Forum Topic

TfL still manipulating and lying

If TfL were a national government, it would be up there with Russia, China and many despot countries for their constant misleading and use of unsubstantiated propaganda.It may not be as nasty as those places but the methodology remains the same. It would no doubt be unrecognised by the UK and sanctions applied.Then again. our Government is not exactly squeaky clean when it comes to telling the truth or misleading the public.However, it takes constant Freedom of Information requests to glean anything from TfL and their duck and dive approach to responding usually means 2 or three attempts before the answers start to emerge.They know that journalists and those who take the trouble to investigate further have limited time or resources or both and this appeases them.The latest claims on this websites lead story are completely unsubstantiated and based on policy and politically funded research. In other words organisations that will produce a report that vindicates what their paymasters policy requires.To take one example : To date there are no clear and definitive causes of Dementia. Whilst Alzheimers is now the generic word, Dementia is a range of diseases of which Alzheimers is one.It is as common in rural areas as it is in dense urban areas - as is Asthma. I have family who suffer both and live in a very rural part of England and one in Eire. Fact is, after decades of research,fund raising the causes are still not understood. It is so random in so many cases.TfLs claims about Hospital admissions are also unfounded. it is modelled propaganda. They have omitted the sources again and again.  B*******t baffles Brains and it seems it works.Our politicians are too lazy or afraid to do the hard work of proper fact finding and force TfL to be open and honest rather than sly and deceptive.The huge waste of money on the ULEZ which with diminishing non compliant vehicles already way below the figure TfL based the justification on in the first place - again by not even being honest to themselves but keen to please their political masters, could have made safer road surfaces and better general improvements London wide for all road users and provide a fully funded mandatory training and proficiency scheme to be reinstated for Cyclists and other non car users.It was the LCC that set this up in the first place and it ended with the demise of the GLC.

Raymond Havelock ● 1351d124 Comments

But what these anti-car zealots forget is that there is no minimum journey threshold nor any legal definition of what constitutes an essential journey. I’m sure Paul’s drive to Richmond Park was essential on the day he did it.Khan wants to raise revenue. Mason and co want to raise revenue. Easiest target is the private vehicle owner, despite most simply going about their lives. Dressing this up as environmental angst is deception. People will still need to drive around long after the last internal combustion engine has been consigned to history. Why, even Paul will want to. He might even need to by then.

Simon Hayes ● 1311d

500 metres exceeds by about 490 metres the distance I can walk without severe pain to the point where I would need to spend days recovering. I think that my last walk of anything like that distance was almost ten years ago.Even then I would not get the car out for a journey of 500 metres. I am incredibly fortunate in having a support network who will pick things up for me. My car is now essential use only save for visiting friends and family in areas where public transport is either prohibitive on cost and accessibility grounds.

N V Brooks ● 1311d

Your last comment really applies to Paul, who constantly bangs on about too many cars. Unless he’s driving one himself.I’d be interested to know what independent statistic you can provide for your 500m claim. It might happen occasionally but I’d bet it’s a tiny fraction of all vehicle moments in the borough. Even Ealing Council admitted 90 percent of journeys in the area were more than 2km (and that distance is an arbitrary one plucked out of the ether as being one that nobody should be allowed to drive, even though most of those vehicle movements are delivery vehicles travelling between drops).As the original post said, it’s all about manipulating and lying.

Simon Hayes ● 1311d

What is hypocritical, BTW I have have a life with which I am content thank you so much, is being hyper critical of any form of motoring, banging on about car drivers in general, actively supporting divisive measures while, at the same time driving a very polluting vehicle. Can't see what part of that you find difficult to grasp.

N V Brooks ● 1311d

What's hypocritical about owning a car and  owning bikes and travelling by public transport for that matter.I can't see the point in starting a car up to travel 500 metres , unless you are disabled.You need to get a life instead of banging on about the same old thing.

David Burke ● 1311d

Surely not, after all he drives doesn't he?  That said one of the other hypocrites who supported LTNs was routinely witnessed transporting his bikes on the roof rack of an old Diesel Audi estate.

N V Brooks ● 1311d

An unfortunate lady was killed by a bus in east London the other day. Should public transport be banned as well, since that also clearly poses a risk?Paul just wants the roads to himself and his little band of LCC chums.

Simon Hayes ● 1311d

We are trying,  overall casualties have virtually halved in the last 21 years, So your point is?Loving your fantasy posts on Twitter BTW.Notice you still haven't answered about why you still drive nor if you support the position of, you chosen data source, The Guardian on employment rights.

N V Brooks ● 1311d

>so your point is?"Together we can eradicate deaths and serious injuries from our roads and make London a safer, healthier and greener place."You don't think this can be done so we shouldn't try?https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/safety-and-security/road-safety/vision-zero-for-london

Paul Richard James ● 1311d

Correct, I simply ignore The Guardian because of the way it treats its staff or do you think it's OK? Are you simply posting because you haven't managed to imagine that you saw something, like flying saucers pavement parking this morning?Zero deaths in Helsinki but 80 pedestrian casualties, so your point is?

N V Brooks ● 1311d

That’s because you have a selective memory & ignore questions asked, such as why you drove to Richmond??

