Sadiq Khan wins 2024 London Mayoral election

[EACLucifer]

"Vehicles modified for the mobility impaired are exempt until 2030 / [pick a year]". Problem solved.

It's not a 100% solution, but it would be a big part of a solution.

You also need to consider people who live outside of London, though - exempting blue badge holders and people who aren't blue badge holders but do need to get to the capital for significant medical isn't going to put pollution up by much, but would greatly help people without other options.

[bagpuss]

The swing figures are a bit misleading. Look at the turnout: its tories staying at home, except for Uxbridge, where 5000 labour voters also stayed away, the f.cking tw.ts.

I suspect a chunk of that is the students that someone up there somewhere ^ mentioned

[noggins]

f.cking stewdents

I wonder: what is the overall effect of holding a general election during university holidays ?

[Sciolus]

All my life, whenever someone has tried to do something vaguely progressive, it has always been met by the same old list of reasons why we shouldn't do it, or shouldn't do it now. They're like old friends, these excuses. Old friends that come round to your home, throw up on the carpet, sh.t in your kettle, put a pillow over your granny's face, and steal all your money to pay for their addiction.

"We can't afford it." The most reliable of them all, because there has been some kind of economic crisis every year since 1973. No matter that the economy keeps growing, even when we're richer than we've ever been before, we're still too poor. Let's just put it off for a decade or so, maybe we'll be able to afford it then.

"We didn't have enough notice." Another stalwart, even though it is contradicted by the previous excuse. Let's see: The directive that introduced the current legal limits on air quality was passed in 1999. The limits were due to be met by 2010, so we've been breaking the law for 13 years already. The Supreme Court case that ordered the government to achieve compliance "in the shortest time possible" was in 2015. Exactly how much notice do you need?

"Disabled people can't afford it." A new one this, and a helpful distraction from the fact that the real problem is that disabled people can't afford a proper standard of living. Instead let's attack attempts to fix other problems, and incidently condemn thousands more people to unnecessary ill health, disability and premature death. Also, it's not actually true.

Any I've missed?

[Sciolus]

Give it a few years and most of the replacements available will meet the current criteria anyway, so allowing attrition to deal with existing vehicles but requiring new acquisitions to meet standards might be an effective compromise, but then attrition's going to deal with most of the older vehicles fairly soon anyway, and any cars newly coming onto the market will significantly exceed the minimum standards specified.

An excellent plan, with only two flaws. One, it condemns thousands more people to ill health and premature death. Two, it's illegal.

You're correct though. If the ULEZ works as it is intended and expected to, it's likely that by, say, 2027, the current legal limits will be met (a mere 17 years late!) and the ULEZ will be redundant for that purpose. Of course, the current legal limits are still dangerously high, and way above WHO guidelines. Maybe at some point there will be moves to improve the limits further? Though on current showings, it looks like 30,000-odd deaths a year is perfectly acceptable to most people.

[El Pollo Diablo]

"Vehicles modified for the mobility impaired are exempt until 2030 / [pick a year]". Problem solved.

It's not a 100% solution, but it would be a big part of a solution.

You also need to consider people who live outside of London, though - exempting blue badge holders and people who aren't blue badge holders but do need to get to the capital for significant medical isn't going to put pollution up by much, but would greatly help people without other options.

I would posit that this position would likely cause non-mobility impaired people to attempt to buy modified vehicles, depriving those who need them or increasing the price significantly.

[El Pollo Diablo]

"Disabled people can't afford it." A new one this, and a helpful distraction from the fact that the real problem is that disabled people can't afford a proper standard of living. Instead let's attack attempts to fix other problems, and incidently condemn thousands more people to unnecessary ill health, disability and premature death. Also, it's not actually true.

Any I've missed?

I agree with the rest of your post, but you can't improve the standard of living of disabled people by taking more money away from them. I work in the railway, which has done incredibly little to improve disabled access (for various reasons, but mostly fragmentation, funding issues and reduced staffing at stations), and I can see the horrendous issues disabled and elderly people can have trying to use the network. The tube is often worse, unfortunately.

[EACLucifer]

"Disabled people can't afford it." A new one this, and a helpful distraction...

f.ck off. You aren't getting a polite response, dickhead, not when you are doing the usual thing of dismissing any concern for the welfare of disabled people that conflicts your political wants as bad faith without engaging with it - or as you term it an excuse. Policies that harm people with limited mobility are seldom done with that intent, but when you really get the measure of someone is how they react when told that a policy they support harms people with limited mobility.

