The joys of electric car ownership!

[Phil Pascoe]

I expect he was meaning with several vehicles.

 

[Adam W.]

There's nothing quite like a myth to get the right wingers in a froth, eh?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I assume you watched it? Do tell us which parts were a myth.

 

[Adam W.]

Straight bananas.

 

[Blackswanwood]

My b.i.l. has a business south of London, they no longer accept contracts in central London as because of the nature of their work they can need go in and out of ULEZ zones several times a day.

That’s illogical. His business is on a level playing field with all others working in central London so the cost can be easily passed on to the customer.

 

[Adam W.]

There are plenty of blokes in vans driving around in the ULEZ, they don't seem to have got their knickers in a twist over it.

 

[Terrytpot]

Struck me that for a first episode they didn’t know what to attack first so settled on the shotgun approach hoping to offend or upset any and all. In one breath saying we all need to be greener and that 70% of us live somewhere with our own off street parking and then lamenting the lack of public charging facilities. Having got a bit bored with spending £300 a month on diesel myself and the Mrs have both gone ev as we have a home charger in the garage of the house we moved into last year. I get free charging at work which as I type this has just finished charging mine after the 3 day weekend I’ve just finished,tomorrow I’ll be taking hers to work and charging that one too. Neither of us do big mileage’s so won’t be needing to find any of the many chargers in our vacinity that often. Currently considering the benefits to be had from adding battery storage to our property to capitalise from lower priced energy at off peak times as we’re on octopus.

 

[J-G]

I thought you only paid once for every 24 hours period, multiple entries and exits included.

I have little interest in this subject but the basic concept does concern me - in case there is a nation-wide roll out !

However that statement does seem to cloud the issue. As I understand it, (I have been known to be wrong!) it is per DAY --- the subtle difference being if you are 'in the Zone' in any part of a calendar day that incurs a charge. Enter at 6pm on Monday and leave at 1am on Tuesday will cost you two charges.

 

[Sachakins]

and a big step to improving air quality and health.

What makes you think that a ULEZ is going to improve health and air quality?
1) Those that can afford it will still use their vehicles in the area. So no reduction in pollution levels, but a rise in council income!
2) Those not able to afford entering the ULEZ, will drive either elsewhere, thus relocating the pollution not reducing it. or clamber to park up on the edge of the ULEZ thus raising pollution in a localised area again.
3) There is so much objection to house building in rural areas and in leafy suburbs, the drive is on to build on inner city brownfield sites, even the conversion of offices and commercial premises in the city to "NEW" housing. Thus increasingly centralising people and thus affecting pollution levels.
4) The drive to coral people into central locations, which can the be turned into money generating ULEZ, thus trapping them a pseudo tax system, as as soon as the ULEZ is muted for that area, house prices will take a hit and those now there wont be able to leave because of it.

Maybe local ULEZ are not they way forward, as emissions from outside won't suddenly stop on the wind and not enter a ULEZ because of a sign.

Maybe a more radical approach is stop centralising people and business into cities. Relocate and redistribute these population centres and business centres more evenly around the country. Put the business back into local region areas, thus reducing the need for people to travel greater distances to work, more localised work oportunities reduce need for travel. and local mass transit systems are more easily constructed and affordable than national systems. Thus there costs could be so low that ticket prices are cheap and that encourages more people to use them.

Just a thought Jacob .......

 

[selectortone]

The ULEZ charge is for older vehicles that don't meet modern emission standards. I've just checked and even my old 2005 Mazda MX-5 roadster is compliant. I don't think it's unreasonable to try to discourage the use of older more polluting vehicles in our largest cities.

 

[Jacob]

What makes you think that a ULEZ is going to improve health and air quality?

The evidence.
Not just in London but from similar schemes around the world.
It's not rocket science.

The evidence is clear: low-emission zones like London’s Ulez work and a many other reports

 

[Sachakins]

The evidence.
Not just in London but from similar schemes around the world.
It's not rocket science.

The evidence is clear: low-emission zones like London’s Ulez work and a many other reports

Yes but they don't the account of the emissions transfered to outside the ULEZ! And building up elsewhere.

 

[Jacob]

Yes but they don't the account of the emissions transfered to outside the ULEZ! And building up elsewhere.

