bpg
Full Member
Posts: 2,809
|
Post by bpg on May 24, 2021 8:25:31 GMT
How is it ‘nonsense’ to reduce emissions that are now known to have potentially fatal consequences? Getting out of bed in the morning is potentially fatal but so is not getting out of bed. Potentially growing food and rearing cattle next to carbon fuelled power stations will poison more people. It's the use of the word potentially I have issue with here, not you WdB, as though it is some kind of nailed on certainty. And the consultations showed strong public support for air quality measures — albeit stronger where the targets were HGVs and buses, suggesting many still see it as a ‘them’ problem rather than a ‘me’ problem. There's the rub for me, like the G7, these consultations take place without equal representation. The HGV and buses groups have a loud and vocal Road Haulage Association putting forward their case, the private motorist being represented by a couples of insurance companies and Brake. |
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,425 
|
Post by WDB on May 24, 2021 9:04:30 GMT
Yes, but stepping out in front of a moving bus is still only potentially fatal. Still a thing to be avoided at pretty much any cost, and the Ella Kissi-Debrah case shows it’s similar for people with respiratory conditions and diesel emissions.
|
|
bpg
Full Member
Posts: 2,809
|
Post by bpg on May 24, 2021 9:16:37 GMT
While it is distressing for an individual and their family I don't think you can make the rules for 65m off the back of one case. What about all the cases of MRSA etc. You have to start somewhere and this week it's clean air and vehicle pollution. The pollution has not gone away only been moved if everyone jumped into an EV tomorrow the Daily Express would find the sky falling in somewhere else.
My son has asthma,we don't live in a city however his breathing is badly affected in pollen season.I don't think we'll ever see a ban on agriculture within a 50 mile radius of towns and villages and not something that could reasonably be expected.
If my son were to move to a city as an adult would he be added to the bad city air pollution stats with a pre-existing condition? That would be disingenuous at best.
|
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,425
|
Post by WDB on May 24, 2021 9:45:48 GMT
It would but it’s not comparable to the South Circular case. There, the airborne pollution level was already above legal limits defined in EU law but written into UK law, and had been for ten years. In other words, the problem is not in dispute and, given that NO2 comes almost entirely from vehicles, restricting those vehicles isn’t just the only option but a legal obligation.
|
|
|
|
Post by EspadaIII on May 24, 2021 9:49:04 GMT
I fully understand that, but say you are a poor family with a family car that is just about reliable and you cannot afford to spend say £3,000 on a more modern car. But in order to keep mobile (and becuase you need the car to work), you are forced to buy a newer car. What do you do? If the replacement car has to be less polluting that the old one (in every sense) diesels will not be able to be purchased and will leave the capital to be sold in the rural areas where they are less polluting.
My son is about (I hope) to move to London for his first job. He is a trainee surveyor so needs a car. Now I can afford to change his car for him, but why should I be forced to buy a new car when the Punto is 16 years old, is perfectly reliable and overall less polluting if he keeps it than changes it. It should be emissions over the life of the car that count otherwise it just brushes the whole problem under the carpet.
|
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,425
|
Post by WDB on May 24, 2021 9:54:35 GMT
.., why should I be forced to buy a new car when the Punto is 16 years old, is perfectly reliable and overall less polluting if he keeps it than changes it? Because, in the context of where the car will be used, it’s the right thing to do. |
|
|
|
Post by EspadaIII on May 24, 2021 10:07:50 GMT
Doing 'the right thing' which is something we have instilled into our kids from Day One, is voluntary. When the Government wanted to save lives by forcing us to wear seatbelts, there was no requirement to install them in cars that did not have them. In time, people changed to newer cars that had them installed or in some more valuable cars installed them retrospectively.
I would be happy to be forced to have a less polluting car when the Punto was changed but requiring a change now simply increases the manufacture of cars which itself is highly polluting. Khan would be better to forbid the trade of Bitcoin in London; as that uses far more carbon than Portugal does.
|
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,425
|
Post by WDB on May 24, 2021 10:53:03 GMT
You’re confusing carbon dioxide pollution (global, long term) with nitrogen dioxide (local, immediate.) NO2 is the problem the ULEZ is specifically targeting. Can you think of a way to reduce the NO2 concentration in UK cities back below the legal limit without reducing the use of the main source of it, which is old, polluting vehicle engines? Stricter limits on new vehicles have been in place for years but aren’t working fast enough to produce the effect that’s required now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Humph on May 24, 2021 11:06:59 GMT
It's very easy to follow one's moral compass while easily able to afford to. Much more difficult if you're up against it financially. I've been properly skint a couple of times in my adult life and I've thankfully, periodically been comfortably off too. ( I know which I prefer of course )
I have empathy with both standpoints. No one wants to poison children, but if you have some of your own to feed, and little money to do it, and your old car or van enables or enhances your ability you to do that...
|
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,425
|
Post by WDB on May 24, 2021 12:15:24 GMT
All true. And also the reason that some common-good measures have to be enforced by law.
