The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)

Stevo_666

monkimark said:

Is this the one Stevo?
https://www.independent.co.uk/business/tfl-misled-public-about-ulez-benefits-according-to-leaked-draft-report-b2450314.html

As far as I can tell, it is the adverts that are being criticized (not the ULEZ scheme itself) because they didn't make it clear that predicted reductions in pollution were models rather than measured reductions - although presumably the adverts were before ULEZ was operational so I can't see how anyone could have thought otherwise?

Following the ASA’s investigation, it found two adverts were “misleading” because they “did not clarify” claims NO2 levels had “reduced by nearly half” as a result of Ulez, and were based on “estimates or modelled scenarios” and not “actual figures”.

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe they're dressing as Khan, given his political career is in danger of extinction as a result of the ULEZ expansion?

Is there a serious opposition this time? I haven't followed it at all apart from seeing the Tory candidate getting a bit of grief for some dodgy tweets

There certainly seemed to be. Which Khan ignored because he thought that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

And then all of a sudden it vanished. Amazing. Where have they all gone??🤔

Not sure that it has gone. Let's see come mayoral election time.

Are you just pretending you haven't seen the polling?

Not looked tbh. Buy unless the election is in the next few days you can quote current polls all you like.

Here is quite a timely article: you and others who swallowed the TFL line on ULEZ rather too easily should read this:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-pollution-reduction-asa-report/

I think reading that sort of guff is what has led you to thinking that ULEZ opposition was some sort of magic bullet. I posted the YouGov polling above which was completed shortly after the expansion went live. Khan has a bigger lead over the Conservative candidate than Starmer does over Sunak.

Not a magic bullet, but it hasn't done him any good as far as I can see. Even if he does survive, it will at least serve as a warning to other local leftie politicians about this sort of thing.

Stevo, he was only slightly ahead before the ULEZ was extended. He's now polling 50%: double the Conservative candidate. If that's not doing him some good I don't know what is. I'd rather someone else had a go as well (for different reasons), but it's pretty unlikely to happen.

OK, but my point point was that Khan and TFL were misleading people about the benefits of ULEZ - did you read the article I linked?. What are your thoughts on that

I can only ever see the first few lines of Telegraph articles on my phone. If you can point me to the original source I'll have a look. In any case, didn't we rehearse that argument at length before? I'm not sure anything has changed since then. There's not going to be any substantive new data as the extension has only been in place for a matter of weeks.

See the issue here is that Khan is accused of not providing enough evidence to support his claims. So there may not be the source data for him to do that - and the onus is on him/TFL to show the evidence, not me.

Good deflection attempt though.

He's asking for the article source.

There isn't one linked rjsterry.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is set to criticise Transport for London (TfL) for “misleading” claims about the expansion of the Ulez zone reducing levels of poisonous nitrogen dioxide (NO2) particles.

The ASA draft recommendations will come as a huge embarrassment for both TfL and Mr Khan, the organisation’s chairman, after £9 million was spent on a “marketing blitz” ahead of the controversial Ulez expansion.

The report, marked “classified”, was handed to The Telegraph after it was sent to interested parties before any potential amendments, ratification and publication.

I think we can assume that if the ASA I'd pursuing the case then there is enough evidence for them.

Imagine if this was a Tory mayor - say Boris - who was being accused of misleading the public. Would you be quite so sceptical about the accusations? Sounds like Khan gets a Cake stop free pass here.

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe they're dressing as Khan, given his political career is in danger of extinction as a result of the ULEZ expansion?

Is there a serious opposition this time? I haven't followed it at all apart from seeing the Tory candidate getting a bit of grief for some dodgy tweets

There certainly seemed to be. Which Khan ignored because he thought that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

And then all of a sudden it vanished. Amazing. Where have they all gone??🤔

Not sure that it has gone. Let's see come mayoral election time.

Are you just pretending you haven't seen the polling?

Not looked tbh. Buy unless the election is in the next few days you can quote current polls all you like.

Here is quite a timely article: you and others who swallowed the TFL line on ULEZ rather too easily should read this:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-pollution-reduction-asa-report/

I think reading that sort of guff is what has led you to thinking that ULEZ opposition was some sort of magic bullet. I posted the YouGov polling above which was completed shortly after the expansion went live. Khan has a bigger lead over the Conservative candidate than Starmer does over Sunak.

Not a magic bullet, but it hasn't done him any good as far as I can see. Even if he does survive, it will at least serve as a warning to other local leftie politicians about this sort of thing.

Stevo, he was only slightly ahead before the ULEZ was extended. He's now polling 50%: double the Conservative candidate. If that's not doing him some good I don't know what is. I'd rather someone else had a go as well (for different reasons), but it's pretty unlikely to happen.

OK, but my point point was that Khan and TFL were misleading people about the benefits of ULEZ - did you read the article I linked?. What are your thoughts on that

I can only ever see the first few lines of Telegraph articles on my phone. If you can point me to the original source I'll have a look. In any case, didn't we rehearse that argument at length before? I'm not sure anything has changed since then. There's not going to be any substantive new data as the extension has only been in place for a matter of weeks.

See the issue here is that Khan is accused of not providing enough evidence to support his claims. So there may not be the source data for him to do that - and the onus is on him/TFL to show the evidence, not me.

Good deflection attempt though.

He's asking for the article source.

There isn't one linked rjsterry.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is set to criticise Transport for London (TfL) for “misleading” claims about the expansion of the Ulez zone reducing levels of poisonous nitrogen dioxide (NO2) particles.

The ASA draft recommendations will come as a huge embarrassment for both TfL and Mr Khan, the organisation’s chairman, after £9 million was spent on a “marketing blitz” ahead of the controversial Ulez expansion.

The report, marked “classified”, was handed to The Telegraph after it was sent to interested parties before any potential amendments, ratification and publication.

Ah, so it is just a rehash of the same argument we were having before. Not sure there's much to be gained by repeating it.

Well I think the argument previously involved me being told that I didn't know what I was talking about, when it came to the science, so we could skip straight to the part where you say the ASA also don't know what they are talking about if you would like?

😁 I think there was plenty of that on both sides. The point here seems to be that predicted reductions were necessarily based on modelling not actual results. That may not have been made clear on adverts. I don't know: I didn't actually see any of these adverts despite living in the ULEZ expansion area. It's now happened, so give it a few months and you can either say told you so or admit that it has worked. Or more realistically agree that pollution has reduced but dispute exactly why.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict very little change.

Am coming round to BBs view that is really just needs to be a blanket charge for driving, if anything.

What, like VED (road tax) and excise duty on petrol?

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe they're dressing as Khan, given his political career is in danger of extinction as a result of the ULEZ expansion?

Is there a serious opposition this time? I haven't followed it at all apart from seeing the Tory candidate getting a bit of grief for some dodgy tweets

There certainly seemed to be. Which Khan ignored because he thought that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

And then all of a sudden it vanished. Amazing. Where have they all gone??🤔

Not sure that it has gone. Let's see come mayoral election time.

Are you just pretending you haven't seen the polling?

Not looked tbh. Buy unless the election is in the next few days you can quote current polls all you like.

Here is quite a timely article: you and others who swallowed the TFL line on ULEZ rather too easily should read this:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-pollution-reduction-asa-report/

I think reading that sort of guff is what has led you to thinking that ULEZ opposition was some sort of magic bullet. I posted the YouGov polling above which was completed shortly after the expansion went live. Khan has a bigger lead over the Conservative candidate than Starmer does over Sunak.

Not a magic bullet, but it hasn't done him any good as far as I can see. Even if he does survive, it will at least serve as a warning to other local leftie politicians about this sort of thing.

Stevo, he was only slightly ahead before the ULEZ was extended. He's now polling 50%: double the Conservative candidate. If that's not doing him some good I don't know what is. I'd rather someone else had a go as well (for different reasons), but it's pretty unlikely to happen.

OK, but my point point was that Khan and TFL were misleading people about the benefits of ULEZ - did you read the article I linked?. What are your thoughts on that

I can only ever see the first few lines of Telegraph articles on my phone. If you can point me to the original source I'll have a look. In any case, didn't we rehearse that argument at length before? I'm not sure anything has changed since then. There's not going to be any substantive new data as the extension has only been in place for a matter of weeks.

See the issue here is that Khan is accused of not providing enough evidence to support his claims. So there may not be the source data for him to do that - and the onus is on him/TFL to show the evidence, not me.

Good deflection attempt though.

He's asking for the article source.

There isn't one linked rjsterry.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is set to criticise Transport for London (TfL) for “misleading” claims about the expansion of the Ulez zone reducing levels of poisonous nitrogen dioxide (NO2) particles.

The ASA draft recommendations will come as a huge embarrassment for both TfL and Mr Khan, the organisation’s chairman, after £9 million was spent on a “marketing blitz” ahead of the controversial Ulez expansion.

The report, marked “classified”, was handed to The Telegraph after it was sent to interested parties before any potential amendments, ratification and publication.

Ah, so it is just a rehash of the same argument we were having before. Not sure there's much to be gained by repeating it.

Well I think the argument previously involved me being told that I didn't know what I was talking about, when it came to the science, so we could skip straight to the part where you say the ASA also don't know what they are talking about if you would like?

😁 I think there was plenty of that on both sides. The point here seems to be that predicted reductions were necessarily based on modelling not actual results. That may not have been made clear on adverts. I don't know: I didn't actually see any of these adverts despite living in the ULEZ expansion area. It's now happened, so give it a few months and you can either say told you so or admit that it has worked. Or more realistically agree that pollution has reduced but dispute exactly why.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict very little change.

Am coming round to BBs view that is really just needs to be a blanket charge for driving, if anything.

PAYD sounds like a fairer basis than VED. Would be great for us.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe they're dressing as Khan, given his political career is in danger of extinction as a result of the ULEZ expansion?

Is there a serious opposition this time? I haven't followed it at all apart from seeing the Tory candidate getting a bit of grief for some dodgy tweets

There certainly seemed to be. Which Khan ignored because he thought that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

And then all of a sudden it vanished. Amazing. Where have they all gone??🤔

Not sure that it has gone. Let's see come mayoral election time.

Are you just pretending you haven't seen the polling?

Not looked tbh. Buy unless the election is in the next few days you can quote current polls all you like.

Here is quite a timely article: you and others who swallowed the TFL line on ULEZ rather too easily should read this:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-pollution-reduction-asa-report/

I think reading that sort of guff is what has led you to thinking that ULEZ opposition was some sort of magic bullet. I posted the YouGov polling above which was completed shortly after the expansion went live. Khan has a bigger lead over the Conservative candidate than Starmer does over Sunak.

Not a magic bullet, but it hasn't done him any good as far as I can see. Even if he does survive, it will at least serve as a warning to other local leftie politicians about this sort of thing.

Stevo, he was only slightly ahead before the ULEZ was extended. He's now polling 50%: double the Conservative candidate. If that's not doing him some good I don't know what is. I'd rather someone else had a go as well (for different reasons), but it's pretty unlikely to happen.

OK, but my point point was that Khan and TFL were misleading people about the benefits of ULEZ - did you read the article I linked?. What are your thoughts on that

I can only ever see the first few lines of Telegraph articles on my phone. If you can point me to the original source I'll have a look. In any case, didn't we rehearse that argument at length before? I'm not sure anything has changed since then. There's not going to be any substantive new data as the extension has only been in place for a matter of weeks.

See the issue here is that Khan is accused of not providing enough evidence to support his claims. So there may not be the source data for him to do that - and the onus is on him/TFL to show the evidence, not me.

