East Dulwich (Mobile) Forum

Ultra Low Emissions Zone consultation - please complete!

7% of Southwark's population are killed by PM2.5 air pollution (more are killed by air pollution as a whole, PM2.5 is only a subset of this).
[www.standard.co.uk]

The Mayor is proposing bringing in an Ultra Low Emissions Zone to Central London Zone in 2019, 17 months earlier than planned. You can respond to this proposal here -
[consultations.tfl.gov.uk]

Once enacted, this ULEZ could be extended all the way out to the area inside the North and South circulars. There will be a separate consultation on this in the Autumn.

Please please complete this survey - it takes literally two minutes and could save your or your family member's life!
Is there any detailed study on the level of pollution in London and, most of all, on its key causes?

Everyone agrees we should have fewer vehicles on the road, and that those which are on the road should pollute as little as possible, but I wonder if there are other causes which are not being addresses at all.

E.g. heating - how much does heating contribute vs traffic? Is there any regulation on the maximum temperature that can be reached indoors? Such a limit would be hard to police in private houses, but not impossible to enforce in offices, stores, apartment blocks with centralised heating, etc.

How many minicabs are licensed in London? Has there been a spike in the number with the rise of Uber? How many enter the congestion charge zone? Can TFL cross check the plates of vehicles entering the zone with those of licensed minicabs to get a reliable number? Do we maybe have too many minicabs - would it make sense to reduce the number of licences?

What can be done to incentive lorries and HGVs to enter central London outside of rush hours? Eg has anyone thought of, say, higher congestion charge fees for large vehicles before 9am and after 4pm?

How many old vehicles are expected to be affected by the ultra low emissions zone?

I genuinely do not know the answer to all these questions. My reservation is that, without these answers, we risk spending lots of money on a measure which may well have very little impact!

Also, I don't own a car nor lorry, let alone a diesel one, but let's remember that years ago the government was actively promoting diesel as a green alternative. The frustration of those who had listened to official advice and bought a diesel vehicle, but are now told that now, diesel is nasty, is understandable.

By the way, the Standard article does NOT say that 7% of Southwark population is killed by pollution; it says that 7% of the deaths in the borough have been attributed (not clear by whom nor how) to pollution! To put things in perspective, Southwark has a population of ca. 300k people, and there were 1,305 deaths in 2013. 1,305/300k = 0.44% . One may argue the ratio may change depending on how you count births, and that the ratio will be different from year to year, but certainly not 7% of the population dies every year because of pollution!
How many of that dodgy 7% figure died because Southwark has dropped the speed limit to 20mph?

Motorists burning more fuel in low gears and pumping out gases in slower traffic.
The 20mph speed limits are another example of public money being spent without a proper cost-benefit analysis. I find it particularly puzzling that so many councils decided to implement the 20mph limits BEFORE the department for transport finalised a study on the matter. Websites like 20splenty and the like fail to present even the slightest evidence in support of the lower limits.
The harm from fine particles of pollution has been known for donkeys years eg the expert report from 2009 [www.gov.uk]. The masses just chose to ignore it and continue driving, inefficiently, unnecessary, with oversized and over-powered vehicles, with occupancy levels going down, leaving engines running unnecessarily and worse turning off some of the anti-pollution measures, ordering from Amazon to their work place worsening congestion, and driving their kids to school. This will not apply to all on this site but many in the capital and even worse in other parts of the country.

So take a good look at yourselves before blaming others.

20mph reduces fatal accidents. Research shows that London is the worst for obeying this, just drive gently rather than accelerate and brake. Save fuel, reduce maintenance, stress on the driver and occupants, reduced congestion and safer roads. What on earth is not to like? I've ended my love affair with the car and was a petrol head in a future life. You can too.

This campaign was from almost seven years ago from TfL - did any of you take any notice?
[tfl.gov.uk]

Yes I do know shed loads about this subject. And my views are relatively moderate compared to many of the campaigners. I just think that we as consumers have a big role to play.

Question. What is wrong with government. Typical answer. They tell us what to do.

Question. What should we do about xy or z problem. Typical answer. Oh Government should regulate or ban it.