They concentrate on the zones where air pollution is most intense and undoubtedly will have made comparative tests in other regions, otherwise they wouldn't know in the first place!
There has been many years of research into these things, from way back.
They are pretty canny these scientists - they don't just choose what to believe they are very sceptical at every point. Just choosing what to believe is what the un-woke do - making up ideas to suit their prejudices

 

[Sachakins]

Wrong, they haven't done comparative testing outside the ULEZ.
If they had,it would show a transference of the emissions, which wouldn't be good fir the report.

I've done enough statistical analysis as a senior analyst for public bodies to know how they work, and they've always limited any analysis criteria beyond the study criteria to ensure exclusion of anything that could impact the study.

20 years as an Analyst in private and public sector is enough experience to know that these type of reports are skewed and modified by data omission even before the analysis is done.

Yes the analysis we see is always correct, the fact that even before the analysis starts and the analyst gets the raw data, it is already pseudo data and incomplete, but unless you are aware of that, then the analysis will always be accurate to the data, the fact that the data may have been skewed originally, precludes the accuracy of any result. Without complete and unfettered, unfiltered and unadulterated data, then your results will always fit the confined data set your given.
It doesn't mean the analysis is wrong, just that it is rarely working with the total raw data, moreover a subset decided upon by hierarchy to ensure as much as is feasibly possible that the analysis and report doesn't through up awkward information.

 

[Jacob]

Wrong, they haven't done comparative testing outside the ULEZ.

Of course they have. Has been going on for years, continually under review, from Victorian times with concerns about smoke.
Are you suggesting that ULEZ regions might actually be areas of low relative air pollution, for all we know?
Maybe areas outside ULEZ now show higher levels? Could be an argument for extending ULEZ even further?

I've done enough statistical analysis as a senior analyst for public bodies to know how they work, and they've always limited any analysis criteria beyond the study criteria to ensure exclusion of anything that could impact the study.

It might have been how you chose to work but I'm sure that general falsification and fiddling isn't common practice, except in the private sector of course; nicotine, asbestos, alcohol, Fentanyl, the fossil fuel lobby, et al.

 

[Jacob]

erewego, more woke lefties bending the stats to suit their lefty nanny-state agenda
Ulez key to tackling ‘unacceptably high’ child illness and death, doctors say

 

[Jameshow]

That is also another reason why HS2 is pointless, they are assuming people in Birmingham and further north not only want to visit London but to do it fast and at greater expense when I dare say they have no need or desire to go anywhere near the place and even busineses would rather use technology like video conferencing as a greener option.

Personal transport for MP is my thought!

 

[Sachakins]

Of course they have. Has been going on for years, continually under review, from Victorian times with concerns about smoke.
Are you suggesting that ULEZ regions might actually be areas of low relative air pollution, for all we know?
Maybe areas outside ULEZ now show higher levels? Could be an argument for extending ULEZ even further?

It might have been how you chose to work but I'm sure that general falsification and fiddling isn't common practice, except in the private sector of course; nicotine, asbestos, alcohol, Fentanyl, the fossil fuel lobby, et al.

Actually itsnotfiddling, it's also not a generalisation.
You have undoubtable heard of whistle blowers, who have lifted the lid. You would be surprised at how many gagging orders have been used to maintain this type of exposure.

Public sector no better or worse than private sector.

I agree that evidence to prove ULEZ is accurate to the data, I even agree its robust enough to prove the impact of the ULEZ. What I don't agree with is that just extending the ULEZ, while good for that area, the result is its not cleaning up the environment, just relocating and redistributing emissions.
Even taking that approach of extending the ULEZ yo say all of England, while good for England, would push the issue into Wales, Scotland NI, etc.

That's way I say another way forward, in redistribution of businesses, moving the work back to local populations, decentralised population city centres will itself reduce the need for mass private transport, reducing emissions for all and for the plant enmasse.

You only need to look at the correlation between population density coupled with business density and centralised retail and accommodation density equates closely to the level of emissions.

Decentralised business and population models project reduction in travel needs, causing a true reduction in emissions rather than pushing the problem elsewhere.

 

[Jacob]

Actually itsnotfiddling, it's also not a generalisation.
You have undoubtable heard of whistle blowers, who have lifted the lid.

Have you been a whistle blower yourself?

 

[Sachakins]

Have you been a whistle blower yourself?

I couldn't say