Peter Yale ● 1311d

>I simply ignore the Guardian. https://etsc.eu/zero-cyclist-and-pedestrian-deaths-in-helsinki-and-oslo-last-year/

Paul Richard James ● 1311d

Both are equally good for wrapping waste for the food bin or cleaning windows.

N V Brooks ● 1314d

Always love it when some hold up The Grauniad as being factually, morally & intellectually superior to The Daily Mail.              😂

Rosco White ● 1314d

I simply ignore the Guardian. Hailed  as both a bastion of morality and social responsibility by its loyal supporters they should realise that this is the same newspaper that furloughs many of its staff for one month every eleven months to stop them gaining employment rights. Odious.

N V Brooks ● 1314d

Oh look Paul!! Even your cycling lobby friends are forced to report dangerous flouting of traffic regulations by eager cyclists!https://road.cc/content/news/police-catch-18-red-light-jumping-cyclists-90-minutes-289991

Simon Hayes ● 1314d

Everyday it’s anti car rhetoric. TFL needs disbanding, increasing bus lane encroachment, red route parking, blocking yellow boxes.As if any driver intentionally does that.Congestion “pollution “, now pay per mile or time on roads- to fill black hole that the government are not getting from tax ( except PC paul  sadiq James) who says no such thing & can drive for fun

Peter Yale ● 1314d

Paul sadiq Richard Khan James has surfaced.Some unanswered questions you are choosing to ignore???

Peter Yale ● 1314d

Ah Paul, back from a drive to Richmond?Quoting The Guardian isn’t nonsense? It’s not renowned for its impartial stance or entirely accurate representation of the facts.You know as well as I do that cyclists have caused injury and death in London in recent years. We’ve talked about this before. That will still happen.But the bigger question is the transport of goods and the provision of services in a massive city like London. The two cities in the article are tiny, around 600,000 populations each. Norway’s entire population is just over half that of London’s. Finland similar. You do like comparing apples with oranges. I hope your offspring get a better education than you clearly had.The only person here who talks nonsense is Paul Richard James.

Simon Hayes ● 1314d

Talking nonsense again Simon? :Dhttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/16/how-helsinki-and-oslo-cut-pedestrian-deaths-to-zero

Paul Richard James ● 1314d

The only truth to come out of these lies is that us poor folk will pay for these hair-brain ideas... higher price for travel, motoring or heat or eat..

Nicolas Ozegovic ● 1314d

Biggest saving of all would come from these Oxygen wasters of consultants and advisers who are completely detached from reality and provide exactly what they are commissioned for.Their only real passion is the Money for old Rope in providing the politically  and power crazed more fodder.So much distortion and lies has become such a culture it is the norm and indicative is the end result. Constant failures....which of course get rewarded.Clear these types out and we may actually see problems being solved sensibly.Won't happen even in the lifetime of my children.

Raymond Havelock ● 1315d

You better believe it. Zero tolerance of deaths and serious injuries on the roads, only achievable by banning any vehicular transport, except bikes, which of course never cause death or serious injury when ridden at speed into unsuspecting pedestrians. Utterly barking.

Simon Hayes ● 1315d

JC, I've just read up on "Vision Zero".Khan is away with the fairies.And people actually voted for this crock?!!!!

Rosco White ● 1315d

Have a look at his Vision Zero dream. Total fantasist nonsense, as usual.

Simon Hayes ● 1315d

Khan & Co. are a bunch of Closet Communists.The Pipsqueak has an Agenda and he and his cronies on the tfl Board (BellEnd) will make sure that for most of us our lives will continue to be a misery.Unless you wear lycra ........... 😆

Rosco White ● 1315d

Khan and TFL still peddling more untruthsEvening Standard reports today 3/02/22 Toxic air pollution surrounds every London hospital and medical centre..City hall quotes 2019 data to try a secure an extension to ULEZ and fill the hole of their making by charging motorist to drive in London.

Nicolas Ozegovic ● 1315d

So TfL is to cut lots of bike schemes to save half a million quid. Rather begs the question whether any of these schemes, installed or not, really represent value for money when there are swathes of public transport - used by infinitely more of London’s population - that will remain neglected.

Simon Hayes ● 1315d

All depends where the Sat Nav buy their mapping data.Most car manufacturers buy from one of two mapping companies and they have one release per year compiled over the previous twelve months. So, a 2021 update purchased in December 2021 may have been based on data from the middle of 2020!Only TomTom update their data based on feedback from their user community and this happens every coule of week which is why LTN 21 was on mine inside a month. The system in my car although 'up to date' is still using data from 2020 and does not even show the LTNs.

N V Brooks ● 1326d

another sneaky ploy, sat navs. How is it they direct vehicles IN to congestion zone????

Peter Yale ● 1327d

Here’s another fact for you, Ealing Council, TFL, sadiq Khan, Pc Paul Richard James.In Greenford Ave all week there are temporary lights. An excavation on the footway but not any sign of a worker.The queue is right back to Drayton Bridge Road. Idling cars, pumping out pollution along a busy school route.Added on 15/20 mins to my journey ( there is no easy alternative route). How much does that cost the economy.Today the lights have failed. Traffic flows fine, no  congestion or hold ups.It’s yet another way the powers that be try to control & manipulate, dissuade, force, lie to promote their anti car agenda.

