When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • People that die of lung cancer don't have 'cigarettes' on their death certificate either. Just like people that die of NOx damage to lungs have respiratory failure and not NOx as the cause.

    That PM2.5 and NOx levels in Central London have approximately halved is no argument because the ULEZ expansion is about inner London where they've only reduced by ~ 20%. And of course that halving in Central London was in no small part due to the ULEZ.

    As I said there are no easy answers here. People bought these pre 2015 vehicles with a reasonable expectation of being able to use them for 10 years but ignoring the deaths they net cause is no way forward either.

  • People that die of lung cancer don't have 'cigarettes' on their death certificate either. Just like people that die of NOx damage to lungs have respiratory failure and not NOx as the cause.

    That PM2.5 and NOx levels in Central London have approximately halved is no argument because the ULEZ expansion is about inner London where they've only reduced by ~ 20%. And of course that halving in Central London was in no small part due to the ULEZ.

    As I said there are no easy answers here. People bought these pre 2015 vehicles with a reasonable expectation of being able to use them for 10 years but ignoring the deaths they net cause is no way forward either.

    It’s not possible to attribute cancer to just one thing. There are plenty of non smokers who died of lung cancer. Allergies can cause respiratory problems such as asthma, and skin issues like eczema both of which can lead to more serious conditions but we are actively rewilding the countryside which will make such conditions worse.

    The ULEZ expansion is not about inner London, it’s about outer London, basically everything inside the M25 circle. Inner London is already a ULEZ area.

    You should read the article I attached on the history of London air pollution. It brings context and details to light that Mayor Khan wants to avoid.

    PM2.5 levels were already low in 2006 and are much lower now, possibly at a point where further improvement is unlikely unless there is more sensitive means of measuring.

    The life years lost metric is pure fudge. As I demonstrated the figures can be played several ways because you are not talking about real deaths. The justification for ULEZ is to save 4000 lives per year. That is unequivocal bullshit. The report authors suggest life expectancy will be reduced and then converted that into whole people equivalent. Utter nonsense. As I pointed out if you place the burden equally on all the population of London you knock 1 hour and 3 minutes off everyone’s life if they live to 75. Hardly worth worrying about is it. But that won’t support ULEZ expansion will it?

    ULEZ expansion is just a scam by an insidious little liar.

    Celebrate it, Anticipate it, Yesterday's faded, Nothing can change it, Life's what you make it

  • Your whole supposition is that 88,113 life years lost is trivial. Well it isn't

    It was paid for research by TFL and they were not paying for Kings College to prove nothing but this fantastical garbage was the best they could muster. It’s a contrived number that has a huge margin of error involved. It doesn’t represent a single actual death. It attempts to turn an unprovable fractional reduction in life expectancy into a number of real deaths per year. The report is obsolete amongst many other things. The base data for the report is now almost 20 years old and things have moved on.

    Celebrate it, Anticipate it, Yesterday's faded, Nothing can change it, Life's what you make it

  • You were the one that said 88,113 life years lost was trivial. If that's the value system you want us to judge the ULEZ on then debating this with you is going to be pointless isn't it.

  • You were the one that said 88,113 life years lost was trivial. If that's the value system you want us to judge the ULEZ on then debating this with you is going to be pointless isn't it.

    I did not say it was trivial. I said it was a contrived number that was subject to a wide margin of error and did not relate to one actual death.

    It was you who used the word trivial not me.

    Celebrate it, Anticipate it, Yesterday's faded, Nothing can change it, Life's what you make it

  • I did not say it was trivial. I said it was a contrived number that was subject to a wide margin of error and did not relate to one actual death.

    It was you who used the word trivial not me.

    Yes it was a fair summary of this by you:

    Quote

    Another way of looking at the same thing is to do this: assume everyone lives to age 75 and then the 9.6 million population of London all have their live expentancy reduced by 1 hour and 3 minutes which is the equivalent to 88,113 life years lost. Suddenly this whole ULEZ and air quality thing starts to look like a bit of a shakedown that doesn't really do anything for peoples quality of life does it?

    Actually I don't endorse your maths either.

  • Actually I don't endorse your maths either.

    Yes, I am double checking the figures and getting someone else to do it independently.