[EACLucifer]

"Vehicles modified for the mobility impaired are exempt until 2030 / [pick a year]". Problem solved.

It's not a 100% solution, but it would be a big part of a solution.

You also need to consider people who live outside of London, though - exempting blue badge holders and people who aren't blue badge holders but do need to get to the capital for significant medical isn't going to put pollution up by much, but would greatly help people without other options.

I would posit that this position would likely cause non-mobility impaired people to attempt to buy modified vehicles, depriving those who need them or increasing the price significantly.

Firstly you'd need some degree of wording to limit it to people using them to mitigate somebody's mobility problems.

Secondly the issue is forcing people to replace vehicles that could have thousands or tens of thousands spent on adapting them. At present, just over half the wheelchair adapted vehicles on AutoTrader would be exempt from the charge due to age, and that will increase in time. You don't really need to exempt people's new purchases, just existing vehicles.

[EACLucifer]

"Disabled people can't afford it." A new one this, and a helpful distraction from the fact that the real problem is that disabled people can't afford a proper standard of living. Instead let's attack attempts to fix other problems, and incidently condemn thousands more people to unnecessary ill health, disability and premature death. Also, it's not actually true.

Any I've missed?

I agree with the rest of your post, but you can't improve the standard of living of disabled people by taking more money away from them. I work in the railway, which has done incredibly little to improve disabled access (for various reasons, but mostly fragmentation, funding issues and reduced staffing at stations), and I can see the horrendous issues disabled and elderly people can have trying to use the network. The tube is often worse, unfortunately.

It's also worth pointing out that wheelchair adapted vehicles represent something like a tenth of a percent of private vehicles out there, so even with a relative generous exemption policy for other disabled people, people needing to attend regular medical treatment in the zone, or whatever, you are still looking at something that will affect substantially less than a percent of cars. The ULEZ could exempt them and still have its intended effect on overall emissions due to the tiny proportion you'd be exempting.

[Opti]

Of course the whole low-emissions plan for London was proposed by none other than Boris Johnson back 2015.
A similar plan is coming into force in 149 towns in Spain later this year.
The zones are active in Madrid Barcelona and Seville. City air quality is much improved

It doesn't meet much resistance here.

[IvanV]

Of course the whole low-emissions plan for London was proposed by none other than Boris Johnson back 2015.

Substantially because he couldn't get away with not attending to it any more. So he did the least he could get away with, as late as he could get away with.

[bob sterman]

"Vehicles modified for the mobility impaired are exempt until 2030 / [pick a year]". Problem solved.

It's not a 100% solution, but it would be a big part of a solution.

It would miss blue badge holding people with disabilities whose impairments do not require a specially modified vehicle.

Why not just a blue badge exemption? This would cover a range of people in difficult circumstances - who perhaps just need a larger vehicle with sliding doors and room for a large folding wheelchair, so perhaps cannot easily afford a new vehicle right now.

The callousness of the temporary grace period exemptions may not be immediately apparent to people...

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra- ... exemptions

For the elderly - there is a temporary exemption (until 2027) if you receive attendance allowance and have a blue badge but your car is not specially adapted.

However, for children the focus on the mobility rather than care component of DLA means non-verbal, incontinent children with epilepsy and other disabilities are not covered.

There are some additional exemptions for the under 3s...

• Be a parent or guardian of a child under the age of 3 with a medical condition that means the child always needs to be accompanied by bulky medical equipment

• Be a parent or guardian of a child under the age of 3 with a medical condition that means the child always needs to be near a vehicle in case they need emergency medical treatment

Or perhaps if they are on the way to an NHS appointment and they are "clinically assessed as too ill to travel to an appointment on public transport".

But no help for the family of the disabled 4 year old whose parents can't afford a new car so they might need to sit in a soiled nappy, maybe having a seizure or two, on a bus on the way to school or nursery. Once they are 3-4 they can carry their own bulky medical equipment right?

And no help after 2027 for the elderly but mobile person with dementia being driven to a hospital appointment by their carer. Also nice to see the community group (non-wheelchair adapted) minibus taking autistic kids on days out will be hit by the charge from 2025.

[bjn]

It seems to be a sticks only approach. Carrots are needed, especially for the people least able to afford it.

[Martin Y]

Of course the whole low-emissions plan for London was proposed by none other than Boris Johnson back 2015.
A similar plan is coming into force in 149 towns in Spain later this year.
The zones are active in Madrid Barcelona and Seville. City air quality is much improved

It doesn't meet much resistance here.