Peter Yale ● 1327d

& your drive to Richmond???????????

Peter Yale ● 1328d

What a load of crap.I proved to you the complete opposite during the petrol crisis.Do you have issues with your memory?

Peter Yale ● 1328d

The introduction of LTN 32 massively increased congestion on Windmill Road and South Ealing Road. It didn’t reduce the number of vehicles using the residential roads because a) residents still had to use their road to get in and out and b) any deliveries or visitors also had to use that road. The only road that saw a reduction in traffic was Junction Road, which was never very busy anyway.The consequent congestion increased pollution on the main roads (contrary to the massaged ‘statistics’ provided miraculously by local Labour councillors and which fooled nobody). That pollution would drift into the LTN area and was very noticeable. Added to that was the increase in noise pollution.Since the LTN was removed the pollution levels have dropped, the roads are much quieter again and the noise levels, particularly at night, are way down.Only idiots think LTNs are a solution to anything.

Simon Hayes ● 1328d

Stop being nasty to me, I didm't drive to Richmond insists famtasy forum user. You only saw the back.

N V Brooks ● 1328d

Equally, restricting available road space to a tiny proportion of road users or dedicating whole lanes to limited-interest groups does nothing, absolutely nothing to reduce congestion and pollution.

N V Brooks ● 1328d

Well you aren’t averse to driving about when it suits you Paul.

Simon Hayes ● 1328d

>Maybe if your mate Khan & the council opened roads, congestion could ease.This isn't how it works, more roads, means more cars means worse congestion. It has ever been thus.

Paul Richard James ● 1328d

LTNs do work, yes they balls up all the traffic, cause congestion & pollution.That’s why the general consensus voted to get rid of them.No one makes stuff up about you, they echo the nonsense you spout with your  constant ant car jibes

Peter Yale ● 1329d

The future of the minicab and people carrier on Fantasy Island.

N V Brooks ● 1329d

Roads are for transporting goods. Exactly, in motorised vehicles, not wheelbarrows.Maybe if your mate Khan & the council opened roads, congestion could ease.As another contributor says, no one drives for fun.That reminds me, you drove to Richmond, why????TFL & the council cause congestion & pollution.As the heading says, lie & manipulate figures

Peter Yale ● 1329d

N V Brooks ● 1331d

https://www.google.com/search?q=welcome+to+fantasy+island&client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=AOaemvIwKmfa7jNIBGVzkMDjqehKeI7H0w:1642537115817&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjB3sXKj7z1AhW-QEEAHRSqAzYQ_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=1376&bih=593&dpr=1.4#imgrc=WLUhbHx4XuJaQM

N V Brooks ● 1331d

No he’s not Paul. There was a reason that London developed suburbs, which was because the existing city was too overcrowded and consequently unhealthy. Now Khan, developers and the likes of Ealing Council are determined to turn the suburbs into high density residential areas. I bet you’d love it if a 26 storey block sprang up next to your house.I get the impression that you kind of missed having a proper education. History and geography might be good starting points for you.And the consequences of building suburbs was to move people away from where they worked, resulting in the advent of commuting. But the trouble was the capacity of public transport was not increased to meet demand. Now the funding crisis has stalled the overdue upgrades to the tube network that are desperately needed to improve reliability and capacity.Not everyone can, or wants, to hop on a bike to travel long distances. Most of us use public transport, you know. Even a halfwit might understand that.

Simon Hayes ● 1331d

"Like so many other cities on this planet."You're kinda missing the point of cities here...

Paul Richard James ● 1331d

Absolutely correct. You only have to look at places like Brentford and Acton to see this in action. There’s zero infrastructure being included (apart from a massive eyesore car park in Brentford - hilarious given Hounslow Council’s rabid anti-car bias).Where will all these new residents work? Where will they shop for anything other than the basics? They are just Council Tax farms.

Simon Hayes ● 1331d

London and the South East is seriously overpopulated by urban over densification.Like so many other cities on this planet.This is because of remarkable improvements in health care, education and transportation enabling people who probably would not even have been born to have a vastly improved life.  It's not true of everywhere but thats the general direction we are all heading.Like it or not the motor vehicle is the biggest single catalyst for enabling people be liberated from a life tied to the factory and have choice.  That led to prosperity and the speeding up of eradicating ( in this country) the kind of poverty that prevailed in a large part of the population.People don't use cars for a laugh, it's far too expensive and has been for many decades now.  For most it remains the only way of making a living and putting food on the table and a roof over one's head.We have an appalling road network, bodged by constant changes in political policies and indecision and bad planning.We have the same with out housing and economical infrastructure.This borough and neighbouring ones continue to over develop with housing crammed in anywhere to accommodate and overheating population, while at the same time reducing to almost zero, locations for industry and commerce and thus local jobs. This forcing thousands to travel further and further away whilst salaries diminish.  Then the same authorities force policies to walk or cycle.They bang on about the Climate emergency but only on certain issues whilst at the same time doing nothing to address the real thorny issue, overpopulation and over densification.Tear all the bull away and it turns out time and time again to be nothing more than revenue raising with no actual benefit.The ULEZ extension a classic example. Based on what was even 6 years ago,  out of date figures, costing 11 years with of carbon offsets- now possibly unrecoverable and now losing £300 million in expected revenue because they would only listen to selected policy pushers and manipulated statistics.Traffic levels have fallen in London constantly for 18 years. Whilst population has increased.  it's not choked up anything like it was. To the degree that TfL are fiddling with traffic controls to create hotspots.That should be declared and not avoided when challenged.Is it joined up thinking?  Logical?Pure manipulation.