    I’ll get back to you…

    Celebrate it, Anticipate it, Yesterday's faded, Nothing can change it, Life's what you make it

  • Actually I don't endorse your maths either.

    I revisited the figures myself. I have been reading the Kings College report in some detail trying to get to what they mean. There is a whole lot of public policy hanging off of this report and the figures it represents so its worth a double check and an explanation of my thinking. If you think I've got this wrong I am happy to be corrected, the report can be interpreted in several ways so I have had to apply my own logic to it to get something that I think is sensible.

    The "life years lost" metric is a strange one and I was a little confused as to whether this was a "per annum" figure or a one off. At no point in the report does it say that this figure is a "per annum" so I have assumed it is a one off burden to be deducted from life expentancy of the people who are living at the time of the publication of the report. In other words you can only die once and you do that at the end of your life (obviously) so how much life do they estimate you will lose as a result of the air quality is a one time assessment which will change as time passes and air quality improvements are made. In other words the "life years lost" is a snap-shot figure based on the PM2.5 and NO2 figures used at the time of doing the calculations. It assumes that those PM2.5 levels and NO2 levels are constant for the remainder of your life and therefore the estimated life years lost can be calculated. If the PM2.5 and NO2 figures vary or continually reduce over your life then the life years lost figure used in the estimate will be invalidated. You would need quite a complex algorithm to do that calculation and they have not done that. So the life years lost figure is a snap shot that assumes everything stays as it is now which is clearly a flawed and crude assumption.

    The life years lost figure I previously quoted (88,113) was only for the NO2 which the report states very clearly is extremely immature methodolgy and should be used with care. It also addresses the overlap between PM2.5 and NO2 impacts. The WHO states that there is a 30% overlap between PM2.5 and NO2 impacts so this has to be taken into account in the calculations.

    I should have used the higher figure that is a combination of the PM2.5 and NO2. The very worst cast is 141,000 lost life years - the equivalent of 9500 deaths although that is an interesting point. See next para.

    The death equivalancy (as derived from the lost life years) is a bit of an oddity. There doesn't appear to be any sensible direct correleation between the Lost life years estimate and the predicted number of deaths. For example the 88,113 lost life years is (the report claims) equivalent to 5879 deaths but this would mean the average age of those deaths was 15 years old which I think we can all agree is cobblers. If we use the 141,000 lost life years figure which is equivalent to 9500 deaths I still get an average age of death of 15. Either this equivalancy is extremely pessimistic or deliberately misleading. I will assume there is probably some formula for this but I don't know what it is. I'll take it that the figures quoted are correct because I can't see how they did it. I could say they are deliberately alarmist because the average age of death in simple terms which is to divide the number of lost life years by the estimated number of deaths brings up a very low age, it can't be that simple can it?

    So, on to the calculation, having concluded the lost life years is a snap shot rather than per annum this is quite simple.

    I said that the burden should be spread equally across all Londoners, they are all inside the proposed expanded ULEZ, they will all be subject to its rules. So that is a population of 9,600,000 according to Google.

    Next is to decide at what age they all die, for simplicity I assume everyone dies at the same age, I know they don't but this is a rough check to see where things are at and the numbers are so large that sensitivity to changes is not that great anyway. In my first example I stated that I assumed everyone would die aged 75 (yes I know the average age of death in the UK is 81 but I added some pessimism by going younger).

    So we have 9.6 million people all living to 75 years old. That is a life expectancy of 720 million years.

    For the moment I will continue to use the life years lost figure for NO2 only I used in my first post on this that you challenged - just so we can see how that works in this calculation.

    So we need to divide the 88,113 lost life years into the total life years of a population of 9.6 million people who all live to age 75. That is a simple case of taking 88,113 and dividing it by 720,000,000. This gives the following results:

    Shared Burden over given lifespan
    Years Days Hours Minutes
    0.00012238 0.04466840 1.07204150 64.32249000

    So when I said that everyone loses 1 hour and 3 minutes of life expentancy I was right (according to my methodology) ok its actually 64 minutes but hey ho.

    Now if we use the actual average age of death for the UK of 81 and use the worst case lost life years of 141,000 we get the following:

    Shared Burden over given lifespan
    Years Days Hours Minutes
    0.00018133 0.06618441 1.58842593 95.30555556

    So approximately an hour and a half of life expectancy is lost as the very worst case.

