TfL to cut speed limit to 20mph

[2into1]

I read Khan as a man fueled more by resentment than compassion, hence my initial scepticism which started this debate.

From the telegraph...

"At a People’s Question Time town hall meeting in Ealing, west London, last week, the mood was already becoming heated when London’s Mayor, Sadiq Khan, facing increasingly hostile scrutiny of his plans to extend the Ulez charge, let rip. “Let’s be frank, let’s call a spade a spade … some of those outside are part of the far-Right, some are Covid deniers, some are vaccine deniers and some are Tories,” he spat.

In reality, Khan’s mask had slipped. By lumping together people who simply want to drop the kids off at their sports fixtures, make it into work, or get to the supermarket in a vehicle under their own control, with the Far Right, with vaccine refuseniks, and – gasp! – with Tories, Khan seems intent on waging an ideologically driven war against the people he regards as beyond the political pale – a class enemy that has to be ruthlessly rooted out".

 

[Amarillo]

From the telegraph...

"At a People’s Question Time town hall meeting in Ealing, west London, last week, the mood was already becoming heated when London’s Mayor, Sadiq Khan, facing increasingly hostile scrutiny of his plans to extend the Ulez charge, let rip. “Let’s be frank, let’s call a spade a spade … some of those outside are part of the far-Right, some are Covid deniers, some are vaccine deniers and some are Tories,” he spat.

In reality, Khan’s mask had slipped. By lumping together people who simply want to drop the kids off at their sports fixtures, make it into work, or get to the supermarket in a vehicle under their own control, with the Far Right, with vaccine refuseniks, and – gasp! – with Tories, Khan seems intent on waging an ideologically driven war against the people he regards as beyond the political pale – a class enemy that has to be ruthlessly rooted out".

Old news from 2 March not “last week” as the report you quote suggests. And before the 20mph limit reduction had been announced - so somewhat irrelevant to this thread.

For completeness, here is a recording of the full People’s Question Time in Ealing.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

The relevant question begins at about 51m 15s into the PQT, and the full answer ends at about 1hr 09m 30s into the PQT.

My take on Khan’s point was that he thinks that people with legitimate concerns over the ULEZ should distance themselves from the loons (and somewhat hilariously he lumps Tories into the loons group).

Caroline Pidgeon AM (who I have met and spoken to at length on transport matters) makes some excellent and considered points.

Peter Fortune AM (assembly member for my two near neighbour London Boroughs) makes a joke of the whole issue and completely misrepresents what Khan had just said. This misrepresentation was echoed in the Telegraph’s report. He then goes on to state what I believe to be true: it is a way for TfL to raise revenue.

Later, at about 1h 6m in Khan repeats his assertion that those with legitimate concerns are teaming up with the far right and the loons.

Sian Berry then speaks in support of Khan’s remarks, in a scene reminiscent of Ken “Red” Livingstone (who I have also chatted with) and Jenny Jones (yet another of my political acquaintances) who although in opposing parties worked closely together and became firm friends.

 

[Georgeo]

Old news from 2 March not “last week” as the report you quote suggests. And before the 20mph limit reduction had been announced - so somewhat irrelevant to this thread.

For completeness, here is a recording of the full People’s Question Time in Ealing.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

The relevant question begins at about 51m 15s into the PQT, and the full answer ends at about 1hr 09m 30s into the PQT.

My take on Khan’s point was that he thinks that people with legitimate concerns over the ULEZ should distance themselves from the loons (and somewhat hilariously he lumps Tories into the loons group).

Caroline Pidgeon AM (who I have met and spoken to at length on transport matters) makes some excellent and considered points.

Peter Fortune AM (assembly member for my two near neighbour London Boroughs) makes a joke of the whole issue and completely misrepresents what Khan had just said. This misrepresentation was echoed in the Telegraph’s report. He then goes on to state what I believe to be true: it is a way for TfL to raise revenue.

Later, at about 1h 6m in Khan repeats his assertion that those with legitimate concerns are teaming up with the far right and the loons.

Sian Berry then speaks in support of Khan’s remarks, in a scene reminiscent of Ken “Red” Livingstone (who I have also chatted with) and Jenny Jones (yet another of my political acquaintances) who although in opposing parties worked closely together and became firm friends.

What does it matter if you have met them. What is your point about that?

 

[Amarillo]

What does it matter if you have met them. What is your point about that?