Raymond Havelock ● 1331d

If roads aren’t for cars, Paul, then why did you drive to Richmond Park in a CAR!!???Come on, you’ve had weeks to think of a lame excuse for your crime.And those people providing services need to get about, though not many will be living in the very expensive flats being sling up everywhere. I know of GPS who have to drive to their practice because they don’t live locally. I know teachers who commute from outside London to Ealing, by car, because public transport is too unreliable.But, hey, you carry on in your bubble. And answer the question!

Simon Hayes ● 1331d

You have totally lost the plot. Try reality, you may find it enlightening.

N V Brooks ● 1331d

>All those people need servicesAnd some of these people will be providing the very services that other people need, you seem to forget that...

Paul Richard James ● 1331d

"Roads are not for cars"They are not for cars, there are for all manner of things, but the ultimate purpose of a road is the transportation of people and goods, not vehicles.

Paul Richard James ● 1331d

Paul, you are wrong on every level. The population densities going into new developments are way over the recommended numbers under the London plan. All those people need services, they will want deliveries and many will want cars. To argue otherwise is fantasy.Have you seen the application numbers for schools in the borough? Huge. Ditto with GP surgeries, dentists (particularly NHS). And what most people expect is freedom of choice, generally opting for the best for themselves and their families. That might result in necessary journeys by motor vehicle. Or would you prefer people to settle for what they are allowed?You seem to live in some alternative reality, where only what you believe can possibly be true.But while you are here, why did you drive to Richmond Park!?

Simon Hayes ● 1331d

Yet again not a shread of evidence based on current data from our resident,now a standing joke to all but his fanbase, fantasist"Roads are not for cars" what utter twaddle, do you actually think about what you type or is is just addled fantasist ramblings?

N V Brooks ● 1331d

I've seen this argument before. "If there were less people it would be OK to drive, so I'm going to drive anyway".London's population is OK, it's just there there are too many cars, used by a minority of London's people causing an unfair share of London's problems.

Paul Richard James ● 1331d

Don’t be a twit Paul. The roads aren’t ‘stuffed with cars’. Where’s your up to date data, eh? And for many people driving their own vehicle is a far more efficient way of getting around.But the point is, it’s not illegal to own or drive a car. If it offends your sensibilities, that’s tough.London’s problem is overpopulation. And it’s set to get worse. It’s pitting an intolerable strain on all infrastructure, including water supply. It’s also why existing public transport struggled to cope. But of course, all those new residents will be ultra keen cycling types, won’t they?

Simon Hayes ● 1331d

It does. Which is why having roads stuffed with cars is so bad for the economy.Remember roads are for transporting goods and people, not cars, which remain the single most inefficient way of moving people or goods around in cities.

Paul Richard James ● 1331d

Absolutely right, and although fun to 'bait' those who lie, obfuscate and fantasise on irrelevant local fora we must neither allow wider society to be duped nor kowtow to their demands.

N V Brooks ● 1331d

It’s actually down to freedom of choice Paul. After all, you choose to drive when it suits you.It has probably escaped your notice but most economic activity in the UK relies on movement, either of people or goods.

Simon Hayes ● 1331d

Absolutely correct, no one here denies that. Cars are cleaner than ever.

N V Brooks ● 1331d

That's a lot of words for "I just want people to keep driving".

Paul Richard James ● 1331d

Road Tax, ulez is another tax nothing to do with health or saving the planet... pollution is caused by planes, diesel trains, buses, HGV, private cars and heating Gas and wood burning and has no boundary. The easy option is taxing motorist as its the easiest option currently. All cars manufactured for road use have to complete a conformity process... so we can drive them legally..What you have is local government run by idiots who think they know best, using flawed information to sort their cause. Banning private owned cars and change the way we go about our lawful business will not happen now.. Traffic management is nolonger London wide that causes traffic problems by local Boroughs and TFL. Banning cars in parts of London (LTN'S) Central Government,  this pushes the problem elsewhere resolves nothing and pitching neighbours against each other. Sticking your head in the sand and blame motorists for all our problems helps no one cause. Long queue of vehicles sitting in traffic increases pollution fact. We need a more grown-up approach to this problem and stop this kicking the can. Not everyone wishes to travel by public transport or bike fact and local and central government need to understand this and find a solution that works for everyone. Just look at our way we have created the next biggest thing to hit us gas price increases coming this year. Caused by central government reducing our gas reserves and selling our utility companies to outside companies... we all suffer from poor decisions...Tony Blair and Gordon Brown saying diesel cars are better for the planet Hahaha

Nicolas Ozegovic ● 1332d

e) twat      😁

Rosco White ● 1332d

WRONG WRONG WRONGPollution from motor vehicles only represents 20% of CO2 and particulate distribiution in London. Construction works, dometic heating, notably wood burners and the like cause far more pollution that private motor cars.So which are you Paul?a) simply wrongb) a scarmongererc) misguidedd) economic with the truth.The one thing that you are not is correct.Now run off to Twitter and tell them that the big boys are being nasty to you again.