    Now going back to your original challenge, I would call that not only trivial but literally unmeasurable in real terms.

    Of course if you think I have got this completely wrong please give me your version.

    Celebrate it, Anticipate it, Yesterday's faded, Nothing can change it, Life's what you make it

  • I think this is all a lot of nonsense, actually, and the 'lost life' figure is meaningless. Even if this could be worked out accurately, the figure is an accumulation of the lives of the population which equates to very small amounts per person.

    I think we can all agree that we must reduce pollution, but isn't that being achieved with the phasing out of cars using fossil fuels?

    To my mind, this is just a cynical ruse to make up for Khan's failed TfL policies which have left them short of money.

  • All I know is that the logical arguments around low emission zones, taxation etc are fundamentally flawed.

    The people who'd own a pre 2015 diesel vehicle would, by and large be those least able to afford to take the financial hit of a charge/tax or whatever you want to call it.

    There was some numpty from Greenpeace on the news this evening banging on about SUVs and the need for more "green" public transport. Seemed to think that imposing an additional tax to SUV owners would fund everything.

    That's a pig thick chicken/egg argument as far as I'm concerned.

    If you can get the people out of their SUV's and into public transport they're not paying the levy that funds the public transport because they're not using (or possibly even bothering to buy) those SUV's in the first place.

    As for the segment that followed with the woman in her £60k Genesis GV60 fully electric car talking about how, when she puts solar panels on her roof thinks she'll be driving around the country totally free of charge... yeah right.

    Can the government afford to lose out on all that tax revenue?

    With the demise of the ICE and the rise of the electric vehicle comes the day they will almost certainly introduce a cost per mile levy on all cars. So the poorer ICE drivers will continue subsidizing the wealthier EV owners for many years to come, same as they are at the moment what with them paying sod all to be on the road at the moment being as they're currently exempt from even paying road tax.

    Might not be in the pipeline yet (not least because most people can't afford the £80k you'd need to buy the car, the solar panels or have the off road charging set-up you'd need to convert) but it can only be a question of "when" rather than "if" that happens.

  • Thanks for the detail. I agree it is a big omission for them not to clarify if the figure if per year or all time. I also found it difficult to see how they convert ~88k of life years lost into an equivalent of 4k+ lives lost. It appears to be that the effects are not evenly distributed.

    We may have to agree to disagree that 88k life years lost is no big issue or not. I make it rather more equivalent deaths than died on the Titanic which is still seen as a tragedy that should have been prevented.

    UK law and any decent moral standard requires that we each take action to reduce risk of death to be 'As Low As is Reasonably Practicable' aka ALARP. In practice that means everyone has to take further actions to reduce risk of death until the (cost) of the action becomes disproportional to the benefit. EG to spend a billion pounds on a safer road to net save one life would be seen as not needed. But £100k to fix defective signage on same road would be seen the other way.

    So to the ULEZ: The RAC concluded that 160,000 vehicles a day will be affected. At £12.50 a day and a five year average life left in these vehicles that's an over £2.5B cost which of course might actually be encountered as early scrapping of the vehicles concerned. If that were to net save 4k lives a year it's ~ £125k per life saved.

    I'd say that was reasonable but leaves two big issues:

    1: why hasn't that been clearly communicated by Khan and team?

    2: why should the owners who bought in good faith pay the whole or even most of the burden?

    So I stick with my view that Khan had to do something but have to agree that what he's done has been both clumsy and questionable.

  • So to the ULEZ: The RAC concluded that 160,000 vehicles a day will be affected. At £12.50 a day and a five year average life left in these vehicles that's an over £2.5B cost which of course might actually be encountered as early scrapping of the vehicles concerned. If that were to net save 4k lives a year it's ~ £125k per life saved.

    I don’t think many people are probably anti the ULEZ idea in principle

    We all want to have cleaner air

    The problem is the cost , as other have said people with a pre 2015 car will tend to be on the lower end of the income spectrum & £12.50 a day is way too much

    If it’s only pre 2015 vehicles give it 10 years & most of these will be scrapped

    AS & Steve 13 , reading your posts on this subject I come to the conclusion you both have way too much time on your hands 8o

    PS I have a 2014 Honda Civic diesel , zero road tax , best car I’ve ever owned

  • Agreed, Truebrit. The cost will hit poorer people the hardest. Who'd have thought it, coming from Labour?