Good deflection attempt though.

He's asking for the article source.

There isn't one linked rjsterry.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is set to criticise Transport for London (TfL) for “misleading” claims about the expansion of the Ulez zone reducing levels of poisonous nitrogen dioxide (NO2) particles.

The ASA draft recommendations will come as a huge embarrassment for both TfL and Mr Khan, the organisation’s chairman, after £9 million was spent on a “marketing blitz” ahead of the controversial Ulez expansion.

The report, marked “classified”, was handed to The Telegraph after it was sent to interested parties before any potential amendments, ratification and publication.

Ah, so it is just a rehash of the same argument we were having before. Not sure there's much to be gained by repeating it.

Well I think the argument previously involved me being told that I didn't know what I was talking about, when it came to the science, so we could skip straight to the part where you say the ASA also don't know what they are talking about if you would like?

😁 I think there was plenty of that on both sides. The point here seems to be that predicted reductions were necessarily based on modelling not actual results. That may not have been made clear on adverts. I don't know: I didn't actually see any of these adverts despite living in the ULEZ expansion area. It's now happened, so give it a few months and you can either say told you so or admit that it has worked. Or more realistically agree that pollution has reduced but dispute exactly why.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict very little change.

Am coming round to BBs view that is really just needs to be a blanket charge for driving, if anything.

What, like VED (road tax) and excise duty on petrol?

Similar, but factoring in where you drive rather than a fixed fee based on a lab test.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Is this the one Stevo?
https://www.independent.co.uk/business/tfl-misled-public-about-ulez-benefits-according-to-leaked-draft-report-b2450314.html

As far as I can tell, it is the adverts that are being criticized (not the ULEZ scheme itself) because they didn't make it clear that predicted reductions in pollution were models rather than measured reductions - although presumably the adverts were before ULEZ was operational so I can't see how anyone could have thought otherwise?

Following the ASA’s investigation, it found two adverts were “misleading” because they “did not clarify” claims NO2 levels had “reduced by nearly half” as a result of Ulez, and were based on “estimates or modelled scenarios” and not “actual figures”.

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe they're dressing as Khan, given his political career is in danger of extinction as a result of the ULEZ expansion?

Is there a serious opposition this time? I haven't followed it at all apart from seeing the Tory candidate getting a bit of grief for some dodgy tweets

There certainly seemed to be. Which Khan ignored because he thought that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

And then all of a sudden it vanished. Amazing. Where have they all gone??🤔

Not sure that it has gone. Let's see come mayoral election time.

Are you just pretending you haven't seen the polling?

Not looked tbh. Buy unless the election is in the next few days you can quote current polls all you like.

Here is quite a timely article: you and others who swallowed the TFL line on ULEZ rather too easily should read this:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-pollution-reduction-asa-report/

I think reading that sort of guff is what has led you to thinking that ULEZ opposition was some sort of magic bullet. I posted the YouGov polling above which was completed shortly after the expansion went live. Khan has a bigger lead over the Conservative candidate than Starmer does over Sunak.

Not a magic bullet, but it hasn't done him any good as far as I can see. Even if he does survive, it will at least serve as a warning to other local leftie politicians about this sort of thing.

Stevo, he was only slightly ahead before the ULEZ was extended. He's now polling 50%: double the Conservative candidate. If that's not doing him some good I don't know what is. I'd rather someone else had a go as well (for different reasons), but it's pretty unlikely to happen.

OK, but my point point was that Khan and TFL were misleading people about the benefits of ULEZ - did you read the article I linked?. What are your thoughts on that

I can only ever see the first few lines of Telegraph articles on my phone. If you can point me to the original source I'll have a look. In any case, didn't we rehearse that argument at length before? I'm not sure anything has changed since then. There's not going to be any substantive new data as the extension has only been in place for a matter of weeks.

See the issue here is that Khan is accused of not providing enough evidence to support his claims. So there may not be the source data for him to do that - and the onus is on him/TFL to show the evidence, not me.

Good deflection attempt though.

He's asking for the article source.

There isn't one linked rjsterry.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is set to criticise Transport for London (TfL) for “misleading” claims about the expansion of the Ulez zone reducing levels of poisonous nitrogen dioxide (NO2) particles.

The ASA draft recommendations will come as a huge embarrassment for both TfL and Mr Khan, the organisation’s chairman, after £9 million was spent on a “marketing blitz” ahead of the controversial Ulez expansion.

The report, marked “classified”, was handed to The Telegraph after it was sent to interested parties before any potential amendments, ratification and publication.

I think we can assume that if the ASA I'd pursuing the case then there is enough evidence for them.

Imagine if this was a Tory mayor - say Boris - who was being accused of misleading the public. Would you be quite so sceptical about the accusations? Sounds like Khan gets a Cake stop free pass here.

Johnson introduced the ULEZ. I was fine with it. He deserves credit for that. London air is cleaner than it was.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe they're dressing as Khan, given his political career is in danger of extinction as a result of the ULEZ expansion?

Is there a serious opposition this time? I haven't followed it at all apart from seeing the Tory candidate getting a bit of grief for some dodgy tweets

There certainly seemed to be. Which Khan ignored because he thought that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

And then all of a sudden it vanished. Amazing. Where have they all gone??🤔

Not sure that it has gone. Let's see come mayoral election time.

Are you just pretending you haven't seen the polling?

Not looked tbh. Buy unless the election is in the next few days you can quote current polls all you like.

Here is quite a timely article: you and others who swallowed the TFL line on ULEZ rather too easily should read this:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-pollution-reduction-asa-report/

I think reading that sort of guff is what has led you to thinking that ULEZ opposition was some sort of magic bullet. I posted the YouGov polling above which was completed shortly after the expansion went live. Khan has a bigger lead over the Conservative candidate than Starmer does over Sunak.

Not a magic bullet, but it hasn't done him any good as far as I can see. Even if he does survive, it will at least serve as a warning to other local leftie politicians about this sort of thing.

Stevo, he was only slightly ahead before the ULEZ was extended. He's now polling 50%: double the Conservative candidate. If that's not doing him some good I don't know what is. I'd rather someone else had a go as well (for different reasons), but it's pretty unlikely to happen.

OK, but my point point was that Khan and TFL were misleading people about the benefits of ULEZ - did you read the article I linked?. What are your thoughts on that

I can only ever see the first few lines of Telegraph articles on my phone. If you can point me to the original source I'll have a look. In any case, didn't we rehearse that argument at length before? I'm not sure anything has changed since then. There's not going to be any substantive new data as the extension has only been in place for a matter of weeks.

See the issue here is that Khan is accused of not providing enough evidence to support his claims. So there may not be the source data for him to do that - and the onus is on him/TFL to show the evidence, not me.

Good deflection attempt though.

He's asking for the article source.

There isn't one linked rjsterry.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is set to criticise Transport for London (TfL) for “misleading” claims about the expansion of the Ulez zone reducing levels of poisonous nitrogen dioxide (NO2) particles.

The ASA draft recommendations will come as a huge embarrassment for both TfL and Mr Khan, the organisation’s chairman, after £9 million was spent on a “marketing blitz” ahead of the controversial Ulez expansion.

The report, marked “classified”, was handed to The Telegraph after it was sent to interested parties before any potential amendments, ratification and publication.

Ah, so it is just a rehash of the same argument we were having before. Not sure there's much to be gained by repeating it.

Well I think the argument previously involved me being told that I didn't know what I was talking about, when it came to the science, so we could skip straight to the part where you say the ASA also don't know what they are talking about if you would like?

😁 I think there was plenty of that on both sides. The point here seems to be that predicted reductions were necessarily based on modelling not actual results. That may not have been made clear on adverts. I don't know: I didn't actually see any of these adverts despite living in the ULEZ expansion area. It's now happened, so give it a few months and you can either say told you so or admit that it has worked. Or more realistically agree that pollution has reduced but dispute exactly why.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict very little change.

Am coming round to BBs view that is really just needs to be a blanket charge for driving, if anything.

What, like VED (road tax) and excise duty on petrol?

Similar, but factoring in where you drive rather than a fixed fee based on a lab test.

Excise duty on petrol is proportional to how far you drive and how (un)economical your car is. No need for a new charge on driving unless you just want to punish motorists.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Is this the one Stevo?
https://www.independent.co.uk/business/tfl-misled-public-about-ulez-benefits-according-to-leaked-draft-report-b2450314.html

As far as I can tell, it is the adverts that are being criticized (not the ULEZ scheme itself) because they didn't make it clear that predicted reductions in pollution were models rather than measured reductions - although presumably the adverts were before ULEZ was operational so I can't see how anyone could have thought otherwise?

Following the ASA’s investigation, it found two adverts were “misleading” because they “did not clarify” claims NO2 levels had “reduced by nearly half” as a result of Ulez, and were based on “estimates or modelled scenarios” and not “actual figures”.

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe they're dressing as Khan, given his political career is in danger of extinction as a result of the ULEZ expansion?

Is there a serious opposition this time? I haven't followed it at all apart from seeing the Tory candidate getting a bit of grief for some dodgy tweets

There certainly seemed to be. Which Khan ignored because he thought that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

And then all of a sudden it vanished. Amazing. Where have they all gone??🤔

Not sure that it has gone. Let's see come mayoral election time.

Are you just pretending you haven't seen the polling?

Not looked tbh. Buy unless the election is in the next few days you can quote current polls all you like.

Here is quite a timely article: you and others who swallowed the TFL line on ULEZ rather too easily should read this:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-pollution-reduction-asa-report/

I think reading that sort of guff is what has led you to thinking that ULEZ opposition was some sort of magic bullet. I posted the YouGov polling above which was completed shortly after the expansion went live. Khan has a bigger lead over the Conservative candidate than Starmer does over Sunak.

Not a magic bullet, but it hasn't done him any good as far as I can see. Even if he does survive, it will at least serve as a warning to other local leftie politicians about this sort of thing.

Stevo, he was only slightly ahead before the ULEZ was extended. He's now polling 50%: double the Conservative candidate. If that's not doing him some good I don't know what is. I'd rather someone else had a go as well (for different reasons), but it's pretty unlikely to happen.

OK, but my point point was that Khan and TFL were misleading people about the benefits of ULEZ - did you read the article I linked?. What are your thoughts on that

I can only ever see the first few lines of Telegraph articles on my phone. If you can point me to the original source I'll have a look. In any case, didn't we rehearse that argument at length before? I'm not sure anything has changed since then. There's not going to be any substantive new data as the extension has only been in place for a matter of weeks.

See the issue here is that Khan is accused of not providing enough evidence to support his claims. So there may not be the source data for him to do that - and the onus is on him/TFL to show the evidence, not me.

Good deflection attempt though.

He's asking for the article source.

There isn't one linked rjsterry.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is set to criticise Transport for London (TfL) for “misleading” claims about the expansion of the Ulez zone reducing levels of poisonous nitrogen dioxide (NO2) particles.

The ASA draft recommendations will come as a huge embarrassment for both TfL and Mr Khan, the organisation’s chairman, after £9 million was spent on a “marketing blitz” ahead of the controversial Ulez expansion.

The report, marked “classified”, was handed to The Telegraph after it was sent to interested parties before any potential amendments, ratification and publication.

I think we can assume that if the ASA I'd pursuing the case then there is enough evidence for them.

Imagine if this was a Tory mayor - say Boris - who was being accused of misleading the public. Would you be quite so sceptical about the accusations? Sounds like Khan gets a Cake stop free pass here.