I have a suspicion the pushback is because the restriction has spread incrementally over a long time. When controls on cars were first mooted, the traffic pollution in central London was obvious. The visible smoke belching from taxis and buses was a clear target. Since then we've had the central congestion charge, the large low emission zone for commercial vehicles and the ULEZ for cars which is about to expand for a third time. All because, as it was described back in the Mayor Boris era, central London was sometimes exceeding its NOx targets.

People have had plenty of time to form the impression the problem has been addressed, so they're more open to the idea this is a cash grab rather than believe thousands are dying and it's their fault.

Lots of other UK cities are following suit in some way. Four cities in Scotland will soon exclude non-compliant cars, with no option to "pay to pollute", just an escalating fine if you drive in. Curiously they make 30+ year old cars exempt, as I believe is common across Europe. Pay to pollute London uses a 40 year old exemption, which probably reinforces the cash-grab cynicism.

[Opti]

... snip

Yes, here there will be no option to 'pay to pollute'. Then again, in the major towns public transport is generally good.

[Woodchopper]

Survey results here: https://ehq-production-europe.s3.eu-wes ... b72f6bbc83

People more in favour of the expansion: higher incomes and social class, living in central London, those limited by health or disability.

People less in favour are the opposite of the above.

Looks like opposition is based upon ability to pay and experience of negative effects of air pollution (eg living centrally or limited by health problems).

[Woodchopper]

Curiously they make 30+ year old cars exempt, as I believe is common across Europe. Pay to pollute London uses a 40 year old exemption, which probably reinforces the cash-grab cynicism.

Classic and vintage cars are generally exempt from most regulations, as not doing so would usually make driving them illegal. It’s done as there are very few of them and the existence of road legal old cars is seen to have social and cultural benefits.

[EACLucifer]

Curiously they make 30+ year old cars exempt, as I believe is common across Europe. Pay to pollute London uses a 40 year old exemption, which probably reinforces the cash-grab cynicism.

Classic and vintage cars are generally exempt from most regulations, as not doing so would usually make driving them illegal. It’s done as there are very few of them and the existence of road legal old cars is seen to have social and cultural benefits.

What I'm now wondering is whether it's a fixed cutoff, or whether it's "30/40/whatever years old at point of trying to operate"

Because my trike will turn thirty soon, and the vehicle I'm currently hoping to have converted into a better, more suitable trike will turn thirty not that long after.

But also because there's basically no chance of me getting a good, compliant vehicle any time soon, and while that's not a problem for me with London, if a more local city introduced an absolute rule, I'd be f.cked, and I'm having to second guess this while making important - and very expensive - decisions. This is one reason I'm really not very happy with rules that alter the legal status of a non-commercial vehicle after it's on the road - people can end up caught out by things they couldn't plan around.

[EACLucifer]

Given how often I run into people who just. do. not. get. what. it. is. like. trying to use public transport as a disabled person, I wrote up a little dialogue to try and explain what it's like.

Try to imagine for a moment that due to some arbitrary detail about yourself, every bus company has banned you from travelling on their buses. You aren't the only one in this situation, but it isn't particularly common either. Some other people have been banned too, but it's something that's only been applied to a fairly small minority.

I suspect the first thing you'd say is “but that's not fair! I've not done anything wrong, why ban me from the bus?”

To which you receive the answer “but you aren't banned; you and the other people this applies to just have to sit in one particular seat rather than all the others”

“That sounds like it could be really unreliable, what if someone else is sitting there”

“It's ok, we'll ask other people to change seats so you can sit in the one seat you are allowed”

“But what if someone else this has been applied to is sitting there?”

“Well of course you can't get on then...”

“But if they aren't in the same boat as me, you do ask them to move?”

“Occasionally, but mostly no”

“But you said you would...”

“Well it's policy – it's even the law – to ask them to move, but we can't be bothered to actually train the drivers. Training the drivers to follow policies or stick to the law costs money, you aren't so selfish and entitled as to expect us to spend money making sure our drivers follow the law and let you on the bus are you? Doesn't it spice up life to wonder if you'll get to go on the bus or not? Perhaps this time the driver will give you a torrent of abuse instead?”

“But then why is it only one seat? If it was two, or four, or half a dozen, at least there'd be less chance for conflict, or I could travel with a friend whose also been placed in the only-allowed-in-one-seat category”

“Because we aren't allowed to discriminate against you”

“Huh?”