N V Brooks ● 1332d

Still used in over 30% of  aircraft. Suddenly, you are an aviation fuel expert Paul, well, you had to be good at something save that you fail to address the FACT that neither any Aviation fuel nor any aircraft has to meet even to most basic European emissions standards.

N V Brooks ● 1332d

As usual, no answer. You regularly refer to those who disagree with you as ghouls.You shift your position all the time to avoid answering direct questions. For example, why did you drive to Richmond Park?

Simon Hayes ● 1332d

No, only the hypocrites who prmote it by supporting airport expansion.

N V Brooks ● 1332d

Ah, motor vehicles. Not just cars then.I’m not making things up about you Paul, just trying to understand why you have such a dislike of most people in the world.LTNs didn’t work. Unlike you I lived in one and it was much more polluted. The council knew this, which is why they lied about emissions.But what is your solution Paul? Who gets to keep their cars, and who should give them up?

Simon Hayes ● 1332d

>I’m not making things up about you Paul, >just trying to understand why you have such a dislike of most people in the world.:D :D :D :D

Paul Richard James ● 1332d

Avgas?Not used in jet planes Nigel, come on! :Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas

Paul Richard James ● 1332d

You want to ban all flying Nigel?

Paul Richard James ● 1332d

>So your solution Paul is to only allow certain people the privilege of using or owning a car? How do you propose to implement that?Why have you just made that up about me and attributed it to me?>It might have escaped your notice that we live in a free market democracy,Try smoking in a pub Simon! :D>Perhaps you are a communist.Why do you have to keep making stuff up about me to justify your arguments? It really sounds like you're arguing with yourself!>Pollution knows no borders. >It’s why the LTN schemes didn’t work.They do work though! :D

Paul Richard James ● 1332d

>Just admit when you are wrong!I'm not wrong though.Dirty air in Ealing, and London is caused mostly by motor vehicles, not jet planes.

Paul Richard James ● 1332d

Just to add that AVGas still has lead added, I suppose you think that's a good thing then Paul given your support for aviation expansion. AVGas corrodes mtal fuel tanks due to micro organisms that are not filtered out. Suppose those are OK too. I wonder what your little fanbase on Twitter might think.

N V Brooks ● 1332d

So your solution Paul is to only allow certain people the privilege of using or owning a car? How do you propose to implement that?It might have escaped your notice that we live in a free market democracy, where ownership of consumer items is not just tolerated but encouraged. It literally keeps the wheels of our economy moving. But you can’t just say car ownership must reduce. You have to provide some mechanism by which you deny people the choice of owning a car. At the moment that seems to be by applying economic sanctions that naturally impact the most on those with lower incomes.Perhaps you are a communist. They had a system whereby the proles were told what they were allowed to do and use, while the elite lived it up by doing as they pleased. It didn’t work out so well in Eastern Europe, did it?And your answer on Heathrow underlines your complete lack of understanding of anything. Pollution knows no borders. It’s why the LTN schemes didn’t work.

Simon Hayes ● 1332d

"Heathrow airport is not causing dirty air in Ealing."What planet are you from or on?It's a little like Brent declaring itself a nuclear free zone in the 1980's in the hope that any radiation or fallout would stop at the signs on the A406.According to FlightData c.40% of flights enter or exit Heathrow in corridors over Ealing/Hounslow.Where do you think the fallout of particulates from the AvGas goes when it falls to earth Paul? Is it whisked away by an army of ecologically-aware bicyclists before it rips into the lungs of thse under the flight paths (aviation fuel is corrosive and planes do not have to meet even basic European emissions standards).You only succeed in making yourself an object of ridicule with such claims.  Just admit when you are wrong!

N V Brooks ● 1332d

If there's one person to have a go at for a massive cock up regarding London's bus fleet it's Boris Johnson...https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tfl-funding-crisis-boris-routemaster-bus-sadiq-khan-b977064.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1642417125-1

Paul Richard James ● 1332d

>been that simply blaming private car ownership isn’t correct.I've never done this, this is just you making stuff up about me again, over-simplifying my views for your own ends! :D> But they are a necessity for many.I've never said they are not, can you point me to where I said this? You and I agree on this, they ARE a necessity for some.>You are a supporter of Heathrow expansion yet air travel accounts for a far higher percentage of emissions than London car owners.Heathrow airport is not causing dirty air in Ealing.My prime reasons for not being anti the expansion are that the airport operator has to sort its s**t out as regards the pollution it creates in the airport (moving planes around without turning engines on etc...), and the introduction of a congestion/pollution zone around it.. the airport needs a revamp basically.>Your world view is simplistic to the point of stupidity.I think it's YOUR world view that you are transposing onto me that's simplistic, you do it on purpose, create straw man arguments that I'd like to see all cars banned and that I want heathrow just to expand without having a massive look at itself etc...