Johnson introduced the ULEZ. I was fine with it. He deserves credit for that. London air is cleaner than it was.

According to most people in Cake Stop, Johnson was a self serving idiot who never made a good decision in his life.

briantrumpet

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe they're dressing as Khan, given his political career is in danger of extinction as a result of the ULEZ expansion?

Is there a serious opposition this time? I haven't followed it at all apart from seeing the Tory candidate getting a bit of grief for some dodgy tweets

There certainly seemed to be. Which Khan ignored because he thought that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

And then all of a sudden it vanished. Amazing. Where have they all gone??🤔

Not sure that it has gone. Let's see come mayoral election time.

Are you just pretending you haven't seen the polling?

Not looked tbh. Buy unless the election is in the next few days you can quote current polls all you like.

Here is quite a timely article: you and others who swallowed the TFL line on ULEZ rather too easily should read this:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-pollution-reduction-asa-report/

I think reading that sort of guff is what has led you to thinking that ULEZ opposition was some sort of magic bullet. I posted the YouGov polling above which was completed shortly after the expansion went live. Khan has a bigger lead over the Conservative candidate than Starmer does over Sunak.

Not a magic bullet, but it hasn't done him any good as far as I can see. Even if he does survive, it will at least serve as a warning to other local leftie politicians about this sort of thing.

Stevo, he was only slightly ahead before the ULEZ was extended. He's now polling 50%: double the Conservative candidate. If that's not doing him some good I don't know what is. I'd rather someone else had a go as well (for different reasons), but it's pretty unlikely to happen.

OK, but my point point was that Khan and TFL were misleading people about the benefits of ULEZ - did you read the article I linked?. What are your thoughts on that

I can only ever see the first few lines of Telegraph articles on my phone. If you can point me to the original source I'll have a look. In any case, didn't we rehearse that argument at length before? I'm not sure anything has changed since then. There's not going to be any substantive new data as the extension has only been in place for a matter of weeks.

See the issue here is that Khan is accused of not providing enough evidence to support his claims. So there may not be the source data for him to do that - and the onus is on him/TFL to show the evidence, not me.

Good deflection attempt though.

He's asking for the article source.

There isn't one linked rjsterry.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is set to criticise Transport for London (TfL) for “misleading” claims about the expansion of the Ulez zone reducing levels of poisonous nitrogen dioxide (NO2) particles.

The ASA draft recommendations will come as a huge embarrassment for both TfL and Mr Khan, the organisation’s chairman, after £9 million was spent on a “marketing blitz” ahead of the controversial Ulez expansion.

The report, marked “classified”, was handed to The Telegraph after it was sent to interested parties before any potential amendments, ratification and publication.

Ah, so it is just a rehash of the same argument we were having before. Not sure there's much to be gained by repeating it.

Well I think the argument previously involved me being told that I didn't know what I was talking about, when it came to the science, so we could skip straight to the part where you say the ASA also don't know what they are talking about if you would like?

😁 I think there was plenty of that on both sides. The point here seems to be that predicted reductions were necessarily based on modelling not actual results. That may not have been made clear on adverts. I don't know: I didn't actually see any of these adverts despite living in the ULEZ expansion area. It's now happened, so give it a few months and you can either say told you so or admit that it has worked. Or more realistically agree that pollution has reduced but dispute exactly why.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict very little change.

Am coming round to BBs view that is really just needs to be a blanket charge for driving, if anything.

What, like VED (road tax) and excise duty on petrol?

Similar, but factoring in where you drive rather than a fixed fee based on a lab test.

Excise duty on petrol is proportional to how far you drive and how (un)economical your car is. No need for a new charge on driving unless you just want to punish motorists.

It depends if you want to have differentials between urban and rural driving. I'm sure that if someone suggested that rural driving should be taxed just as heavily for emissions as for urban driving, you and your rural neighbours wouldn't be happy, given the much better air quality you already have.

First.Aspect

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe they're dressing as Khan, given his political career is in danger of extinction as a result of the ULEZ expansion?

Is there a serious opposition this time? I haven't followed it at all apart from seeing the Tory candidate getting a bit of grief for some dodgy tweets

There certainly seemed to be. Which Khan ignored because he thought that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

And then all of a sudden it vanished. Amazing. Where have they all gone??🤔

Not sure that it has gone. Let's see come mayoral election time.

Are you just pretending you haven't seen the polling?

Not looked tbh. Buy unless the election is in the next few days you can quote current polls all you like.

Here is quite a timely article: you and others who swallowed the TFL line on ULEZ rather too easily should read this:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-pollution-reduction-asa-report/

I think reading that sort of guff is what has led you to thinking that ULEZ opposition was some sort of magic bullet. I posted the YouGov polling above which was completed shortly after the expansion went live. Khan has a bigger lead over the Conservative candidate than Starmer does over Sunak.

Not a magic bullet, but it hasn't done him any good as far as I can see. Even if he does survive, it will at least serve as a warning to other local leftie politicians about this sort of thing.

Stevo, he was only slightly ahead before the ULEZ was extended. He's now polling 50%: double the Conservative candidate. If that's not doing him some good I don't know what is. I'd rather someone else had a go as well (for different reasons), but it's pretty unlikely to happen.

OK, but my point point was that Khan and TFL were misleading people about the benefits of ULEZ - did you read the article I linked?. What are your thoughts on that

I can only ever see the first few lines of Telegraph articles on my phone. If you can point me to the original source I'll have a look. In any case, didn't we rehearse that argument at length before? I'm not sure anything has changed since then. There's not going to be any substantive new data as the extension has only been in place for a matter of weeks.

See the issue here is that Khan is accused of not providing enough evidence to support his claims. So there may not be the source data for him to do that - and the onus is on him/TFL to show the evidence, not me.

Good deflection attempt though.

He's asking for the article source.

There isn't one linked rjsterry.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is set to criticise Transport for London (TfL) for “misleading” claims about the expansion of the Ulez zone reducing levels of poisonous nitrogen dioxide (NO2) particles.

The ASA draft recommendations will come as a huge embarrassment for both TfL and Mr Khan, the organisation’s chairman, after £9 million was spent on a “marketing blitz” ahead of the controversial Ulez expansion.

The report, marked “classified”, was handed to The Telegraph after it was sent to interested parties before any potential amendments, ratification and publication.

Ah, so it is just a rehash of the same argument we were having before. Not sure there's much to be gained by repeating it.

Well I think the argument previously involved me being told that I didn't know what I was talking about, when it came to the science, so we could skip straight to the part where you say the ASA also don't know what they are talking about if you would like?

😁 I think there was plenty of that on both sides. The point here seems to be that predicted reductions were necessarily based on modelling not actual results. That may not have been made clear on adverts. I don't know: I didn't actually see any of these adverts despite living in the ULEZ expansion area. It's now happened, so give it a few months and you can either say told you so or admit that it has worked. Or more realistically agree that pollution has reduced but dispute exactly why.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict very little change.

Am coming round to BBs view that is really just needs to be a blanket charge for driving, if anything.

What, like VED (road tax) and excise duty on petrol?

No. Like a congestion charge. Or a "you really should use another one of the really good options in your urban area" charge.

Different question entirely is what that area should be.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe they're dressing as Khan, given his political career is in danger of extinction as a result of the ULEZ expansion?

Is there a serious opposition this time? I haven't followed it at all apart from seeing the Tory candidate getting a bit of grief for some dodgy tweets

There certainly seemed to be. Which Khan ignored because he thought that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

And then all of a sudden it vanished. Amazing. Where have they all gone??🤔

Not sure that it has gone. Let's see come mayoral election time.

Are you just pretending you haven't seen the polling?

Not looked tbh. Buy unless the election is in the next few days you can quote current polls all you like.

Here is quite a timely article: you and others who swallowed the TFL line on ULEZ rather too easily should read this:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-pollution-reduction-asa-report/

I think reading that sort of guff is what has led you to thinking that ULEZ opposition was some sort of magic bullet. I posted the YouGov polling above which was completed shortly after the expansion went live. Khan has a bigger lead over the Conservative candidate than Starmer does over Sunak.

Not a magic bullet, but it hasn't done him any good as far as I can see. Even if he does survive, it will at least serve as a warning to other local leftie politicians about this sort of thing.

Stevo, he was only slightly ahead before the ULEZ was extended. He's now polling 50%: double the Conservative candidate. If that's not doing him some good I don't know what is. I'd rather someone else had a go as well (for different reasons), but it's pretty unlikely to happen.

OK, but my point point was that Khan and TFL were misleading people about the benefits of ULEZ - did you read the article I linked?. What are your thoughts on that

I can only ever see the first few lines of Telegraph articles on my phone. If you can point me to the original source I'll have a look. In any case, didn't we rehearse that argument at length before? I'm not sure anything has changed since then. There's not going to be any substantive new data as the extension has only been in place for a matter of weeks.

See the issue here is that Khan is accused of not providing enough evidence to support his claims. So there may not be the source data for him to do that - and the onus is on him/TFL to show the evidence, not me.

Good deflection attempt though.

He's asking for the article source.

There isn't one linked rjsterry.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is set to criticise Transport for London (TfL) for “misleading” claims about the expansion of the Ulez zone reducing levels of poisonous nitrogen dioxide (NO2) particles.

The ASA draft recommendations will come as a huge embarrassment for both TfL and Mr Khan, the organisation’s chairman, after £9 million was spent on a “marketing blitz” ahead of the controversial Ulez expansion.

The report, marked “classified”, was handed to The Telegraph after it was sent to interested parties before any potential amendments, ratification and publication.

Ah, so it is just a rehash of the same argument we were having before. Not sure there's much to be gained by repeating it.

Well I think the argument previously involved me being told that I didn't know what I was talking about, when it came to the science, so we could skip straight to the part where you say the ASA also don't know what they are talking about if you would like?

😁 I think there was plenty of that on both sides. The point here seems to be that predicted reductions were necessarily based on modelling not actual results. That may not have been made clear on adverts. I don't know: I didn't actually see any of these adverts despite living in the ULEZ expansion area. It's now happened, so give it a few months and you can either say told you so or admit that it has worked. Or more realistically agree that pollution has reduced but dispute exactly why.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict very little change.

Am coming round to BBs view that is really just needs to be a blanket charge for driving, if anything.

What, like VED (road tax) and excise duty on petrol?

Similar, but factoring in where you drive rather than a fixed fee based on a lab test.

Excise duty on petrol is proportional to how far you drive and how (un)economical your car is. No need for a new charge on driving unless you just want to punish motorists.

Oh stop being such a victim. I wrote *where* you drive, not how far. If Google Maps can find and suggest quicker, less busy routes as you drive, then potentially you could incentivise using quieter routes at quieter times with different charges: a more targeted Congestion charge.

Also VED is going to have to be replaced fairly soon anyway as ICE's die out, so might as well plan for it.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe they're dressing as Khan, given his political career is in danger of extinction as a result of the ULEZ expansion?

Is there a serious opposition this time? I haven't followed it at all apart from seeing the Tory candidate getting a bit of grief for some dodgy tweets

There certainly seemed to be. Which Khan ignored because he thought that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

And then all of a sudden it vanished. Amazing. Where have they all gone??🤔

Not sure that it has gone. Let's see come mayoral election time.

Are you just pretending you haven't seen the polling?

Not looked tbh. Buy unless the election is in the next few days you can quote current polls all you like.