Interest only, no real significance which is why the remarks were in parentheses. (I’ve also met and chatted with Jeremy Corbyn - brother of the climate change denier and general loon Piers Corbyn).

 

[WelshGas]

One of the more positive things of 2023 seems to be the angry, embittered and just plane loony and paranoid seem to be losing traction.

Democracy and the law seem to be carrying on regardless and the media has started to lose interest in trolls.

Attempts to subvert democracy, and social media shovelling sing all over everything in an attempt to stop legal, democratic progress, seem to be failing. God, I hope so. Some light at the end of a very long tunnel.

Councils challenge ULEZ expansion decision in the courts - Hillingdon Council

A coalition of five councils has today (Thursday 16 February) launched a Judicial Review to challenge Transport for London (TfL) and the Mayor of London's decision to expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to outer London boroughs.

www.hillingdon.gov.uk

 

[Amarillo]

Councils challenge ULEZ expansion decision in the courts - Hillingdon Council

A coalition of five councils has today (Thursday 16 February) launched a Judicial Review to challenge Transport for London (TfL) and the Mayor of London's decision to expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to outer London boroughs.

www.hillingdon.gov.uk

Exactly 50% of cases brought to the courts are lost to one side or the other. Simply stating the case of one side does not make the argument won.

Compare the Telegraph’s report of the Ealing People’s Question Time with the video of the PQT. The report bears little resemblance to reality.

 

[andyinluton]

Exactly 50% of cases brought to the courts are lost to one side or the other.

Don’t you mean 100% ?

 

[Amarillo]

Don’t you mean 100% ?

Oh yeah!

 

[WelshGas]

Exactly 50% of cases brought to the courts are lost to one side or the other. Simply stating the case of one side does not make the argument won.

Compare the Telegraph’s report of the Ealing People’s Question Time with the video of the PQT. The report bears little resemblance to reality.

Replying to @Lambeth Cali ‘s post.
Who are the “ the angry, embittered and just plane loony and paranoid seem to be losing traction. “, Kahn or the Councils mentioned.

 

[Amarillo]

Replying to @Lambeth Cali ‘s post.
Who are the “ the angry, embittered and just plane loony and paranoid seem to be losing traction. “, Kahn or the Councils mentioned.

I referred to “loons” in my commentary on Khan’s answer during People’s Question Time. Khan spoke of a motley crew of Climate Change deniers, anti-vaxers and the far right (and hilariously added “Tories” - the Telegraph describe him as spitting the word). He pleaded for those with legitimate concerns about the ULEZ to distance themselves from them.

It is those loonies: far right, CC deniers and anti-vaxers (include Tories if you wish) who @Lambeth Cali refers.

 

[2into1]

My take on Khan’s point was that he thinks that people with legitimate concerns over the ULEZ should distance themselves from the loons (and somewhat hilariously he lumps Tories into the loons group).

That's not much of a point is it?

So the only way to not align with his 'group of loons' is to turn 180 and stop opposing Ulez expansion?
It's like saying that the good Chelsea fans can distance themselves from their hooligan branch only by supporting another club.

The reality is that tailpipe emissions are already reducing quickly, thanks to the progress made from euro 4 to 5 to 6 and the availability of electric vehicles. Kahn wants us to believe it's all because of Ulez.
Burham tried to use old data to say there were frequent breaches of pollution levels to justify his own version of Ulez in Manchester, but by the time he came to implement it, the levels were no longer in breach, thanks to the natural replacement cycle to less polluting vehicles.

All that was done by incentive and choice, not fear and taking away freedoms.

 

[WelshGas]

I referred to “loons” in my commentary on Khan’s answer during People’s Question Time. Khan spoke of a motley crew of Climate Change deniers, anti-vaxers and the far right (and hilariously added “Tories” - the Telegraph describe him as spitting the word). He pleaded for those with legitimate concerns about the ULEZ to distance themselves from them.

It is those loonies: far right, CC deniers and anti-vaxers (include Tories if you wish) who @Lambeth Cali refers.

So Kahn is denying people the democratic right to protest or question " HIS " facts and decisions by lumping everyone who does so, and who has the right to do so as " a motley crew of Climate Change deniers, anti-vaxers and the far right (and hilariously added “Tories” - the Telegraph describe him as spitting the word ".

So he will not allow any dissent ?

Is he trying to emulate his hero, Putin?

 

[andyinluton]

The reality is that tailpipe emissions are already reducing quickly, thanks to the progress made from euro 4 to 5 to 6 and the availability of electric vehicles. Kahn wants us to believe it's all because of Ulez.