Ironically air quality has improved greatly since the war, cleaner and less industry, no sulphur in fuel, no lead in fuel, Clean Air Acts, and cars are cleaner (apart from the increase in nitrogen oxides from diesel vehicles).

PS please show me the proof that govenment actively promoted diesel vehicles? I'd love to see the Cabinet papers. There was a small tax incentive, which was aimed at reducing carbon not promoting diesel. We bought them as they were reliable, incredibly efficient, great low end torque, better resale value etc. If you want to have a pop at government then there should have been better info to buyers of the pros and cons - long motorway journeys diesel, around town petrol (and alternative fuels) Fiat produce probably the best city car - the 500, but even with this USP they had to diversify the range to bring in diesel variants and larger models. Dave's goverment didn't like telling us what was good for us. TM will just do the popular thing to win votes and not disenfranchise the motorists. I'll put money on that. Oh and they should limit the road building programme - but again this is a vote winner
@malumbu, you have not addressed any of the points I raised.

First of all, I'm not sure if it's intentional, but the tone of your message is very holier-than-thou, confrontational and aggressive! I was just demanding to see some evidence. For God's sake, what is possibly wrong with that?

I don't think any one is saying that PM is good for us! I was simply saying that the first step in reducing pollution is understanding what its key causes are. How many vehicles would be affected by the ultra low emission zone? Are there other sources (eg heating) that produce more pollution? Etc. Without an answer to these questions, it's just a shot in the dark. For all I know, only a handful of vehicles might be affected by the ultra low emission zone, the whole thing might therefore have no material impact on pollution, while other sources of pollution are not addressed at all. I'm not saying that's the case - I am saying we should know more in order to have an informed debate.

Also, what do you mean by blaming? Who is blaming whom? Again, I'm just saying the first step should be understanding the key drivers of pollution.

By the way, I don't even own a car! I am a motorcyclist. Have been for a long time, but only started commuting to work about 2 years ago, when the whole London Bridge and Southern Fail fiasco turned my commute to central London into an unbereable nightmare.
DL, it's fun to debate with you but you do have this habit of demanding that other people provide evidence rather than offering it yourself. You're clearly intelligent and capable of looking for the evidence yourself, I suspect sometimes you ask people to provide evidence (vide cycle lanes) that you know is not available (to support either side) as a debating technique.

As for 20MPH limits, cost/benefit - cost, don't know, benefit, many fewer people are killed if hit at 20 than if hit at 30 - and I know you can find the evidence for that yourself. The only reason some 20MPH limits haven't reduced accidents and fatalities is that people haven't been adhering to them (you can see this every single day (every minute) on the streets of ED), that's an argument for better policing of them and better driver education, not against the limits per se.
I took the liberty of creating a separate topic on the 20mph limits here as it would be off-topic in a discussion on emissions: [www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk]

@rendelharris, it saddens me that I cannot make myself understood. Demanding to see a minimum of cost-benefit analysis before deciding to implement major initiatives that cost money and cause disruption is basic common sense.

Some things are impossible to measure or estimate; others are not. For the last time, now that cycle lanes have been built, it shouldn't be particularly complex nor expensive to install a few cameras that count how many cyclists use them during and outside rush hour; it would be a very reliable assessment, not a wild, objectionable guess. Is it too much to ask? I struggle to trust a body which puts forward expensive project with no detailed assessment, then doesn't measure their impact, even when doing so wouldn't be particularly complex nor expensive. Am I wrong? Should I just shut up and trust politicians and bureaucrats who don't bother presenting any evidence at all?

As for the 20mph limits, it's the councils and the campaigns which claimed over and over again that "research shows" and "evidence proves". I am not demanding to see data which cannot exist, I am simply demanding to see the research which these campaigns say supports their case so strongly. Again: is it too much to ask?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was april 20, 09:22pm by DulwichLondoner.

You're as capable as I am of Googling: you can start here: [www.rospa.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was april 20, 09:47pm by rendelharris.

I replied here: [www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk]
The document you mentioned happens to agree with my key points! smiling smiley
I have 3 year old diesel. Only bought it in October. Do I now need to sell it? Has the value just fallen through the floor? Any helpful thoughts/advice?