Here is quite a timely article: you and others who swallowed the TFL line on ULEZ rather too easily should read this:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-pollution-reduction-asa-report/

I think reading that sort of guff is what has led you to thinking that ULEZ opposition was some sort of magic bullet. I posted the YouGov polling above which was completed shortly after the expansion went live. Khan has a bigger lead over the Conservative candidate than Starmer does over Sunak.

Not a magic bullet, but it hasn't done him any good as far as I can see. Even if he does survive, it will at least serve as a warning to other local leftie politicians about this sort of thing.

Stevo, he was only slightly ahead before the ULEZ was extended. He's now polling 50%: double the Conservative candidate. If that's not doing him some good I don't know what is. I'd rather someone else had a go as well (for different reasons), but it's pretty unlikely to happen.

OK, but my point point was that Khan and TFL were misleading people about the benefits of ULEZ - did you read the article I linked?. What are your thoughts on that

I can only ever see the first few lines of Telegraph articles on my phone. If you can point me to the original source I'll have a look. In any case, didn't we rehearse that argument at length before? I'm not sure anything has changed since then. There's not going to be any substantive new data as the extension has only been in place for a matter of weeks.

See the issue here is that Khan is accused of not providing enough evidence to support his claims. So there may not be the source data for him to do that - and the onus is on him/TFL to show the evidence, not me.

Good deflection attempt though.

He's asking for the article source.

There isn't one linked rjsterry.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is set to criticise Transport for London (TfL) for “misleading” claims about the expansion of the Ulez zone reducing levels of poisonous nitrogen dioxide (NO2) particles.

The ASA draft recommendations will come as a huge embarrassment for both TfL and Mr Khan, the organisation’s chairman, after £9 million was spent on a “marketing blitz” ahead of the controversial Ulez expansion.

The report, marked “classified”, was handed to The Telegraph after it was sent to interested parties before any potential amendments, ratification and publication.

Ah, so it is just a rehash of the same argument we were having before. Not sure there's much to be gained by repeating it.

Well I think the argument previously involved me being told that I didn't know what I was talking about, when it came to the science, so we could skip straight to the part where you say the ASA also don't know what they are talking about if you would like?

😁 I think there was plenty of that on both sides. The point here seems to be that predicted reductions were necessarily based on modelling not actual results. That may not have been made clear on adverts. I don't know: I didn't actually see any of these adverts despite living in the ULEZ expansion area. It's now happened, so give it a few months and you can either say told you so or admit that it has worked. Or more realistically agree that pollution has reduced but dispute exactly why.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict very little change.

Am coming round to BBs view that is really just needs to be a blanket charge for driving, if anything.

What, like VED (road tax) and excise duty on petrol?

Similar, but factoring in where you drive rather than a fixed fee based on a lab test.

Excise duty on petrol is proportional to how far you drive and how (un)economical your car is. No need for a new charge on driving unless you just want to punish motorists.

You mean "discourage people from driving", surely. An electric car is just as congestion causing as a polluting one.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe they're dressing as Khan, given his political career is in danger of extinction as a result of the ULEZ expansion?

Is there a serious opposition this time? I haven't followed it at all apart from seeing the Tory candidate getting a bit of grief for some dodgy tweets

There certainly seemed to be. Which Khan ignored because he thought that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

And then all of a sudden it vanished. Amazing. Where have they all gone??🤔

Not sure that it has gone. Let's see come mayoral election time.

Are you just pretending you haven't seen the polling?

Not looked tbh. Buy unless the election is in the next few days you can quote current polls all you like.

Here is quite a timely article: you and others who swallowed the TFL line on ULEZ rather too easily should read this:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-pollution-reduction-asa-report/

I think reading that sort of guff is what has led you to thinking that ULEZ opposition was some sort of magic bullet. I posted the YouGov polling above which was completed shortly after the expansion went live. Khan has a bigger lead over the Conservative candidate than Starmer does over Sunak.

Not a magic bullet, but it hasn't done him any good as far as I can see. Even if he does survive, it will at least serve as a warning to other local leftie politicians about this sort of thing.

Stevo, he was only slightly ahead before the ULEZ was extended. He's now polling 50%: double the Conservative candidate. If that's not doing him some good I don't know what is. I'd rather someone else had a go as well (for different reasons), but it's pretty unlikely to happen.

OK, but my point point was that Khan and TFL were misleading people about the benefits of ULEZ - did you read the article I linked?. What are your thoughts on that

I can only ever see the first few lines of Telegraph articles on my phone. If you can point me to the original source I'll have a look. In any case, didn't we rehearse that argument at length before? I'm not sure anything has changed since then. There's not going to be any substantive new data as the extension has only been in place for a matter of weeks.

See the issue here is that Khan is accused of not providing enough evidence to support his claims. So there may not be the source data for him to do that - and the onus is on him/TFL to show the evidence, not me.

Good deflection attempt though.

He's asking for the article source.

There isn't one linked rjsterry.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is set to criticise Transport for London (TfL) for “misleading” claims about the expansion of the Ulez zone reducing levels of poisonous nitrogen dioxide (NO2) particles.

The ASA draft recommendations will come as a huge embarrassment for both TfL and Mr Khan, the organisation’s chairman, after £9 million was spent on a “marketing blitz” ahead of the controversial Ulez expansion.

The report, marked “classified”, was handed to The Telegraph after it was sent to interested parties before any potential amendments, ratification and publication.

Ah, so it is just a rehash of the same argument we were having before. Not sure there's much to be gained by repeating it.

Well I think the argument previously involved me being told that I didn't know what I was talking about, when it came to the science, so we could skip straight to the part where you say the ASA also don't know what they are talking about if you would like?

😁 I think there was plenty of that on both sides. The point here seems to be that predicted reductions were necessarily based on modelling not actual results. That may not have been made clear on adverts. I don't know: I didn't actually see any of these adverts despite living in the ULEZ expansion area. It's now happened, so give it a few months and you can either say told you so or admit that it has worked. Or more realistically agree that pollution has reduced but dispute exactly why.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict very little change.

Am coming round to BBs view that is really just needs to be a blanket charge for driving, if anything.

What, like VED (road tax) and excise duty on petrol?

Similar, but factoring in where you drive rather than a fixed fee based on a lab test.

Excise duty on petrol is proportional to how far you drive and how (un)economical your car is. No need for a new charge on driving unless you just want to punish motorists.

Oh stop being such a victim. I wrote *where* you drive, not how far. If Google Maps can find and suggest quicker, less busy routes as you drive, then potentially you could incentivise using quieter routes at quieter times with different charges: a more targeted Congestion charge.

Also VED is going to have to be replaced fairly soon anyway as ICE's die out, so might as well plan for it.

I'd hesitate to call myself a victim, but there are probably quite a few people who rely on their cars are are less well off who might object to your rather urban centric and anti car view of things.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe they're dressing as Khan, given his political career is in danger of extinction as a result of the ULEZ expansion?

Is there a serious opposition this time? I haven't followed it at all apart from seeing the Tory candidate getting a bit of grief for some dodgy tweets

There certainly seemed to be. Which Khan ignored because he thought that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

And then all of a sudden it vanished. Amazing. Where have they all gone??🤔

Not sure that it has gone. Let's see come mayoral election time.

Are you just pretending you haven't seen the polling?

Not looked tbh. Buy unless the election is in the next few days you can quote current polls all you like.

Here is quite a timely article: you and others who swallowed the TFL line on ULEZ rather too easily should read this:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-pollution-reduction-asa-report/

I think reading that sort of guff is what has led you to thinking that ULEZ opposition was some sort of magic bullet. I posted the YouGov polling above which was completed shortly after the expansion went live. Khan has a bigger lead over the Conservative candidate than Starmer does over Sunak.

Not a magic bullet, but it hasn't done him any good as far as I can see. Even if he does survive, it will at least serve as a warning to other local leftie politicians about this sort of thing.

Stevo, he was only slightly ahead before the ULEZ was extended. He's now polling 50%: double the Conservative candidate. If that's not doing him some good I don't know what is. I'd rather someone else had a go as well (for different reasons), but it's pretty unlikely to happen.

OK, but my point point was that Khan and TFL were misleading people about the benefits of ULEZ - did you read the article I linked?. What are your thoughts on that

I can only ever see the first few lines of Telegraph articles on my phone. If you can point me to the original source I'll have a look. In any case, didn't we rehearse that argument at length before? I'm not sure anything has changed since then. There's not going to be any substantive new data as the extension has only been in place for a matter of weeks.

See the issue here is that Khan is accused of not providing enough evidence to support his claims. So there may not be the source data for him to do that - and the onus is on him/TFL to show the evidence, not me.

Good deflection attempt though.

He's asking for the article source.

There isn't one linked rjsterry.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is set to criticise Transport for London (TfL) for “misleading” claims about the expansion of the Ulez zone reducing levels of poisonous nitrogen dioxide (NO2) particles.

The ASA draft recommendations will come as a huge embarrassment for both TfL and Mr Khan, the organisation’s chairman, after £9 million was spent on a “marketing blitz” ahead of the controversial Ulez expansion.

The report, marked “classified”, was handed to The Telegraph after it was sent to interested parties before any potential amendments, ratification and publication.

Ah, so it is just a rehash of the same argument we were having before. Not sure there's much to be gained by repeating it.

Well I think the argument previously involved me being told that I didn't know what I was talking about, when it came to the science, so we could skip straight to the part where you say the ASA also don't know what they are talking about if you would like?

😁 I think there was plenty of that on both sides. The point here seems to be that predicted reductions were necessarily based on modelling not actual results. That may not have been made clear on adverts. I don't know: I didn't actually see any of these adverts despite living in the ULEZ expansion area. It's now happened, so give it a few months and you can either say told you so or admit that it has worked. Or more realistically agree that pollution has reduced but dispute exactly why.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict very little change.

Am coming round to BBs view that is really just needs to be a blanket charge for driving, if anything.

What, like VED (road tax) and excise duty on petrol?

Similar, but factoring in where you drive rather than a fixed fee based on a lab test.

Excise duty on petrol is proportional to how far you drive and how (un)economical your car is. No need for a new charge on driving unless you just want to punish motorists.

You mean "discourage people from driving", surely. An electric car is just as congestion causing as a polluting one.

Depends what you want to do. Some seem intent on pricing cars off the road for whatever reason. Ironic if it became a form of transport for the better off.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe they're dressing as Khan, given his political career is in danger of extinction as a result of the ULEZ expansion?

Is there a serious opposition this time? I haven't followed it at all apart from seeing the Tory candidate getting a bit of grief for some dodgy tweets

There certainly seemed to be. Which Khan ignored because he thought that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

And then all of a sudden it vanished. Amazing. Where have they all gone??🤔

Not sure that it has gone. Let's see come mayoral election time.

Are you just pretending you haven't seen the polling?

Not looked tbh. Buy unless the election is in the next few days you can quote current polls all you like.

Here is quite a timely article: you and others who swallowed the TFL line on ULEZ rather too easily should read this:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-pollution-reduction-asa-report/

I think reading that sort of guff is what has led you to thinking that ULEZ opposition was some sort of magic bullet. I posted the YouGov polling above which was completed shortly after the expansion went live. Khan has a bigger lead over the Conservative candidate than Starmer does over Sunak.

Not a magic bullet, but it hasn't done him any good as far as I can see. Even if he does survive, it will at least serve as a warning to other local leftie politicians about this sort of thing.

Stevo, he was only slightly ahead before the ULEZ was extended. He's now polling 50%: double the Conservative candidate. If that's not doing him some good I don't know what is. I'd rather someone else had a go as well (for different reasons), but it's pretty unlikely to happen.