I think there’s a few factors:
There’s an awful lot more working from home going on. There definitely feels like less cars in London & parking has become easier.

In the natural cycle of replacing cars, if you know you are going to drive in a lot you will go for one that meets the requirements.

If you have plenty of money and know you are going to drive in a lot you go for electric to avoid charges.

Too early for the full effect to work through, but Projects like the Elizabeth line have now come to fruition and given some commuters another feasible sensible route into town.

What’s really needed is bigger car parks at the outlying tube stations etc if you could fit another thousand cars in at Stanmore on the Northern line, it would probably save a thousand driving in any further.



It’s taken a few years but

 

[Amarillo]

That's not much of a point is it?

So the only way to not align with his 'group of loons' is to turn 180 and stop opposing Ulez expansion?
It's like saying that the good Chelsea fans can distance themselves from their hooligan branch only by supporting another club.

The reality is that tailpipe emissions are already reducing quickly, thanks to the progress made from euro 4 to 5 to 6 and the availability of electric vehicles. Kahn wants us to believe it's all because of Ulez.
Burham tried to use old data to say there were frequent breaches of pollution levels to justify his own version of Ulez in Manchester, but by the time he came to implement it, the levels were no longer in breach, thanks to the natural replacement cycle to less polluting vehicles.

All that was done by incentive and choice, not fear and taking away freedoms.

I agree with most of what you say. And I think Khan is wrong to dismiss legitimate concerns simply because those with legitimate concerns protest alongside the loons. But I do understand what he means because I have seen it locally with a nearby Low Traffic Neighbourhood. Many of those with legitimate concerns over the knock on effects of LTNs align themselves with… loons. It doesn’t help their argument.

So he is not telling people they must support the ULEZ, but they should oppose it separately from groups like Freedom for Drivers and the Alliance of British Drivers if they want their case properly considered.

Yes, we know tailpipe emissions are falling. Khan would argue not fast enough. But the data is stark. Central London has lower levels of pollution than inner London which has lower levels of pollution than outer London. Congestion charging and the ULEZ does work in reducing pollution.

So while I also agree with the Conservatives, that the ULEZ is mostly about raising revenue for TfL, I do think that the wider ULEZ is justified for the reasons Khan gives. To give all Londoners the chance to breathe fresher air. And so what if more motorists start contributing to TfL? As the Conservatives warn, the net will soon widen and before long all motorists in London will be contributing to the roads they drive on as central Government withdraws all funding for TfL.

But I just wish Khan would be honest about this.

 

[Amarillo]

So Kahn is denying people the democratic right to protest or question " HIS " facts and decisions by lumping everyone who does so, and who has the right to do so as " a motley crew of Climate Change deniers, anti-vaxers and the far right (and hilariously added “Tories” - the Telegraph describe him as spitting the word ".

So he will not allow any dissent ?

Is he trying to emulate his hero, Putin?

No he is not.

He is imploring those with legitimate concerns to distance themselves from the loonies so they can be heard properly.

Even he understands that he can’t stop them from standing hand in hand with groups like Freedom for Divers outside Ealing Town Hall. But he can’t properly engage with them while they do.

 

[Amarillo]

I think there’s a few factors:
There’s an awful lot more working from home going on. There definitely feels like less cars in London & parking has become easier.

In the natural cycle of replacing cars, if you know you are going to drive in a lot you will go for one that meets the requirements.

If you have plenty of money and know you are going to drive in a lot you go for electric to avoid charges.

Too early for the full effect to work through, but Projects like the Elizabeth line have now come to fruition and given some commuters another feasible sensible route into town.

What’s really needed is bigger car parks at the outlying tube stations etc if you could fit another thousand cars in at Stanmore on the Northern line, it would probably save a thousand driving in any further.



It’s taken a few years but

There’s a whole lot more coming down the line Andy.

The whole of my neighbouring borough, Lewisham, is gearing up to become a controlled parking zone. You will not be able to park anywhere in the borough without either a private parking place such as a driveway, a street parking permit, or paying.

It is all justified by the fact that about 50% of London households have no car. Why should they subsidise parking for those which do?

No wonder that cycling in London nearly doubled between 2005 and 2020. 87,000 journeys per day (2005) to 161,000 journeys per day (2020) in central London alone.

 

[Amarillo]

Is he trying to emulate his hero, Putin?