I can't be the only one in this predicament
Wasn't having a go at an idividual rather making points that (a) citizens have an important role (b) poor driving standards, in particular London. Must see whether this evidence is in the public domain. Anyway you are having a separate ding dong about this so I'll butt out.

And on reflection governments should have done more to manage demand/congestion through introducing road user charging. Unholy alliences of greens and economists agreed a long time ago this made sense in that you get charged for your road usage rather than fixed excise duty. None of the last three governments would take this on as too scared. It will come.

And another pop at government, this time London, for not having a progressive Low Emission Zone, rather than fixing the standards five years plus ago (and being frightened of those heavy polluting things called black cabs, well at least the owners.
McMurphy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------
> 7% of Southwark's population are killed by PM2.5
> air pollution (more are killed by air pollution as
> a whole, PM2.5 is only a subset of this).

I think you mean 7% of deaths in Southwark can be attributable wholly or in part to air pollution. If any single factor was killing off the population at the rate of 7% a year then population would be deceasing pretty rapidly...!
malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------
> Wasn't having a go at an idividual rather making
> points that (a) citizens have an important role
> (b) poor driving standards, in particular London.

My points still stand, and remain unaddressed. Without even the slightest assessment I was demanding, we risk spending lots of money on something that may have a minuscule impact, while other causes of pollution remain unaddressed. Not a very wise approach.
malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------
> PS please show me the proof that govenment
> actively promoted diesel vehicles? I'd love to see
> the Cabinet papers. There was a small tax
> incentive, which was aimed at reducing carbon not
> promoting diesel. We bought them as they were
> reliable, incredibly efficient, great low end
> torque, better resale value etc. If you want to
> have a pop at government then there should have
> been better info to buyers of the pros and cons -
> long motorway journeys diesel, around town petrol
> (and alternative fuels) Fiat produce probably the
> best city car - the 500, but even with this USP
> they had to diversify the range to bring in diesel
> variants and larger models. Dave's goverment
> didn't like telling us what was good for us. TM
> will just do the popular thing to win votes and
> not disenfranchise the motorists. I'll put money
> on that. Oh and they should limit the road
> building programme - but again this is a vote
> winner

Erm, "a small tax incentive" is exactly the kind of promotion a Government would use when it wants to change the behaviour of its citizens. I think you know as well as I do that the pigheaded focus on reducing CO2 emissions led to the then Government being blinded to the alternative harm caused by diesel, but lets not pretend that the public weren't incentivised to buy diesel over petrol.

[www.theguardian.com]
[www.independent.co.uk]

Even now, with VED being calculated on the basis of CO2 emissions and not taking into account other forms of pollution, there is still a Government-promoted incentive to buy diesel.
keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Motorists burning more fuel in low gears
Oh god not this rubbish again
Struth.

Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased over the last two hundered or so years post industrial revolution. Apart from Nigel Lawson and Donald Trump most are in agreement that this is contributing to climate change. And even Trump will sort of have to agree. Some of the pessimists already consider we have passed a point of no return. Climaate change could cause global economic strife. Some poor souls could be underwater. We'll see more and more films of polar bears in difficulty as the ice fields shrink. It is right that most of the world is trying to do something about it. So the UK brought in some incentives to try to get the masses to reduce carbon emissions from their cars. I think I am safe to quote from the Guardian on this one: www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/oct/30/economy.uk

Now we are having a mass "told you so", and "you knew you were poisoning us"

So let's have a look at what Drayson said:

We did get it wrong. We now have a much better understanding than we did just a few years ago of what are the health effects of the products of diesel cars and they are literally killing people so it’s clear that in retrospect that was the wrong policy

Fair enough. We have a better understanding now. If we had known that then we probably would have done things differently. Evidence and knowledge improves. Nitrogen dioxide was considered an irritant, in the last few years there is now more persuasive evidence that some die earlier. That is clearly a bad thing.

So you can blame government for not being on the front foot in providing better health advice (if you have a good look Public Health England have been pretty active for some time on this). You can blame the manufacturers for not doing more - well they do the least they need to do to meet regulatory/financial controls. That is capitalism for you. Perhaps if there was a greater demand/USP for cleaner diesels they may have made them. You can blame the European Union for not getting the regulations right. You can blame the Grauniad who still review cars without even giving the fuel type.