OK, but my point point was that Khan and TFL were misleading people about the benefits of ULEZ - did you read the article I linked?. What are your thoughts on that

I can only ever see the first few lines of Telegraph articles on my phone. If you can point me to the original source I'll have a look. In any case, didn't we rehearse that argument at length before? I'm not sure anything has changed since then. There's not going to be any substantive new data as the extension has only been in place for a matter of weeks.

See the issue here is that Khan is accused of not providing enough evidence to support his claims. So there may not be the source data for him to do that - and the onus is on him/TFL to show the evidence, not me.

Good deflection attempt though.

He's asking for the article source.

There isn't one linked rjsterry.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is set to criticise Transport for London (TfL) for “misleading” claims about the expansion of the Ulez zone reducing levels of poisonous nitrogen dioxide (NO2) particles.

The ASA draft recommendations will come as a huge embarrassment for both TfL and Mr Khan, the organisation’s chairman, after £9 million was spent on a “marketing blitz” ahead of the controversial Ulez expansion.

The report, marked “classified”, was handed to The Telegraph after it was sent to interested parties before any potential amendments, ratification and publication.

Ah, so it is just a rehash of the same argument we were having before. Not sure there's much to be gained by repeating it.

Well I think the argument previously involved me being told that I didn't know what I was talking about, when it came to the science, so we could skip straight to the part where you say the ASA also don't know what they are talking about if you would like?

😁 I think there was plenty of that on both sides. The point here seems to be that predicted reductions were necessarily based on modelling not actual results. That may not have been made clear on adverts. I don't know: I didn't actually see any of these adverts despite living in the ULEZ expansion area. It's now happened, so give it a few months and you can either say told you so or admit that it has worked. Or more realistically agree that pollution has reduced but dispute exactly why.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict very little change.

Am coming round to BBs view that is really just needs to be a blanket charge for driving, if anything.

What, like VED (road tax) and excise duty on petrol?

Similar, but factoring in where you drive rather than a fixed fee based on a lab test.

Excise duty on petrol is proportional to how far you drive and how (un)economical your car is. No need for a new charge on driving unless you just want to punish motorists.

Oh stop being such a victim. I wrote *where* you drive, not how far. If Google Maps can find and suggest quicker, less busy routes as you drive, then potentially you could incentivise using quieter routes at quieter times with different charges: a more targeted Congestion charge.

Also VED is going to have to be replaced fairly soon anyway as ICE's die out, so might as well plan for it.

I'd hesitate to call myself a victim, but there are probably quite a few people who rely on their cars are are less well off who might object to your rather urban centric and anti car view of things.

You seem convinced people hate cars. What's anti-car about replacing a soon to be obsolete VED and fuel duty with charging based on which roads you use and when. There's no reason why it wouldn't be cost-neutral for the average driver.

briantrumpet

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe they're dressing as Khan, given his political career is in danger of extinction as a result of the ULEZ expansion?

Is there a serious opposition this time? I haven't followed it at all apart from seeing the Tory candidate getting a bit of grief for some dodgy tweets

There certainly seemed to be. Which Khan ignored because he thought that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

And then all of a sudden it vanished. Amazing. Where have they all gone??🤔

Not sure that it has gone. Let's see come mayoral election time.

Are you just pretending you haven't seen the polling?

Not looked tbh. Buy unless the election is in the next few days you can quote current polls all you like.

Here is quite a timely article: you and others who swallowed the TFL line on ULEZ rather too easily should read this:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-pollution-reduction-asa-report/

I think reading that sort of guff is what has led you to thinking that ULEZ opposition was some sort of magic bullet. I posted the YouGov polling above which was completed shortly after the expansion went live. Khan has a bigger lead over the Conservative candidate than Starmer does over Sunak.

Not a magic bullet, but it hasn't done him any good as far as I can see. Even if he does survive, it will at least serve as a warning to other local leftie politicians about this sort of thing.

Stevo, he was only slightly ahead before the ULEZ was extended. He's now polling 50%: double the Conservative candidate. If that's not doing him some good I don't know what is. I'd rather someone else had a go as well (for different reasons), but it's pretty unlikely to happen.

OK, but my point point was that Khan and TFL were misleading people about the benefits of ULEZ - did you read the article I linked?. What are your thoughts on that

I can only ever see the first few lines of Telegraph articles on my phone. If you can point me to the original source I'll have a look. In any case, didn't we rehearse that argument at length before? I'm not sure anything has changed since then. There's not going to be any substantive new data as the extension has only been in place for a matter of weeks.

See the issue here is that Khan is accused of not providing enough evidence to support his claims. So there may not be the source data for him to do that - and the onus is on him/TFL to show the evidence, not me.

Good deflection attempt though.

He's asking for the article source.

There isn't one linked rjsterry.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is set to criticise Transport for London (TfL) for “misleading” claims about the expansion of the Ulez zone reducing levels of poisonous nitrogen dioxide (NO2) particles.

The ASA draft recommendations will come as a huge embarrassment for both TfL and Mr Khan, the organisation’s chairman, after £9 million was spent on a “marketing blitz” ahead of the controversial Ulez expansion.

The report, marked “classified”, was handed to The Telegraph after it was sent to interested parties before any potential amendments, ratification and publication.

Ah, so it is just a rehash of the same argument we were having before. Not sure there's much to be gained by repeating it.

Well I think the argument previously involved me being told that I didn't know what I was talking about, when it came to the science, so we could skip straight to the part where you say the ASA also don't know what they are talking about if you would like?

😁 I think there was plenty of that on both sides. The point here seems to be that predicted reductions were necessarily based on modelling not actual results. That may not have been made clear on adverts. I don't know: I didn't actually see any of these adverts despite living in the ULEZ expansion area. It's now happened, so give it a few months and you can either say told you so or admit that it has worked. Or more realistically agree that pollution has reduced but dispute exactly why.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict very little change.

Am coming round to BBs view that is really just needs to be a blanket charge for driving, if anything.

What, like VED (road tax) and excise duty on petrol?

Similar, but factoring in where you drive rather than a fixed fee based on a lab test.

Excise duty on petrol is proportional to how far you drive and how (un)economical your car is. No need for a new charge on driving unless you just want to punish motorists.

Oh stop being such a victim. I wrote *where* you drive, not how far. If Google Maps can find and suggest quicker, less busy routes as you drive, then potentially you could incentivise using quieter routes at quieter times with different charges: a more targeted Congestion charge.

Also VED is going to have to be replaced fairly soon anyway as ICE's die out, so might as well plan for it.

I'd hesitate to call myself a victim, but there are probably quite a few people who rely on their cars are are less well off who might object to your rather urban centric and anti car view of things.

This is a bit like saying that using differential pricing on trains for different times of day is 'anti train'.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe they're dressing as Khan, given his political career is in danger of extinction as a result of the ULEZ expansion?

Is there a serious opposition this time? I haven't followed it at all apart from seeing the Tory candidate getting a bit of grief for some dodgy tweets

There certainly seemed to be. Which Khan ignored because he thought that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

And then all of a sudden it vanished. Amazing. Where have they all gone??🤔

Not sure that it has gone. Let's see come mayoral election time.

Are you just pretending you haven't seen the polling?

Not looked tbh. Buy unless the election is in the next few days you can quote current polls all you like.

Here is quite a timely article: you and others who swallowed the TFL line on ULEZ rather too easily should read this:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-pollution-reduction-asa-report/

I think reading that sort of guff is what has led you to thinking that ULEZ opposition was some sort of magic bullet. I posted the YouGov polling above which was completed shortly after the expansion went live. Khan has a bigger lead over the Conservative candidate than Starmer does over Sunak.

Not a magic bullet, but it hasn't done him any good as far as I can see. Even if he does survive, it will at least serve as a warning to other local leftie politicians about this sort of thing.

Stevo, he was only slightly ahead before the ULEZ was extended. He's now polling 50%: double the Conservative candidate. If that's not doing him some good I don't know what is. I'd rather someone else had a go as well (for different reasons), but it's pretty unlikely to happen.

OK, but my point point was that Khan and TFL were misleading people about the benefits of ULEZ - did you read the article I linked?. What are your thoughts on that

I can only ever see the first few lines of Telegraph articles on my phone. If you can point me to the original source I'll have a look. In any case, didn't we rehearse that argument at length before? I'm not sure anything has changed since then. There's not going to be any substantive new data as the extension has only been in place for a matter of weeks.

See the issue here is that Khan is accused of not providing enough evidence to support his claims. So there may not be the source data for him to do that - and the onus is on him/TFL to show the evidence, not me.

Good deflection attempt though.

He's asking for the article source.

There isn't one linked rjsterry.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is set to criticise Transport for London (TfL) for “misleading” claims about the expansion of the Ulez zone reducing levels of poisonous nitrogen dioxide (NO2) particles.

The ASA draft recommendations will come as a huge embarrassment for both TfL and Mr Khan, the organisation’s chairman, after £9 million was spent on a “marketing blitz” ahead of the controversial Ulez expansion.

The report, marked “classified”, was handed to The Telegraph after it was sent to interested parties before any potential amendments, ratification and publication.

Ah, so it is just a rehash of the same argument we were having before. Not sure there's much to be gained by repeating it.

Well I think the argument previously involved me being told that I didn't know what I was talking about, when it came to the science, so we could skip straight to the part where you say the ASA also don't know what they are talking about if you would like?

😁 I think there was plenty of that on both sides. The point here seems to be that predicted reductions were necessarily based on modelling not actual results. That may not have been made clear on adverts. I don't know: I didn't actually see any of these adverts despite living in the ULEZ expansion area. It's now happened, so give it a few months and you can either say told you so or admit that it has worked. Or more realistically agree that pollution has reduced but dispute exactly why.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict very little change.

Am coming round to BBs view that is really just needs to be a blanket charge for driving, if anything.

What, like VED (road tax) and excise duty on petrol?

Similar, but factoring in where you drive rather than a fixed fee based on a lab test.

Excise duty on petrol is proportional to how far you drive and how (un)economical your car is. No need for a new charge on driving unless you just want to punish motorists.

Oh stop being such a victim. I wrote *where* you drive, not how far. If Google Maps can find and suggest quicker, less busy routes as you drive, then potentially you could incentivise using quieter routes at quieter times with different charges: a more targeted Congestion charge.

Also VED is going to have to be replaced fairly soon anyway as ICE's die out, so might as well plan for it.

I'd hesitate to call myself a victim, but there are probably quite a few people who rely on their cars are are less well off who might object to your rather urban centric and anti car view of things.

You seem convinced people hate cars. What's anti-car about replacing a soon to be obsolete VED and fuel duty with charging based on which roads you use and when. There's no reason why it wouldn't be cost-neutral for the average driver.

For clarity, I do hate cars.

TheBigBean

One for the car thread, but I was thinking this morning car charges should be as follows:
- all vehicles including electric and taxis pay the congestion charge
- ultra low emitting ones pay the ultra low charge
- other emitting vehicles pay the emitting vehicles charge.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe they're dressing as Khan, given his political career is in danger of extinction as a result of the ULEZ expansion?

Is there a serious opposition this time? I haven't followed it at all apart from seeing the Tory candidate getting a bit of grief for some dodgy tweets

There certainly seemed to be. Which Khan ignored because he thought that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

And then all of a sudden it vanished. Amazing. Where have they all gone??🤔

Not sure that it has gone. Let's see come mayoral election time.

Are you just pretending you haven't seen the polling?

Not looked tbh. Buy unless the election is in the next few days you can quote current polls all you like.