Are you trying to win an award for the most ignorant remark ever on this forum?

 

[2into1]

But the data is stark. Central London has lower levels of pollution than inner London which has lower levels of pollution than outer London. Congestion charging and the ULEZ does work in reducing pollution.

I'll grant you that might be aided by ulez, but it also matches the density of public transport availability and I suspect wealth. So the closer you are to the centre, the easier it has been to afford an electric or less polluting vehicle, and the easier it is not to use it....and that's why opposition grows the further away from the centre, and why he should slow down.

 

[WelshGas]

Are you trying to win an award for the most ignorant remark ever on this forum?

Pathetic response from someone who should know better. Both do not respect any opinion that differs from their own and both are unable to make coherent and fact based arguments to support their idealistic views.

 

[WelshGas]

I agree with most of what you say. And I think Khan is wrong to dismiss legitimate concerns simply because those with legitimate concerns protest alongside the loons. But I do understand what he means because I have seen it locally with a nearby Low Traffic Neighbourhood. Many of those with legitimate concerns over the knock on effects of LTNs align themselves with… loons. It doesn’t help their argument.

So he is not telling people they must support the ULEZ, but they should oppose it separately from groups like Freedom for Drivers and the Alliance of British Drivers if they want their case properly considered.

Yes, we know tailpipe emissions are falling. Khan would argue not fast enough. But the data is stark. Central London has lower levels of pollution than inner London which has lower levels of pollution than outer London. Congestion charging and the ULEZ does work in reducing pollution.

So while I also agree with the Conservatives, that the ULEZ is mostly about raising revenue for TfL, I do think that the wider ULEZ is justified for the reasons Khan gives. To give all Londoners the chance to breathe fresher air. And so what if more motorists start contributing to TfL? As the Conservatives warn, the net will soon widen and before long all motorists in London will be contributing to the roads they drive on as central Government withdraws all funding for TfL.

But I just wish Khan would be honest about this.

But the data is stark. Central London has lower levels of pollution than inner London which has lower levels of pollution than outer London

Is it?

Live Animated Air Quality Map (AQI, PM2.5...) | IQAir

Discover AirVisual Map, live world air pollution and air quality index (AQI) interactive 2D animated map combining PM2.5 data from public government, air quality stations, our community.

www.iqair.com

 

[andyinluton]

Pathetic response from someone who should know better. Both do not respect any opinion that differs from their own and both are unable to make coherent and fact based arguments to support their idealistic views.

Oh come on, Amarillo is famous - he’s spoken to Jeremy Corbin, that means everything he says on a political thread must be fact.

 

[Amarillo]

I'll grant you that might be aided by ulez, but it also matches the density of public transport availability and I suspect wealth. So the closer you are to the centre, the easier it has been to afford an electric or less polluting vehicle, and the easier it is not to use it....and that's why opposition grows the further away from the centre, and why he should slow down.

I think you are clutching at straws for an alternate explanation there.

Wealth distribution in London is far more complex than that. Central London is wealthy, so are some outer London areas, Richmond, Bromley, etc. and very generally inner London suffers the greatest deprivation.

But certainly inner London has a far greater traffic density and congestion than outer London.

 

[andyinluton]

I think you are clutching at straws for an alternate explanation there.

Wealth distribution in London is far more complex than that. Central London is wealthy, so are some outer London areas, Richmond, Bromley, etc. and very generally inner London suffers the greatest deprivation.

But certainly inner London has a far greater traffic density and congestion than outer London.

I think you are the one clutching at straws here, or are you really trying to convince us that central London does not have the best public transport infrastructure in the country? All of which has been subsidised by all uk taxpayers. If the rest of the uk had the equivalent level of public transport, then perhaps car ownership would move from being essential to just desirable.

 

[Amarillo]

Pathetic response from someone who should know better. Both do not respect any opinion that differs from their own and both are unable to make coherent and fact based arguments to support their idealistic views.

Rubbish. One is a democratically elected mayor of a major European city, the other a genocidal dictator wanted for war crimes.

 

[WelshGas]

Rubbish. One is a democratically elected mayor of a major European city, the other a genocidal dictator wanted for war crimes.

Putin was also “ democratically “ elected by the Russian people. You’ll have to work harder.

Russia election results 2018 | Statista

This statistic shows the results of the Russian Presidential election that took place on March 23, 2018.

www.statista.com

Results factsheet 2021 | London Elects

www.londonelects.org.uk