    The objections to this can be overcome pretty easily by offering a scrappage scheme so that the change of vehicle becomes affordable. The trouble is, the government cannot afford the funding, particularly in these economic times.

    Your point about pre-2015 cars being far fewer in number by 2033 is a good one. The problem is already starting to sort itself out, with fewer of these cars on the road each year.

  • . . . AS & Steve 13 , reading your posts on this subject I come to the conclusion you both have way too much time on your hands 8o

    . . .

    icon_redface.gif I plead guilty

    Actually yesterday was manic but as Armitage had done all that work I felt it deserved a detail considered reply.

  • AS & Steve 13 , reading your posts on this subject I come to the conclusion you both have way too much time on your hands 8o

    Any excuse to do a bit of spreadsheeting TB.

    I love numbers and data and the various ways the same thing can be interpreted.

    But yes, it would appear I have too much time on my hands... :) :( ;)

    Celebrate it, Anticipate it, Yesterday's faded, Nothing can change it, Life's what you make it

  • I plead guilty to spreadsheetism. It's amazing what they can do and I figure I know only a small fraction of that. Google sheets is also excellent esp for those that don't want to pay out to Microsoft or want a joint collaboration tool for free.

  • I also found it difficult to see how they convert ~88k of life years lost into an equivalent of 4k+ lives lost. It appears to be that the effects are not evenly distributed.

    Ultimately it doesn't really matter but the average age of death would be 15 as I'm sure you have checked. If I were to venture that they wanted the numbers to look as bad a possible then having an average age of death of 15 would do that. But since the average age of death is 81 this would reduce the estimated number of deaths to around 1740 which is not so impactful and as a percentage of the population is even more miniscule.

    Would I dare to suggest that the numbers of this report have been fortified for dramatic impact......nah - that would be a conspiracy theory.

    We may have to agree to disagree that 88k life years lost is no big issue or not. I make it rather more equivalent deaths than died on the Titanic which is still seen as a tragedy that should have been prevented.

    The titanic was a real accident involving real people who actually died and were mourned by their relatives. The life years lost is a contrivance which when spread equally as it should be amongst the entire population of those living in the ULEZ area is a tiny insignificance. As I demonstrated, if you live to be 81, on the day you die you will die 95 minutes earler than you would have otherwise. Since you were in the process of dying at the time it maybe a positive that you were put beyond suffering earlier.

    UK law and any decent moral standard requires that we each take action to reduce risk of death to be 'As Low As is Reasonably Practicable' aka ALARP.

    I am well versed in ALARP but I would contend that given the data analysis this is not ALARP, this is heading into ALARA territory. Trying to prevent 95 minutes of lost life span after 81 years is definitely not worth the expense.

    So to the ULEZ: The RAC concluded that 160,000 vehicles a day will be affected. At £12.50 a day and a five year average life left in these vehicles that's an over £2.5B cost which of course might actually be encountered as early scrapping of the vehicles concerned. If that were to net save 4k lives a year it's ~ £125k per life saved.

    It won't though, that is the point. The 4000 lives is a contrived figure that cannot be proved, it is a statitistic that is based upon acknowledged immature and untrustworthy methodology. You say 4000 lives per year, I say 95 minutes of life expectancy at the age of 81.

    1: why hasn't that been clearly communicated by Khan and team?

    Because saving lives is not what the ULEZis really about.

    The people doing the figures in the report are actually no better than you or I.

    Khan doesn't care he's going to do the ULEZ anyway because Grant Shapps told him to make it happen as a pilot for national per mile road pricing....


    why should the owners who bought in good faith pay the whole or even most of the burden?

    They shouldn't but the criteria used for introducing this scheme needs to define the good guys and the bad guys and this is how the lines were drawn. ULEZexpansion was known about before the last mayoral elections in London. People voted for Khan anyway, they get what they deserve.

    So I stick with my view that Khan had to do something but have to agree that what he's done has been both clumsy and questionable.

    He probably did have to do something and that was to do what he was told...

    Celebrate it, Anticipate it, Yesterday's faded, Nothing can change it, Life's what you make it

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!