Here is quite a timely article: you and others who swallowed the TFL line on ULEZ rather too easily should read this:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-pollution-reduction-asa-report/

I think reading that sort of guff is what has led you to thinking that ULEZ opposition was some sort of magic bullet. I posted the YouGov polling above which was completed shortly after the expansion went live. Khan has a bigger lead over the Conservative candidate than Starmer does over Sunak.

Not a magic bullet, but it hasn't done him any good as far as I can see. Even if he does survive, it will at least serve as a warning to other local leftie politicians about this sort of thing.

Stevo, he was only slightly ahead before the ULEZ was extended. He's now polling 50%: double the Conservative candidate. If that's not doing him some good I don't know what is. I'd rather someone else had a go as well (for different reasons), but it's pretty unlikely to happen.

OK, but my point point was that Khan and TFL were misleading people about the benefits of ULEZ - did you read the article I linked?. What are your thoughts on that

I can only ever see the first few lines of Telegraph articles on my phone. If you can point me to the original source I'll have a look. In any case, didn't we rehearse that argument at length before? I'm not sure anything has changed since then. There's not going to be any substantive new data as the extension has only been in place for a matter of weeks.

See the issue here is that Khan is accused of not providing enough evidence to support his claims. So there may not be the source data for him to do that - and the onus is on him/TFL to show the evidence, not me.

Good deflection attempt though.

He's asking for the article source.

There isn't one linked rjsterry.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is set to criticise Transport for London (TfL) for “misleading” claims about the expansion of the Ulez zone reducing levels of poisonous nitrogen dioxide (NO2) particles.

The ASA draft recommendations will come as a huge embarrassment for both TfL and Mr Khan, the organisation’s chairman, after £9 million was spent on a “marketing blitz” ahead of the controversial Ulez expansion.

The report, marked “classified”, was handed to The Telegraph after it was sent to interested parties before any potential amendments, ratification and publication.

Ah, so it is just a rehash of the same argument we were having before. Not sure there's much to be gained by repeating it.

Well I think the argument previously involved me being told that I didn't know what I was talking about, when it came to the science, so we could skip straight to the part where you say the ASA also don't know what they are talking about if you would like?

😁 I think there was plenty of that on both sides. The point here seems to be that predicted reductions were necessarily based on modelling not actual results. That may not have been made clear on adverts. I don't know: I didn't actually see any of these adverts despite living in the ULEZ expansion area. It's now happened, so give it a few months and you can either say told you so or admit that it has worked. Or more realistically agree that pollution has reduced but dispute exactly why.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict very little change.

Am coming round to BBs view that is really just needs to be a blanket charge for driving, if anything.

What, like VED (road tax) and excise duty on petrol?

Similar, but factoring in where you drive rather than a fixed fee based on a lab test.

Excise duty on petrol is proportional to how far you drive and how (un)economical your car is. No need for a new charge on driving unless you just want to punish motorists.

Oh stop being such a victim. I wrote *where* you drive, not how far. If Google Maps can find and suggest quicker, less busy routes as you drive, then potentially you could incentivise using quieter routes at quieter times with different charges: a more targeted Congestion charge.

Also VED is going to have to be replaced fairly soon anyway as ICE's die out, so might as well plan for it.

I'd hesitate to call myself a victim, but there are probably quite a few people who rely on their cars are are less well off who might object to your rather urban centric and anti car view of things.

Are you complaining about London's transport policy being rather urban centric?

I'd rather car driving be discouraged by taking road space away and making buses move faster, but people moan about that too. Congestion charging seems the compromise.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe they're dressing as Khan, given his political career is in danger of extinction as a result of the ULEZ expansion?

Is there a serious opposition this time? I haven't followed it at all apart from seeing the Tory candidate getting a bit of grief for some dodgy tweets

There certainly seemed to be. Which Khan ignored because he thought that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

And then all of a sudden it vanished. Amazing. Where have they all gone??🤔

Not sure that it has gone. Let's see come mayoral election time.

Are you just pretending you haven't seen the polling?

Not looked tbh. Buy unless the election is in the next few days you can quote current polls all you like.

Here is quite a timely article: you and others who swallowed the TFL line on ULEZ rather too easily should read this:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-pollution-reduction-asa-report/

I think reading that sort of guff is what has led you to thinking that ULEZ opposition was some sort of magic bullet. I posted the YouGov polling above which was completed shortly after the expansion went live. Khan has a bigger lead over the Conservative candidate than Starmer does over Sunak.

Not a magic bullet, but it hasn't done him any good as far as I can see. Even if he does survive, it will at least serve as a warning to other local leftie politicians about this sort of thing.

Stevo, he was only slightly ahead before the ULEZ was extended. He's now polling 50%: double the Conservative candidate. If that's not doing him some good I don't know what is. I'd rather someone else had a go as well (for different reasons), but it's pretty unlikely to happen.

OK, but my point point was that Khan and TFL were misleading people about the benefits of ULEZ - did you read the article I linked?. What are your thoughts on that

I can only ever see the first few lines of Telegraph articles on my phone. If you can point me to the original source I'll have a look. In any case, didn't we rehearse that argument at length before? I'm not sure anything has changed since then. There's not going to be any substantive new data as the extension has only been in place for a matter of weeks.

See the issue here is that Khan is accused of not providing enough evidence to support his claims. So there may not be the source data for him to do that - and the onus is on him/TFL to show the evidence, not me.

Good deflection attempt though.

He's asking for the article source.

There isn't one linked rjsterry.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is set to criticise Transport for London (TfL) for “misleading” claims about the expansion of the Ulez zone reducing levels of poisonous nitrogen dioxide (NO2) particles.

The ASA draft recommendations will come as a huge embarrassment for both TfL and Mr Khan, the organisation’s chairman, after £9 million was spent on a “marketing blitz” ahead of the controversial Ulez expansion.

The report, marked “classified”, was handed to The Telegraph after it was sent to interested parties before any potential amendments, ratification and publication.

Ah, so it is just a rehash of the same argument we were having before. Not sure there's much to be gained by repeating it.

Well I think the argument previously involved me being told that I didn't know what I was talking about, when it came to the science, so we could skip straight to the part where you say the ASA also don't know what they are talking about if you would like?

😁 I think there was plenty of that on both sides. The point here seems to be that predicted reductions were necessarily based on modelling not actual results. That may not have been made clear on adverts. I don't know: I didn't actually see any of these adverts despite living in the ULEZ expansion area. It's now happened, so give it a few months and you can either say told you so or admit that it has worked. Or more realistically agree that pollution has reduced but dispute exactly why.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict very little change.

Am coming round to BBs view that is really just needs to be a blanket charge for driving, if anything.

What, like VED (road tax) and excise duty on petrol?

Similar, but factoring in where you drive rather than a fixed fee based on a lab test.

Excise duty on petrol is proportional to how far you drive and how (un)economical your car is. No need for a new charge on driving unless you just want to punish motorists.

Oh stop being such a victim. I wrote *where* you drive, not how far. If Google Maps can find and suggest quicker, less busy routes as you drive, then potentially you could incentivise using quieter routes at quieter times with different charges: a more targeted Congestion charge.

Also VED is going to have to be replaced fairly soon anyway as ICE's die out, so might as well plan for it.

I'd hesitate to call myself a victim, but there are probably quite a few people who rely on their cars are are less well off who might object to your rather urban centric and anti car view of things.

You seem convinced people hate cars. What's anti-car about replacing a soon to be obsolete VED and fuel duty with charging based on which roads you use and when. There's no reason why it wouldn't be cost-neutral for the average driver.

The conversation above was framed as additional charges for drivers. Eventually it will need to be replaced, sure but I see no need for adding more costs onto motorists now.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe they're dressing as Khan, given his political career is in danger of extinction as a result of the ULEZ expansion?

Is there a serious opposition this time? I haven't followed it at all apart from seeing the Tory candidate getting a bit of grief for some dodgy tweets

There certainly seemed to be. Which Khan ignored because he thought that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

And then all of a sudden it vanished. Amazing. Where have they all gone??🤔

Not sure that it has gone. Let's see come mayoral election time.

Are you just pretending you haven't seen the polling?

Not looked tbh. Buy unless the election is in the next few days you can quote current polls all you like.

Here is quite a timely article: you and others who swallowed the TFL line on ULEZ rather too easily should read this:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-pollution-reduction-asa-report/

I think reading that sort of guff is what has led you to thinking that ULEZ opposition was some sort of magic bullet. I posted the YouGov polling above which was completed shortly after the expansion went live. Khan has a bigger lead over the Conservative candidate than Starmer does over Sunak.

Not a magic bullet, but it hasn't done him any good as far as I can see. Even if he does survive, it will at least serve as a warning to other local leftie politicians about this sort of thing.

Stevo, he was only slightly ahead before the ULEZ was extended. He's now polling 50%: double the Conservative candidate. If that's not doing him some good I don't know what is. I'd rather someone else had a go as well (for different reasons), but it's pretty unlikely to happen.

OK, but my point point was that Khan and TFL were misleading people about the benefits of ULEZ - did you read the article I linked?. What are your thoughts on that

I can only ever see the first few lines of Telegraph articles on my phone. If you can point me to the original source I'll have a look. In any case, didn't we rehearse that argument at length before? I'm not sure anything has changed since then. There's not going to be any substantive new data as the extension has only been in place for a matter of weeks.

See the issue here is that Khan is accused of not providing enough evidence to support his claims. So there may not be the source data for him to do that - and the onus is on him/TFL to show the evidence, not me.

Good deflection attempt though.

He's asking for the article source.

There isn't one linked rjsterry.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is set to criticise Transport for London (TfL) for “misleading” claims about the expansion of the Ulez zone reducing levels of poisonous nitrogen dioxide (NO2) particles.

The ASA draft recommendations will come as a huge embarrassment for both TfL and Mr Khan, the organisation’s chairman, after £9 million was spent on a “marketing blitz” ahead of the controversial Ulez expansion.

The report, marked “classified”, was handed to The Telegraph after it was sent to interested parties before any potential amendments, ratification and publication.

Ah, so it is just a rehash of the same argument we were having before. Not sure there's much to be gained by repeating it.

Well I think the argument previously involved me being told that I didn't know what I was talking about, when it came to the science, so we could skip straight to the part where you say the ASA also don't know what they are talking about if you would like?

😁 I think there was plenty of that on both sides. The point here seems to be that predicted reductions were necessarily based on modelling not actual results. That may not have been made clear on adverts. I don't know: I didn't actually see any of these adverts despite living in the ULEZ expansion area. It's now happened, so give it a few months and you can either say told you so or admit that it has worked. Or more realistically agree that pollution has reduced but dispute exactly why.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict very little change.

Am coming round to BBs view that is really just needs to be a blanket charge for driving, if anything.

What, like VED (road tax) and excise duty on petrol?

Similar, but factoring in where you drive rather than a fixed fee based on a lab test.

Excise duty on petrol is proportional to how far you drive and how (un)economical your car is. No need for a new charge on driving unless you just want to punish motorists.

Oh stop being such a victim. I wrote *where* you drive, not how far. If Google Maps can find and suggest quicker, less busy routes as you drive, then potentially you could incentivise using quieter routes at quieter times with different charges: a more targeted Congestion charge.

Also VED is going to have to be replaced fairly soon anyway as ICE's die out, so might as well plan for it.

I'd hesitate to call myself a victim, but there are probably quite a few people who rely on their cars are are less well off who might object to your rather urban centric and anti car view of things.