Or perhaps we can do something about it.

Drive less.

Buy cleaner cars.

Lighter and less powerful cars.

Drive more efficiently.

Share rides.

Think about your whole lifestyle.

Influence others.

Write to the Prime Minister.


I try to. Can't you?
Yeah, you and your silly talking sense Malumbu, that's never going to catch on...
Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------
> keano77 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Motorists burning more fuel in low gears
> Oh god not this rubbish again

You think you know better than the AA research link I posted above dkhb?

Please enlighten us with your wisdom
keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------
> Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > keano77 Wrote:

> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> > > Motorists burning more fuel in low gears
> > Oh god not this rubbish again
>
> You think you know better than the AA research
> link I posted above dkhb?
>
> Please enlighten us with your wisdom


You didn't post that link on here, you posted it on another thread. As I pointed out there, the AA were testing emissions from a steady output; nobody disputes that if you run most vehicles at 20MPH over a long course without varying speed they will not function as efficiently as at 30MPH. However, if you were to run them at a constant stop-start every 300 yards or so, more closely simulating urban traffic conditions, the extra fuel needed for the acceleration to 30MPH would make a world of difference.

It's interesting to note also that a large percentage of lethal particulate matter in London's air - up to 65% by some estimates - comes not from exhausts but from dust from tyres and brakes. The extra wear on these components caused by constant braking from 30MPH rather than 20MPH would clearly increase this element of pollution.
Thanks rendelh, my mistake
My relative has a 2010 diesel car. If he does short journeys only then the return valve gets stuck so every week he goes on a motorway trip to Brighton for example, and back again.
Also I have heard that some people remove the EGR and it would appear they do...
[www.sinspeed.co.uk]
It is an offence to remove safety systems/technology. There are companies that also remove the particulate filter (that traps the 'lethal' particles of pollution. That is similarly an offence. I hope SE22 will report such transgessions to the old bill or VCA.

Here's a nice video about nice clean cars

One thing I quite never understood about electric cars is how polluting (or not) is it to generate that electricity? And what happens to the batteries, can they be somehow recycled, do they pollute a lot, etc? I had always understood that vehicle batteries pollute a lot, but the batteries of a Tesla are, for obvious reasons, huge compared to the battery of a non-electric car.

Also, building a new car, however green its emissions, is not an eco-friendly task. For the planet as a whole, I do wonder (genuinely, I don't have an answer) what the best compromise is between using a more polluting car a bit longer, or replacing it with a less polluting car, whose production however is, well, polluting.
Well to wheel (carbon from electicity generation to end use) and embedded carbon (the energy used to make the vehicle, raw materials etc) are important factors. This lot and others advise on the big picture: www.theccc.org.uk
They will know far more than me!

There is not enough juice in the national grid to power up a national fleet of electric vehicles, no doubt this will come. Interestingly with a push to microgeneration (small electricity production) electric cars could be a way of storing excess electricty which could then be put back into the grid at times of demand.

Pollution from batteries and other exotic components is an issue, and one would hope is being addressed.

Point about keeping a 'dirtier' vehicle vs energy to make a new car is a good one. Many of us don't need to own a car but do so out of habit, convenience etc. The sharing economy is interesting, either through car clubs, owing a vehicle with mates/family, or simply hiring (hire company or peer to peer). Maybe it will catch on.
DulwichLondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------
> One thing I quite never understood about electric
> cars is how polluting (or not) is it to generate
> that electricity?

Obviously it depends on the energy source: I've always heard that at a very heuristic estimate EVs powered with electricity from coal stations are about as polluting as a petrol vehicle, if the power comes from gas about 50% and obviously if the electricity comes from zero emissions sources then the car has effectively zero emissions. Also of course from whatever source the electricity comes there are zero kerbside emissions, so even if all UK power was still from coal it would be worth replacing all cars with electric ones (if that were possible) from an emissions/public health point of view. When comparing figures it's also important to note that many reports hold electric cars to account for their "well to wheel" (nice phrase Malumbu) output but only mention the exhaust pollution from petrol cars: extracting and refining crude oil, shipping it halfway round the world in tankers and then transporting it in HGVs to the point of sale is a very polluting process in itself.

Original thread | JSON