“Well obviously the natural, correct number of seats for the likes of you is none whatsoever, but the government said we had to let you on our buses, so we set aside one seat for people like you so they couldn't say we were totally excluding you, just don't expect us to keep it free for you or ask people to move out of the way so you can get to it”

“So how many seats do other people get”

“Normal people get eighty to choose from, of course, including the one we were told to set aside for you. Why are you so ungrateful about having access to one and a quarter percent of the seats? What would someone like you want to travel for anyway? Why are you so angry and uppity about this?”

[Martin Y]

What I'm now wondering is whether it's a fixed cutoff, or whether it's "30/40/whatever years old at point of trying to operate"

Because my trike will turn thirty soon ....

It's a rolling 40 year cutoff for London. I assume the 30 year version is similar.

For London, so far as I can work out, if you register your 40+ year old vehicle for MOT exemption then that also allows it to be exempted from ULEZ.

My old MX-5 is 30 this year, so I'll be okay driving it to Glasgow or Edinburgh to visit relatives, but I'll have retired before it becomes exempt in London. Ironic that any old MGB with carburettors can drive freely into London in a trail of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons but an equivalent mid-90s car with emission control stuff like electronic fuel injection, lambda sensor, catalytic converter and fuel vapour absorption tech can't.

[IvanV]

But also because there's basically no chance of me getting a good, compliant vehicle any time soon, and while that's not a problem for me with London, if a more local city introduced an absolute rule, I'd be f.cked, and I'm having to second guess this while making important - and very expensive - decisions. This is one reason I'm really not very happy with rules that alter the legal status of a non-commercial vehicle after it's on the road - people can end up caught out by things they couldn't plan around.

One of the first things TfL did to reduce vehicle pollution was new rules on black cab power trains. Black cabs make up a material proportion of traffic in central London, so they could get a material pollution effect by addressing a small number of vehicles. The timing of the new rules meant that cab owners (not necessarily the same as drivers - many cabs are rented out to drivers) who had just registered a new taxi in roughly a 3 year window leading up to the announcement of the new rules would no longer get the full 16 years of use of them in London, that would expect under the rules applying at the time they registered it.

So TfL actually "compensated" such people - though with strings attached. They could get a sum towards their next cab - which had to be a plug-in or plug-in hybrid of a minimum electric range. It was sized to account for the estimated loss of value of that recently purchased vehicle. I know this, because we helped work out how much money that should be, and how it should vary by date of registration of the vehicle. It turned out to be enough of a gesture to stop them suing TfL for compensation.

But that was because it was a commercial vehicle, which operated under licence to TfL, and TfL was changing the rules of the licence after giving them the licence. So there was an arguable case for compensation.

In most other cases, such as yours, you wouldn't have a legal case for compensation, only a moral one. Because you have indeed suffered a loss.

[Millennie Al]

Any I've missed?

You have missed the cases where people had radical ideas for greatly improving society and got to implement them leading to milions of people dying of hunger. People are rightly wary of great ideas for making things better because those who most enthusiastically embraced that kind of thinking are dead.

[Sciolus]

"Disabled people can't afford it." A new one this, and a helpful distraction...

f.ck off. You aren't getting a polite response, dickhead, not when you are doing the usual thing of dismissing any concern for the welfare of disabled people that conflicts your political wants as bad faith without engaging with it - or as you term it an excuse. Policies that harm people with limited mobility are seldom done with that intent, but when you really get the measure of someone is how they react when told that a policy they support harms people with limited mobility.

I'm pointing out that there is a deeper fundamental problem. The fact that there are also more proximate problems is also, well, a problem.

The ULEZ policy adversely affects disabled people, among others. This has been recognised and addressed, albeit only partially and unsatisfactorily (I withdraw the "untrue" bit). For instance, the time limit on certain exemptions is reprehensible, stupid and irrational. By 2027, the number of vehicles suddenly becoming non-exempt will be tiny and their emissions will be utterly insignificant, and there's a good chance the ULEZ will be revoked about then anyway. In the meantime, the threat causes a lot of unnecessary stress, worry and expense to the people affected.

My point is that the underlying problem is the UK's high level of social inequality, which makes behavioural-change policies exceedingly hard to implement. They hurt the poor while not changing the behaviour of the rich -- even when poor people are most adversely affected by the problem the policy is trying to fix. See alcohol minimum pricing for another recent example.

[Martin Y]

There was a ULEZ protest outside Broadcasting House because something something. I watched (so you don't have to) a bloke on Facebook carry a personal air quality meter on his trip into town (displayed pm2.5 in microgrammes per cubic metre).

TL/DR: roads around his home measured 3-5. Central London, 4-6. Journey there by Underground 60-200+.