This is a bit like saying that using differential pricing on trains for different times of day is 'anti train'.

I didn't say bit was just about diferential pricing.

Stevo_666

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe they're dressing as Khan, given his political career is in danger of extinction as a result of the ULEZ expansion?

Is there a serious opposition this time? I haven't followed it at all apart from seeing the Tory candidate getting a bit of grief for some dodgy tweets

There certainly seemed to be. Which Khan ignored because he thought that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

And then all of a sudden it vanished. Amazing. Where have they all gone??🤔

Not sure that it has gone. Let's see come mayoral election time.

Are you just pretending you haven't seen the polling?

Not looked tbh. Buy unless the election is in the next few days you can quote current polls all you like.

Here is quite a timely article: you and others who swallowed the TFL line on ULEZ rather too easily should read this:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-pollution-reduction-asa-report/

I think reading that sort of guff is what has led you to thinking that ULEZ opposition was some sort of magic bullet. I posted the YouGov polling above which was completed shortly after the expansion went live. Khan has a bigger lead over the Conservative candidate than Starmer does over Sunak.

Not a magic bullet, but it hasn't done him any good as far as I can see. Even if he does survive, it will at least serve as a warning to other local leftie politicians about this sort of thing.

Stevo, he was only slightly ahead before the ULEZ was extended. He's now polling 50%: double the Conservative candidate. If that's not doing him some good I don't know what is. I'd rather someone else had a go as well (for different reasons), but it's pretty unlikely to happen.

OK, but my point point was that Khan and TFL were misleading people about the benefits of ULEZ - did you read the article I linked?. What are your thoughts on that

I can only ever see the first few lines of Telegraph articles on my phone. If you can point me to the original source I'll have a look. In any case, didn't we rehearse that argument at length before? I'm not sure anything has changed since then. There's not going to be any substantive new data as the extension has only been in place for a matter of weeks.

See the issue here is that Khan is accused of not providing enough evidence to support his claims. So there may not be the source data for him to do that - and the onus is on him/TFL to show the evidence, not me.

Good deflection attempt though.

He's asking for the article source.

There isn't one linked rjsterry.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is set to criticise Transport for London (TfL) for “misleading” claims about the expansion of the Ulez zone reducing levels of poisonous nitrogen dioxide (NO2) particles.

The ASA draft recommendations will come as a huge embarrassment for both TfL and Mr Khan, the organisation’s chairman, after £9 million was spent on a “marketing blitz” ahead of the controversial Ulez expansion.

The report, marked “classified”, was handed to The Telegraph after it was sent to interested parties before any potential amendments, ratification and publication.

Ah, so it is just a rehash of the same argument we were having before. Not sure there's much to be gained by repeating it.

Well I think the argument previously involved me being told that I didn't know what I was talking about, when it came to the science, so we could skip straight to the part where you say the ASA also don't know what they are talking about if you would like?

😁 I think there was plenty of that on both sides. The point here seems to be that predicted reductions were necessarily based on modelling not actual results. That may not have been made clear on adverts. I don't know: I didn't actually see any of these adverts despite living in the ULEZ expansion area. It's now happened, so give it a few months and you can either say told you so or admit that it has worked. Or more realistically agree that pollution has reduced but dispute exactly why.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict very little change.

Am coming round to BBs view that is really just needs to be a blanket charge for driving, if anything.

What, like VED (road tax) and excise duty on petrol?

Similar, but factoring in where you drive rather than a fixed fee based on a lab test.

Excise duty on petrol is proportional to how far you drive and how (un)economical your car is. No need for a new charge on driving unless you just want to punish motorists.

Oh stop being such a victim. I wrote *where* you drive, not how far. If Google Maps can find and suggest quicker, less busy routes as you drive, then potentially you could incentivise using quieter routes at quieter times with different charges: a more targeted Congestion charge.

Also VED is going to have to be replaced fairly soon anyway as ICE's die out, so might as well plan for it.

I'd hesitate to call myself a victim, but there are probably quite a few people who rely on their cars are are less well off who might object to your rather urban centric and anti car view of things.

You seem convinced people hate cars. What's anti-car about replacing a soon to be obsolete VED and fuel duty with charging based on which roads you use and when. There's no reason why it wouldn't be cost-neutral for the average driver.

For clarity, I do hate cars.

We can tell. What caused this irrational hatred?

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

With the camera tech they have I wonder if they could create an algorithm that plots the car's journey within the ULEZ limits and charges them 2x whatever it would cost to do the nearest equivalent journey on public transport.

For commercial vehicles you could create a different set of pricing.

Dreamy.

That's all it is, a dream. Non starter outside the car haters echo chamber.

It's pretty rational tbh. London is too dense for car driving.

Maybe you think it's rational but doesn't mean it's likely.

photonic69

TheBigBean said:

One for the car thread, but I was thinking this morning car charges should be as follows:
- all vehicles including electric and taxis pay the congestion charge
- ultra low emitting ones pay the ultra low charge
- other emitting vehicles pay the emitting vehicles charge.

How about this instead.
- all vehicles including electric and taxis pay the congestion charge based on a percentage of your annual income.

That way is far more fair and based on your ability to pay. Road pricing as it currently is has little effect on those in high income brackets.

TheBigBean

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe they're dressing as Khan, given his political career is in danger of extinction as a result of the ULEZ expansion?

Is there a serious opposition this time? I haven't followed it at all apart from seeing the Tory candidate getting a bit of grief for some dodgy tweets

There certainly seemed to be. Which Khan ignored because he thought that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

And then all of a sudden it vanished. Amazing. Where have they all gone??🤔

Not sure that it has gone. Let's see come mayoral election time.

Are you just pretending you haven't seen the polling?

Not looked tbh. Buy unless the election is in the next few days you can quote current polls all you like.

Here is quite a timely article: you and others who swallowed the TFL line on ULEZ rather too easily should read this:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-pollution-reduction-asa-report/

I think reading that sort of guff is what has led you to thinking that ULEZ opposition was some sort of magic bullet. I posted the YouGov polling above which was completed shortly after the expansion went live. Khan has a bigger lead over the Conservative candidate than Starmer does over Sunak.

Not a magic bullet, but it hasn't done him any good as far as I can see. Even if he does survive, it will at least serve as a warning to other local leftie politicians about this sort of thing.

Stevo, he was only slightly ahead before the ULEZ was extended. He's now polling 50%: double the Conservative candidate. If that's not doing him some good I don't know what is. I'd rather someone else had a go as well (for different reasons), but it's pretty unlikely to happen.

OK, but my point point was that Khan and TFL were misleading people about the benefits of ULEZ - did you read the article I linked?. What are your thoughts on that

I can only ever see the first few lines of Telegraph articles on my phone. If you can point me to the original source I'll have a look. In any case, didn't we rehearse that argument at length before? I'm not sure anything has changed since then. There's not going to be any substantive new data as the extension has only been in place for a matter of weeks.

See the issue here is that Khan is accused of not providing enough evidence to support his claims. So there may not be the source data for him to do that - and the onus is on him/TFL to show the evidence, not me.

Good deflection attempt though.

He's asking for the article source.

There isn't one linked rjsterry.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is set to criticise Transport for London (TfL) for “misleading” claims about the expansion of the Ulez zone reducing levels of poisonous nitrogen dioxide (NO2) particles.

The ASA draft recommendations will come as a huge embarrassment for both TfL and Mr Khan, the organisation’s chairman, after £9 million was spent on a “marketing blitz” ahead of the controversial Ulez expansion.

The report, marked “classified”, was handed to The Telegraph after it was sent to interested parties before any potential amendments, ratification and publication.

Ah, so it is just a rehash of the same argument we were having before. Not sure there's much to be gained by repeating it.

Well I think the argument previously involved me being told that I didn't know what I was talking about, when it came to the science, so we could skip straight to the part where you say the ASA also don't know what they are talking about if you would like?

😁 I think there was plenty of that on both sides. The point here seems to be that predicted reductions were necessarily based on modelling not actual results. That may not have been made clear on adverts. I don't know: I didn't actually see any of these adverts despite living in the ULEZ expansion area. It's now happened, so give it a few months and you can either say told you so or admit that it has worked. Or more realistically agree that pollution has reduced but dispute exactly why.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict very little change.

Am coming round to BBs view that is really just needs to be a blanket charge for driving, if anything.

What, like VED (road tax) and excise duty on petrol?

Similar, but factoring in where you drive rather than a fixed fee based on a lab test.

Excise duty on petrol is proportional to how far you drive and how (un)economical your car is. No need for a new charge on driving unless you just want to punish motorists.

Oh stop being such a victim. I wrote *where* you drive, not how far. If Google Maps can find and suggest quicker, less busy routes as you drive, then potentially you could incentivise using quieter routes at quieter times with different charges: a more targeted Congestion charge.

Also VED is going to have to be replaced fairly soon anyway as ICE's die out, so might as well plan for it.

I'd hesitate to call myself a victim, but there are probably quite a few people who rely on their cars are are less well off who might object to your rather urban centric and anti car view of things.

You seem convinced people hate cars. What's anti-car about replacing a soon to be obsolete VED and fuel duty with charging based on which roads you use and when. There's no reason why it wouldn't be cost-neutral for the average driver.

For clarity, I do hate cars.

We can tell. What caused this irrational hatred?

I saw the light.

Stevo_666

TheBigBean said:

Stevo_666 said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe they're dressing as Khan, given his political career is in danger of extinction as a result of the ULEZ expansion?

Is there a serious opposition this time? I haven't followed it at all apart from seeing the Tory candidate getting a bit of grief for some dodgy tweets

There certainly seemed to be. Which Khan ignored because he thought that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

And then all of a sudden it vanished. Amazing. Where have they all gone??🤔

Not sure that it has gone. Let's see come mayoral election time.

Are you just pretending you haven't seen the polling?

Not looked tbh. Buy unless the election is in the next few days you can quote current polls all you like.

Here is quite a timely article: you and others who swallowed the TFL line on ULEZ rather too easily should read this:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-pollution-reduction-asa-report/

I think reading that sort of guff is what has led you to thinking that ULEZ opposition was some sort of magic bullet. I posted the YouGov polling above which was completed shortly after the expansion went live. Khan has a bigger lead over the Conservative candidate than Starmer does over Sunak.

Not a magic bullet, but it hasn't done him any good as far as I can see. Even if he does survive, it will at least serve as a warning to other local leftie politicians about this sort of thing.

Stevo, he was only slightly ahead before the ULEZ was extended. He's now polling 50%: double the Conservative candidate. If that's not doing him some good I don't know what is. I'd rather someone else had a go as well (for different reasons), but it's pretty unlikely to happen.

OK, but my point point was that Khan and TFL were misleading people about the benefits of ULEZ - did you read the article I linked?. What are your thoughts on that

I can only ever see the first few lines of Telegraph articles on my phone. If you can point me to the original source I'll have a look. In any case, didn't we rehearse that argument at length before? I'm not sure anything has changed since then. There's not going to be any substantive new data as the extension has only been in place for a matter of weeks.

See the issue here is that Khan is accused of not providing enough evidence to support his claims. So there may not be the source data for him to do that - and the onus is on him/TFL to show the evidence, not me.

Good deflection attempt though.

He's asking for the article source.

There isn't one linked rjsterry.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is set to criticise Transport for London (TfL) for “misleading” claims about the expansion of the Ulez zone reducing levels of poisonous nitrogen dioxide (NO2) particles.

The ASA draft recommendations will come as a huge embarrassment for both TfL and Mr Khan, the organisation’s chairman, after £9 million was spent on a “marketing blitz” ahead of the controversial Ulez expansion.

