headlines and by the time anyone bothers to look at the detail the narrative has been set.

 

Given the manipulation of the data in bullet 4 you have to question what else might be less than an accurate reflection of reality in the report.

 

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/London-wide ULEZ One Year Report_Mar2025.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Think that's your own spin. They've described the improvement in air quality since 2019. The report states (not surprisingly) that you cannot directly attribute all of these improvements to the ULEZ, "however schemes and policies such as the ULEZ contribute towards accelerating these improvements". It then goes on to describe the likely impact of ULEZ, based on modelling (which is really the best you can do in comparing the current state to an alternative, potential state). The point is (as discussed above) that a whole raft of interventions by the Mayor's office have seen air quality across London improve. ULEZ is one of those and in so far as it has contributed to what amounts to a better environment for all Londoners, should be welcomed.

If you think the ULEZ has not been successful, or should be reversed, just say so. Otherwise, what really are you objecting to? Do you really expect a short press release from a external relations department to downplay a success? 

What would you like it to say? "We've done loads to improve air quality, and air quality has improved. But perhaps it's just a really big coincidence. We certainly wouldn't want to take any credit."

Edited March 17, 2025 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

2 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Think that's your own spin. They've described the improvement in air quality since 2019. The report states (not surprisingly) that you cannot directly attribute all of these improvements to the ULEZ, "however schemes and policies such as the ULEZ contribute towards accelerating these improvements".

Not my own spin but massive spin from the Mayor's office and it's in black and white and undeniable - the press release is misleading isn't it as it alludes to the fact that "all Londoners are breathing cleaner air following the first year of the expanded Ultra Low Emission Zone" and then in the bullets of the standfirst of the release states that:

1. Air quality has improved at 99% of air quality monitoring sites across London since 2019, and London’s air quality is improving at a faster rate than the rest of England [4, 5]

 

But they very report that line is taken from states that those specific trends are not attributable to ULEZ....yet the press release very much makes the claim that they are. This is wilful manipulation by whomever wrote, reviewed and then signed off the press release - I presume the independent advisory group of experts did not get a chance to review the press release as I suspect they would have pulled the Mayor's office up on the fact that it is misleading.

You cannot use that bullet as a claim that this is due to ULEZ as the press release does when the very report it is taken from clearly and categorically states it is not.

Yet another example of how those who are pushing this narrative will bend and distort the truth to their advantage - it should be really concerning to everyone that this is how people are willing to behave.

More than happy to hear any other argument as to why the Mayor presented it as such but it's pretty clear what they have done here.