Paul Richard James ● 1332d

You really do tie yourself in knots Paul.I’m not a ‘detractor’, as you put it. My point has always been that simply blaming private car ownership isn’t correct. There are a multitude of factors contributing to air pollution, many of them conveniently ignored by the anti-car lobby.You like to paint yourself as a liberal, yet you see no problem in advocating discrimination against people who are your neighbours, and possibly friends. If private cars are so evil then surely the government would ban all ownership of them? But they are a necessity for many.You are a supporter of Heathrow expansion yet air travel accounts for a far higher percentage of emissions than London car owners. That’s before you factor in the necessary service vehicles for the airport and the emissions around any third runway construction.Your world view is simplistic to the point of stupidity. Go and do some proper homework.

Simon Hayes ● 1332d

Hardly detractors. I won't answer for Simon, but the FACTS (something seemingly alien to you) are that cars are cleaner than ever, particulates from cars are down** and those who lobby for disproportionate preference are continually incapable of looking beyond their own prejudices, aren't you Paul?When you next make a factual post (whenever that may be) rather than (yet) another  piece of wild fantasy, I may be moved to respond again.**The current standard is over 100 times lower than Euro 3 from twenty years ago (pre Euro 5 and Euro 6 Diesel vehicles now represent just 3% of active registrations)

N V Brooks ● 1332d

Better today does not mean good enough Nigel!We are headed in the right direction, sort of, but are being delayed by detractors like yourself and Simon.

Paul Richard James ● 1332d

Just answer the damned question and stop throwing around baseless accusations.Euro 6 standards were introduced for cars and LGV well in advance of revised standards for PCVs and HGVs."It's better today" - then by yoiur own admission, your argument is crumbling before you and you are simply scaremongering.

N V Brooks ● 1332d

>Any chance of your making a point using current data by the way?It's better today thanks to the constraints applied to buses also being applied to cars, thanks to people looking to the future whereas you appear to be railing against any sort of necessary change Nigel, I strongly suspect if you were in charge things would be worse not better!

Paul Richard James ● 1332d

Deluded or trolling. I'll leave others to decide into which camp you fall. Any chance of your making a point using current data by the way?

N V Brooks ● 1332d

(BTW I was VERY disappointed when they chose not to shut Oxford Street to ALL motor traffic. It was a joy when extinction rebellion had it shut)

Paul Richard James ● 1332d

Oh dear, you lot are so abusive and so misinformed at the same time! :DI read the Putney high street article about buses and Simon massively misrepresented that too.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37131138

Paul Richard James ● 1332d

Poor Paul,I thought that you are intelligent person, go and sit in Putney high street or Oxford Street and measure the quality of air. The vast majority of vehicles are buses, belching out harmful emissions including taxis not many privately owned cars allowed in Oxford Street. As for buses TFL fleet are old 2002 onward vehicles still on the road the only true low emissions bus is the hydrogen bus number.7 route not many of them. As for cars and car ownership we are easy targets fines and more fines to fill the big hole that Khan and his cohorts have created. They should have used the ulez money spent on saving young male lives and not purchasing cameras to catching a small number of none compliant privately owned cars that will die a natural death over the coming months and years make the cameras redundant... Naturally modern cars are less omitting but the car industry is being forced to get their act together by producing better cars but more can be done. The supplier's of petrol and diesel products can be cleaner fuels. Diesel can be supplied with less sulphur which is better for the environment... Just like unleaded fuel in the 90's as an alternative to leaded petrol.

Nicolas Ozegovic ● 1332d

Well said. Only a halfwit would bother looking at only half the story.What will Paul do when there are no internal combustion engines on our roads?

Simon Hayes ● 1333d

The Guardian article uses data based on the previous ranges of Diesel engines so hardly relevant to the current situation. Euro 6 and Euro 6D engines have now been on sale for over six years. Cleaner than ever with a 67%NOX reduction, reduced particulates and significant CO2 reductions.At least make the effort and try to find some current data to support your point of view.

N V Brooks ● 1333d

?https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/21/diesel-cars-emissions-toxic-pollution-than-a-bus-data-reveals

Paul Richard James ● 1333d

Poor Paul. One can’t help but pity him.

Simon Hayes ● 1333d

Ah, still trusting the Twitterati as a data source I see. Oh dear. Ll

N V Brooks ● 1333d

>Paul, do you not agree that construction plays a major part in air pollution in London?Yes it can. so does private car use. And?>Oh, and like you, Khan sees no problem in being driven around in a car when it suits him, including to take his dog for a walk.He's said he'd rather not but is forced to sometimes by his security due to threats.

Paul Richard James ● 1333d

>1000 cars omit less than TFL bus.you've got that wrong. In some cases ONE car emits more than a TFL bus, and that's before you sit everybody that uses the bus in a one of those cars each for their journey..