A lot of this, of course, stems not from motor vehicles at all, but from an economy structured to reward wealth and ownership rather than work and productivity. Until people can afford to live in the cities they work in, close enough for a car to be an occasional convenience rather than a daily necessity, many will continue to be obliged to travel too much and in ways that cause damage. No mayor of London can fix that, and no government relying for votes on the ageing affluent is likely to try.
|
|
bpg
Full Member
Posts: 2,809
|
Post by bpg on May 24, 2021 13:17:15 GMT
There are public transport options that people will turn their noses up at. People being people will always come up with reasons it is not for them because for one journey they are collecting something (delivery service?) or they need something with them, always a justification why they should be the exception. This is not a dig at anyone here, ask 100 people inside the south circular why they are driving and they will come up with some justification no matter how absurd it may sound.
If you live in a densely populated area and want the convenience of personalised transport then you should be responsible for and pay for the impact of that choice. It could be considered unreasonable that city dwellers have a government backed scheme (EV incentives) to move their pollution out on to others (where fossil fuels are burned to make the electricity). Yes, the grant is available to everyone however there's not much incentive for Doris in rural, middle of nowhere, to change her 5 year old Micra/Fiesta for a £30+k EV. In that respect ULEZ zones are justified and should target ALL vehicles regardless of propulsion, rubber still comes of EVs and pollutes. Target the penalty where the problem exists.
I'm not ignoring the fact some people can't afford to replace with the cleanest, latest and greates. If the problem is real and a public health issue exists then alternatives have to be offered before pulling the rug out from under people and it's this lack of consideration that always make people resistant to change.
Just an alternative view for what it's worth.
|
|
|
|
Post by dixinormus on May 24, 2021 21:22:17 GMT
Wouldn’t it be easier just to add 50p tax to a litre of fuel in the Greater London area? It’s a variable distance-based fee, not a flat rate. No need to legislate old cars off the road if they are used more sparingly.
The real issue is that we all need to review our attitude to personal mobility. Shop online, work from home, walk to the gym or the curry house,... Nobody likes public transport so that’s hardly a viable alternative. But we all take the car too much for granted.
|
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,425
|
Post by WDB on May 24, 2021 21:39:50 GMT
Wouldn’t it be easier just to add 50p tax to a litre of fuel in the Greater London area? Almost certainly not. Price differentials across borders create perverse effects, with people travelling disproportionate distances just to make a small 'saving'. And penalising locals on fuel prices would do nothing to keep affluent out-of-towners like me from driving their pre-2015 V6 diesels into London. Not a good result. Nobody likes public transport so that’s hardly a viable alternative. But we all take the car too much for granted. I agree with the final statement but not the one before. Londoners especially are deeply attached to their public transport and far less car-focused than most other places, certainly most other parts of the UK. There simply isn't an 'it's for them, not for us' attitude to it; pretty much everyone uses the Tube and the buses too. |
|
bpg
Full Member
Posts: 2,809
|
Post by bpg on May 25, 2021 4:54:01 GMT
Public transport being heavily used and there still being an issue around the South Circular is it possible the pollution is caused by:
1. A gap in public transport services in that area
2. The public transport being of an age where it is adding to the problem
3. Geographical or other environmental where the pollution is blowing in from surrounding areas and collecting in a bowl or similar
It's easy to collect data and point, less easy to explain why. London being surrounded pretty much on all sides by 5 international airports can't be helping. How does the data compare between pre-Covid and now ?
|
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,425
|
Post by WDB on May 25, 2021 7:47:40 GMT
None of those things was mentioned as a contributing factor in the coroner’s report on the South Circular case. Sometimes the simplest explanation — tens of thousands of diesel engines slowly passing 30m from the house — is the most useful one.
|
|