The report, marked “classified”, was handed to The Telegraph after it was sent to interested parties before any potential amendments, ratification and publication.

Ah, so it is just a rehash of the same argument we were having before. Not sure there's much to be gained by repeating it.

Well I think the argument previously involved me being told that I didn't know what I was talking about, when it came to the science, so we could skip straight to the part where you say the ASA also don't know what they are talking about if you would like?

😁 I think there was plenty of that on both sides. The point here seems to be that predicted reductions were necessarily based on modelling not actual results. That may not have been made clear on adverts. I don't know: I didn't actually see any of these adverts despite living in the ULEZ expansion area. It's now happened, so give it a few months and you can either say told you so or admit that it has worked. Or more realistically agree that pollution has reduced but dispute exactly why.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict very little change.

Am coming round to BBs view that is really just needs to be a blanket charge for driving, if anything.

What, like VED (road tax) and excise duty on petrol?

Similar, but factoring in where you drive rather than a fixed fee based on a lab test.

Excise duty on petrol is proportional to how far you drive and how (un)economical your car is. No need for a new charge on driving unless you just want to punish motorists.

Oh stop being such a victim. I wrote *where* you drive, not how far. If Google Maps can find and suggest quicker, less busy routes as you drive, then potentially you could incentivise using quieter routes at quieter times with different charges: a more targeted Congestion charge.

Also VED is going to have to be replaced fairly soon anyway as ICE's die out, so might as well plan for it.

I'd hesitate to call myself a victim, but there are probably quite a few people who rely on their cars are are less well off who might object to your rather urban centric and anti car view of things.

You seem convinced people hate cars. What's anti-car about replacing a soon to be obsolete VED and fuel duty with charging based on which roads you use and when. There's no reason why it wouldn't be cost-neutral for the average driver.

For clarity, I do hate cars.

We can tell. What caused this irrational hatred?

I saw the light.

Is that the light of 3 buses approaching a bus stop at the same time after a long wait?

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe they're dressing as Khan, given his political career is in danger of extinction as a result of the ULEZ expansion?

Is there a serious opposition this time? I haven't followed it at all apart from seeing the Tory candidate getting a bit of grief for some dodgy tweets

There certainly seemed to be. Which Khan ignored because he thought that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

And then all of a sudden it vanished. Amazing. Where have they all gone??🤔

Not sure that it has gone. Let's see come mayoral election time.

Are you just pretending you haven't seen the polling?

Not looked tbh. Buy unless the election is in the next few days you can quote current polls all you like.

Here is quite a timely article: you and others who swallowed the TFL line on ULEZ rather too easily should read this:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-pollution-reduction-asa-report/

I think reading that sort of guff is what has led you to thinking that ULEZ opposition was some sort of magic bullet. I posted the YouGov polling above which was completed shortly after the expansion went live. Khan has a bigger lead over the Conservative candidate than Starmer does over Sunak.

Not a magic bullet, but it hasn't done him any good as far as I can see. Even if he does survive, it will at least serve as a warning to other local leftie politicians about this sort of thing.

Stevo, he was only slightly ahead before the ULEZ was extended. He's now polling 50%: double the Conservative candidate. If that's not doing him some good I don't know what is. I'd rather someone else had a go as well (for different reasons), but it's pretty unlikely to happen.

OK, but my point point was that Khan and TFL were misleading people about the benefits of ULEZ - did you read the article I linked?. What are your thoughts on that

I can only ever see the first few lines of Telegraph articles on my phone. If you can point me to the original source I'll have a look. In any case, didn't we rehearse that argument at length before? I'm not sure anything has changed since then. There's not going to be any substantive new data as the extension has only been in place for a matter of weeks.

See the issue here is that Khan is accused of not providing enough evidence to support his claims. So there may not be the source data for him to do that - and the onus is on him/TFL to show the evidence, not me.

Good deflection attempt though.

He's asking for the article source.

There isn't one linked rjsterry.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is set to criticise Transport for London (TfL) for “misleading” claims about the expansion of the Ulez zone reducing levels of poisonous nitrogen dioxide (NO2) particles.

The ASA draft recommendations will come as a huge embarrassment for both TfL and Mr Khan, the organisation’s chairman, after £9 million was spent on a “marketing blitz” ahead of the controversial Ulez expansion.

The report, marked “classified”, was handed to The Telegraph after it was sent to interested parties before any potential amendments, ratification and publication.

Ah, so it is just a rehash of the same argument we were having before. Not sure there's much to be gained by repeating it.

Well I think the argument previously involved me being told that I didn't know what I was talking about, when it came to the science, so we could skip straight to the part where you say the ASA also don't know what they are talking about if you would like?

😁 I think there was plenty of that on both sides. The point here seems to be that predicted reductions were necessarily based on modelling not actual results. That may not have been made clear on adverts. I don't know: I didn't actually see any of these adverts despite living in the ULEZ expansion area. It's now happened, so give it a few months and you can either say told you so or admit that it has worked. Or more realistically agree that pollution has reduced but dispute exactly why.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict very little change.

Am coming round to BBs view that is really just needs to be a blanket charge for driving, if anything.

What, like VED (road tax) and excise duty on petrol?

Similar, but factoring in where you drive rather than a fixed fee based on a lab test.

Excise duty on petrol is proportional to how far you drive and how (un)economical your car is. No need for a new charge on driving unless you just want to punish motorists.

Oh stop being such a victim. I wrote *where* you drive, not how far. If Google Maps can find and suggest quicker, less busy routes as you drive, then potentially you could incentivise using quieter routes at quieter times with different charges: a more targeted Congestion charge.

Also VED is going to have to be replaced fairly soon anyway as ICE's die out, so might as well plan for it.

I'd hesitate to call myself a victim, but there are probably quite a few people who rely on their cars are are less well off who might object to your rather urban centric and anti car view of things.

You seem convinced people hate cars. What's anti-car about replacing a soon to be obsolete VED and fuel duty with charging based on which roads you use and when. There's no reason why it wouldn't be cost-neutral for the average driver.

The conversation above was framed as additional charges for drivers. Eventually it will need to be replaced, sure but I see no need for adding more costs onto motorists now.

No, what I at least was talking about was a different way to charge, not a way to charge more. If congestion becomes more of a factor in charging then a quiet Sunday drive in the country gets cheaper.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe they're dressing as Khan, given his political career is in danger of extinction as a result of the ULEZ expansion?

Is there a serious opposition this time? I haven't followed it at all apart from seeing the Tory candidate getting a bit of grief for some dodgy tweets

There certainly seemed to be. Which Khan ignored because he thought that he was right and everyone else was wrong.

And then all of a sudden it vanished. Amazing. Where have they all gone??🤔

Not sure that it has gone. Let's see come mayoral election time.

Are you just pretending you haven't seen the polling?

Not looked tbh. Buy unless the election is in the next few days you can quote current polls all you like.

Here is quite a timely article: you and others who swallowed the TFL line on ULEZ rather too easily should read this:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/18/sadiq-khan-ulez-expansion-pollution-reduction-asa-report/

I think reading that sort of guff is what has led you to thinking that ULEZ opposition was some sort of magic bullet. I posted the YouGov polling above which was completed shortly after the expansion went live. Khan has a bigger lead over the Conservative candidate than Starmer does over Sunak.

Not a magic bullet, but it hasn't done him any good as far as I can see. Even if he does survive, it will at least serve as a warning to other local leftie politicians about this sort of thing.

Stevo, he was only slightly ahead before the ULEZ was extended. He's now polling 50%: double the Conservative candidate. If that's not doing him some good I don't know what is. I'd rather someone else had a go as well (for different reasons), but it's pretty unlikely to happen.

OK, but my point point was that Khan and TFL were misleading people about the benefits of ULEZ - did you read the article I linked?. What are your thoughts on that

I can only ever see the first few lines of Telegraph articles on my phone. If you can point me to the original source I'll have a look. In any case, didn't we rehearse that argument at length before? I'm not sure anything has changed since then. There's not going to be any substantive new data as the extension has only been in place for a matter of weeks.

See the issue here is that Khan is accused of not providing enough evidence to support his claims. So there may not be the source data for him to do that - and the onus is on him/TFL to show the evidence, not me.

Good deflection attempt though.

He's asking for the article source.

There isn't one linked rjsterry.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is set to criticise Transport for London (TfL) for “misleading” claims about the expansion of the Ulez zone reducing levels of poisonous nitrogen dioxide (NO2) particles.

The ASA draft recommendations will come as a huge embarrassment for both TfL and Mr Khan, the organisation’s chairman, after £9 million was spent on a “marketing blitz” ahead of the controversial Ulez expansion.

The report, marked “classified”, was handed to The Telegraph after it was sent to interested parties before any potential amendments, ratification and publication.

Ah, so it is just a rehash of the same argument we were having before. Not sure there's much to be gained by repeating it.

Well I think the argument previously involved me being told that I didn't know what I was talking about, when it came to the science, so we could skip straight to the part where you say the ASA also don't know what they are talking about if you would like?

😁 I think there was plenty of that on both sides. The point here seems to be that predicted reductions were necessarily based on modelling not actual results. That may not have been made clear on adverts. I don't know: I didn't actually see any of these adverts despite living in the ULEZ expansion area. It's now happened, so give it a few months and you can either say told you so or admit that it has worked. Or more realistically agree that pollution has reduced but dispute exactly why.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict very little change.

Am coming round to BBs view that is really just needs to be a blanket charge for driving, if anything.

What, like VED (road tax) and excise duty on petrol?

Similar, but factoring in where you drive rather than a fixed fee based on a lab test.

Excise duty on petrol is proportional to how far you drive and how (un)economical your car is. No need for a new charge on driving unless you just want to punish motorists.

Oh stop being such a victim. I wrote *where* you drive, not how far. If Google Maps can find and suggest quicker, less busy routes as you drive, then potentially you could incentivise using quieter routes at quieter times with different charges: a more targeted Congestion charge.

Also VED is going to have to be replaced fairly soon anyway as ICE's die out, so might as well plan for it.

I'd hesitate to call myself a victim, but there are probably quite a few people who rely on their cars are are less well off who might object to your rather urban centric and anti car view of things.

You seem convinced people hate cars. What's anti-car about replacing a soon to be obsolete VED and fuel duty with charging based on which roads you use and when. There's no reason why it wouldn't be cost-neutral for the average driver.

The conversation above was framed as additional charges for drivers. Eventually it will need to be replaced, sure but I see no need for adding more costs onto motorists now.

No, what I at least was talking about was a different way to charge, not a way to charge more. If congestion becomes more of a factor in charging then a quiet Sunday drive in the country gets cheaper.

OK fair enough, although that may not be the view take by others on here. I'm not averse to looking at alternatives, especially with fuel duty and emissions based VED due to drop away over time.

briantrumpet

I find it hard to get into people's heads sometimes. There was no free parking left (there isn't any here, durr!) she wouldn't park where there were spaces because the cost was too high, and she'd driven all the way to Topsham to have a coffee, and then drove somewhere else, I assume to have her coffee. It must be so stressful finding a coffee with such needs.

Anyway, thankfully she took to Facebook to tell us her tale of woe.

First.Aspect

There's a nice coffee shop where I live. Only 90 mins away. Free parking.

briantrumpet

I'm reminded of the time someone featured in an article in the local press, complaining bitterly about the terrible traffic jam he'd been caught in when trying to drive the four miles to go to the gym to ride a static bike there.