Paul Richard James ● 1333d

From the latest ONS report.Road traffic in Great Britain increased from 255 billion miles travelled in 1990 to 328 billion miles in 2018, an increase of 29%.Total fuel used for road transport in the UK remained relatively stable from 1990 to 2017 as the fuel efficiency of newer vehicles has improved; whilst petrol use declined over this period, diesel use has increased.Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from road transport in the UK have increased more slowly than the increase in road traffic, increasing by 6% from 1990 to 2017.In 2017, GHG emissions from road transport made up around a fifth of the UK’s total emissions.Emissions of many pollutants that are particularly damaging to health (carbon monoxide, particulate matter and nitrogen oxides) have reduced following increasingly stringent exhaust emission limits.29% MORE MILES WITH NO INCREASE IN FUEL USED.DAMAGING POLLUTIO LEVELS HAVE DECREASED SINCE 1990 DESPITE A 29% INCREASE IN USAGE.Some will dispute this of course because that want a disproportionate amount of roadspace for cycles.

N V Brooks ● 1333d

Yet more twaddle from the gaslighting obfuscater.ALL motor transport accounts for 27% of the polluton measured in the UK. Take out all cars and you reduce that to...21% ONS has actually revised the headline figure down from 27 to 20% (measured pre pandemic).Look elsewhere for a scapegoat. Enjoy your drive out.

N V Brooks ● 1333d

It’s the alternative reality he exists in. Ignore facts, rely on wild imaginings to support ‘arguments’.Paul, do you not agree that construction plays a major part in air pollution in London? Khan hasn’t addressed the issues around on site plant belching out fumes, despite a pledge to do so six years ago.Oh, and like you, Khan sees no problem in being driven around in a car when it suits him, including to take his dog for a walk.

Simon Hayes ● 1333d

Get a life Paul.. 1000 cars omit less than TFL bus. And as TFL have reported the number of compliant cars are 92%. So where is all this poor air coming from.. explain yourself rather than using made up hype

Nicolas Ozegovic ● 1333d

Been quiet recently Paul. You been off out driving?It’s not ‘cars’, it’s motor vehicles of all types.

Simon Hayes ● 1333d

Nobody thinks this is a good idea except you... ;)

Paul Richard James ● 1333d

It cracks me up you lot think the bad air we have is bad air coming in from the EU, and that buses are a major factor in bad air quality.It's cars... you can't or won't say it, but it's cars.https://twitter.com/0jhl/status/1481280400404234242?t=keh88Pi6OZNx0pZX4VSmMg&s=09

Paul Richard James ● 1333d

TfL won’t have a full fleet of emission free buses until 2037.But a lot of contribution to poor air quality in London comes from construction, which Khan and the councils enthusiastically endorse. Go stand next to a building site for 10 minutes if you don’t believe me.

Simon Hayes ● 1334d

Yesterday, we were told to minimise outside activities due to high levels of pollution in the air... This is normally caused by high pressure and winds from Europe blowing in poor air. TFL can charge ulez but that will not solve the problem of providing London better air. We live in a globe and what happens in other countries affect us banning some cars will not help us. Since the 50's our air has been improving but the reduction in 1 or 1000 old privately owned cars is small and the air monitoring equipment will not pick this up. Banning HGV whether lorries or buses travelling millions of miles each year would be far better.

Nicolas Ozegovic ● 1334d

Given that tfl think BellEnd has sufficient "credentials" to be worthy enough for him to be appointed to the tfl Board, I think that alone makes tfl's intentions, motivations and "direction" crystal clear.                😉

Rosco White ● 1334d

They have been messing with traffic lights all over Greater London to manipulate traffic congestion.  Not the first time. The Livingstone administration also did this to justify the congestion charge and changed the phasing again to create the desired effect to the maximum.The following Mayor forced TfL to stop those antics.But now with TfL so in the palms of political idealists, secrecy, deception and lies rule the roost. That's not good for anyone but mirrors the culture of Westminster so that's OK then.

Raymond Havelock ● 1334d

the cretin mayor was on LBC this week, complaining of congestion & consequent pollution.Heres 1 for him. OPEN roads so people can drive down them

Peter Yale ● 1335d

Oh joy, another example, if correct, of TfL wasting our money. Well done TfL management and their hapless 'son of a taxi driver' boss.

N V Brooks ● 1347d

Oh joy, another example, if correct, of TfL wasting our money. Well done TfL management and their hapless 'son of a taxi driver' boss.

N V Brooks ● 1347d

".... stating their Hybrid fleet is no cleaner than it's Euro 5 Diesel fleet."Well that'll upset the Greeny Wokes.  😂

Rosco White ● 1347d

Mr James,As you are so keen to compare money with stardust, where do you think all this money comes from?Money is not toy money or confetti. It has to be earned.£100 million plus could have been put to far better use for the health and well being than this, which as is now on public record is a rapidly diminishing problem. And certainly not on something which is full of unsubstantiated hypotheses.What, as usual is not being actioned and was sidelined yet again at COP is over densification and overpopulation without sustainable infrastructure.Whilst local authorities are keen to jump on the Climate Emergency bandwagon for some issues - which are unfortunately always fronts for revenue raising, they are very deft to avoid the other issues. Issues that have far more tangible and definitive effects on life and quality of life for the vast majority of ordinary people.This Borough, like Hounslow is extremely keen on over densification without addressing the implications.As for the buses, I'm sure you will have noticed that since late September,  TfL instructed it's operators to shuffle vehicles around.The vast majority of lowest emission and hybrid vehicles were transferred away from the routes operating around the perimeters of the ULEZ and replaced with older diesel or higher emission hybrids ( of which there are only a few dozen) Routes inside the ULEZ were allocated vehicles of hybrid or Electric.  This was all completed by the commencement of the ULEZ.TfL also issued a press release on this matter that stating their Hybrid fleet is no cleaner than it's Euro 5 Diesel fleet. A surprise to even bus engineers.Locally the 65 has lost all 16 hybrid vehicles since early september, replaced by modified Euro 5 vehicles.  It is supposed to go all electric with new buses but major infrastructure  problems persist and the 3 new buses being trialled are failing on a number of issues. So all the huge extra expenditure and publicising of Greener buses is yet another sham.

Raymond Havelock ● 1347d

Paul, it’s not false information. Go and look at the pollution levels in Putney, which dropped 90 percent after the buses were changed from diesel. But don’t let things like facts blinker your point of view, as usual.By their nature, buses are slow moving, stop frequently and require more power to move them. I suspect even you have been sat next to a bus when on your bike and may have noticed the emissions. But then again, maybe not.Still a pontificating hypocrite in 2022....why do you persist in your ignorance?

Simon Hayes ● 1348d

Same old, same old. The target date for zero emissions is 2037. Not exactly ambitious. That was a target announced well before the pandemic, and perhaps money that’s been spent on ‘cycling infrastructure’ might have been better spent on more new buses, which are used by a far higher percentage of the population.Strangely enough you anti car types (when it suits you) fail to recognise that car engines are much cleaner than they ever were, and by 2030 it will only be electric available as new purchases. You always ignore other elements that cause pollution, not least of which is construction which pumps tonnes of particulate matter into local areas. Mr Khan is particularly keen on helping developers maximise profits, as is Ealing Council.I see the he New Year hasn’t brought any sense of perspective to your arguments.

Simon Hayes ● 1348d

To also say buses are the "main problem" is rather over simplifying it, you need to take into account he number of people they move round compared cars.You can't compare buses with cars for pollution, well you can, some average family cars that transport one person around normally and at most five can emit MORE than a bus that carries thousands of people a day. False equivalence from Hayes as usual.

Paul Richard James ● 1348d

"Put his own house in order" The Mayor has responsibility for TFL. Over 4000 buses are now hybrid meaning 40% less emissions still a long way to go but not helped by the previous incumbents political shenanigans over funding.The majority of TFLs funding comes from fares ,far greater  than other comparable cities.This has obviously fallen off a cliff due to covid.  So yes it will take some time to attain zero emissions.

David Burke ● 1348d

The air in London IS the mayor's own house. Pretty much the mayoralty was created for this as about the only power it had when it was started was to introduce a congestion charge, in part to help relieve London's dirty air.

Paul Richard James ● 1348d

There’s 9,000 buses in the fleet. Only 500 are low emission. Perhaps Khan should put his own house in order first.

Simon Hayes ● 1348d

I use the 207 and 427 most days. I find it a very good service, most of these being also low emission.

David Burke ● 1348d

And yet the TfL bus fleet is still way behind in converting to low emission vehicles. At least another 12 years. Buses account for a large proportion of pollution.Oh, and Paul, shouldn’t you be out on your bike today? Or are you driving down to Richmond Park this afternoon?

Simon Hayes ● 1348d

>£100 million plus.Yes, pennies.Pennies compared to the "cost" (both actual cost and cost in many other ways) of doing nothing.A million seconds is 11 days.A billion seconds is 31 years.So spending a few million to save a few billion is absolutely the right thing to do.

Paul Richard James ● 1348d

Do keep up Pc Khan James.It’s vehicle apartheid don’t you know.No1 needs to drive obviously, it’s all for fun, skip lorries slaloming, cars over the pavement.

Peter Yale ● 1349d

But who on earth could you mean Mr Hayes?Surely no1 drives for fun. I drove to Richmond Park today because….Well because, just because

Peter Yale ● 1349d

Of course, there are people here who still choose to drive when it suits them, yet complain incessantly about ‘too many cars’. They are known as hypocrites!

Simon Hayes ● 1349d

£100 million plus.Plus the huge carbon footprint in infrastructure that will take 11 years to offset assuming the rate of non compliant vehicles remains at the figure of 6 years ago!Already that figure has plummeted and the income will drop year on year.So who will be picking up the tab?And you said it "projections' projections based on no actual tangible data as there is no accurate date going back 60 years.Except in that same 60 years we all live longer and far healthier than ever.And there is definitive data for that. Not stuff cooked up by funded and politicised specialists in manipulation. Something a certain few nations developed and used to great effect 80 years ago.

Raymond Havelock ● 1349d

>The huge waste of money on the ULEZ Huge waste of money?There are projected to be massive health gains, cleaner air is going to save countless lives and improve the health of many many people.I think they valued this at billions of pounds of savings for the NHS over the next 20 years, the cost of the ULEZ is peanuts compared to this saving, and the cost of doing nothing would have actually been a cost not a saving.It sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about if you think making the capital's air cleaner is a COST, it's not, it will be a huge huge saving and not just in money, but quality of life for many.

Paul Richard James ● 1349d

Ha Ha, I don't think anyone expects anything less with people of the "calibre" of BellEnd on the tfl Board.......

Rosco White ● 1351d