I have received a PCN for travelling in Birmingham's clean air zone. I'm
not from that area so not familiar with them.-a The PCN is for -u120 (reduced to -u60 if paid within 14 days).
I'm appealing, but if the appeal is rejected they say the full amount
will need to be paid.-a This seems to me to be an unfair condition, and would ask if this is legal?-a Paying the fine then appealing could be
seen as an admission of guilt.
I have received a PCN for travelling in Birmingham's clean air zone. I'mThere are signs everywhere about the ULEZ zone. You can go round it if
not from that area so not familiar with them.-a The PCN is for -u120 (reduced to -u60 if paid within 14 days).
I'm appealing, but if the appeal is rejected they say the full amount
will need to be paid.-a This seems to me to be an unfair condition, and would ask if this is legal?-a Paying the fine then appealing could be
seen as an admission of guilt.
I have received a PCN for travelling in Birmingham's clean air zone. I'm
not from that area so not familiar with them.-a The PCN is for -u120 (reduced to -u60 if paid within 14 days).
I'm appealing, but if the appeal is rejected they say the full amount
will need to be paid.-a This seems to me to be an unfair condition, and would ask if this is legal?-a Paying the fine then appealing could be
seen as an admission of guilt.
I have received a PCN for travelling in Birmingham's clean air zone. I'm
not from that area so not familiar with them.-a The PCN is for -u120 (reduced to -u60 if paid within 14 days).
On 13/09/2026 14:32, John wrote:
I have received a PCN for travelling in Birmingham's clean air zone.
I'm not from that area so not familiar with them.-a The PCN is for -u120
(reduced to -u60 if paid within 14 days).
I've just looked at the Clean Air Zones through the Country. What a
mess. My car is OK for most of them, but it has to pay to go into
Birmingham and Bristol (London is different again). Yet my van, with a larger engine, and less MPG does not get charged in any of the zones
(excl. London)
HTF is it so complicated?
No wonder people get confused with it. If it's a Governement coordinated scheme, it should be pretty simple to look up your vehicle to see if it complies, but each area has different rules, hence it's difficult to
keep up with the requirements if you are travelling through the Country.
Rant over.
On 9/14/26 06:51, Alan Lee wrote:
[quoted text muted]
It isn't just clean air, there are now a multitude of hard to understand offences. Some London boroughs are 20mph, others are 30 mph. Bus lanes
are timed, or non-intuitively marked. School street signs are hard to
spot.
On 9/14/26 06:51, Alan Lee wrote:
On 13/09/2026 14:32, John wrote:
I have received a PCN for travelling in Birmingham's clean air zone.
I'm not from that area so not familiar with them.-a The PCN is for -u120 >>> (reduced to -u60 if paid within 14 days).
I've just looked at the Clean Air Zones through the Country. What a
mess. My car is OK for most of them, but it has to pay to go into
Birmingham and Bristol (London is different again). Yet my van, with a
larger engine, and less MPG does not get charged in any of the zones
(excl. London)
HTF is it so complicated?
No wonder people get confused with it. If it's a Governement coordinated
scheme, it should be pretty simple to look up your vehicle to see if it
complies, but each area has different rules, hence it's difficult to
keep up with the requirements if you are travelling through the Country.
Rant over.
It isn't just clean air, there are now a multitude of hard to understand offences. Some London boroughs are 20mph, others are 30 mph. Bus lanes
are timed, or non-intuitively marked. School street signs are hard to spot.
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning
right, but not if turning left. Suddenly I'm fined for doing something
I've done wrong, without penalty, for 25 years. I've had more penalties
in the last few years than I have in the rest of my life.
I broadly support PCNs to enforce rules, but I think a lot of the
signage and communication needs to be improved, or rules need to be simplified.
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 09:42:59 +0100, Pancho wrote:
On 9/14/26 06:51, Alan Lee wrote:
[quoted text muted]
It isn't just clean air, there are now a multitude of hard to understand
offences. Some London boroughs are 20mph, others are 30 mph. Bus lanes
are timed, or non-intuitively marked. School street signs are hard to
spot.
Off course the narrative is none of that is a worry for a self driving
car.
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring offences, confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, along with the many other restrictions mentioned, is a system created to make personal
transport difficult, inconvenient, and expensive, with the result of essentially condemning people to travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony, and to live in 15-minute cities; none of which were ever put to an
electoral test.
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning
right, but not if turning left.
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning
right, but not if turning left.
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring offences,
confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, along with the many
other restrictions mentioned, is a system created to make personal
transport difficult, inconvenient, and expensive, with the result of
essentially condemning people to travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony, >> and to live in 15-minute cities; none of which were ever put to an
electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are
available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare
anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
On 14/09/2026 10:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring offences,
confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, along with the many >>> other restrictions mentioned, is a system created to make personal
transport difficult, inconvenient, and expensive, with the result of
essentially condemning people to travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony,
and to live in 15-minute cities; none of which were ever put to an
electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are
available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare
anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
I'm not clear what has to be available within this 15-minute walk.
Schools, and a supermarket or other food shops of course, but what about other kinds of shops? Or hairdressers? Or a railway station? Large bus interchange? Cinema? Theatre? Opera house?
On 2026-09-14, Jethro <jethro_UK@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 09:42:59 +0100, Pancho wrote:
On 9/14/26 06:51, Alan Lee wrote:
[quoted text muted]
It isn't just clean air, there are now a multitude of hard to
understand offences. Some London boroughs are 20mph, others are 30
mph. Bus lanes are timed, or non-intuitively marked. School street
signs are hard to spot.
Off course the narrative is none of that is a worry for a self driving
car.
That is not only not "the narrative", I've never even heard anyone
suggest such a thing.
Not to mention, I seriously doubt "self-driving"
cars are going to manage to successfully navigate all these issues
anyway.
On 14/09/2026 09:42, Pancho wrote:
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being
enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning
right, but not if turning left.
But not, it appears, if the box junction is in a roundabout with traffic signals. Then you can only enter the box if your exit from it is clear.
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring offences,
confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, along with the many
other restrictions mentioned, is a system created to make personal
transport difficult, inconvenient, and expensive, with the result of
essentially condemning people to travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony, >> and to live in 15-minute cities; none of which were ever put to an
electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are
available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare
anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
On 9/14/26 06:51, Alan Lee wrote:
On 13/09/2026 14:32, John wrote:
I have received a PCN for travelling in Birmingham's clean air zone.
I'm not from that area so not familiar with them.-a The PCN is for
-u120 (reduced to -u60 if paid within 14 days).
I've just looked at the Clean Air Zones through the Country. What a
mess. My car is OK for most of them, but it has to pay to go into
Birmingham and Bristol (London is different again). Yet my van, with a
larger engine, and less MPG does not get charged in any of the zones
(excl. London)
HTF is it so complicated?
No wonder people get confused with it. If it's a Governement
coordinated scheme, it should be pretty simple to look up your vehicle
to see if it complies, but each area has different rules, hence it's
difficult to keep up with the requirements if you are travelling
through the Country.
Rant over.
It isn't just clean air, there are now a multitude of hard to understand offences. Some London boroughs are 20mph, others are 30 mph. Bus lanes
are timed, or non-intuitively marked. School street signs are hard to spot.
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning
right, but not if turning left. Suddenly I'm fined for doing something
I've done wrong, without penalty, for 25 years. I've had more penalties
in the last few years than I have in the rest of my life.
On 14 Sep 2026 at 09:42:59 BST, Pancho wrote:
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being
enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning
right, but not if turning left.
IIUC the right turn stopping in a box junction is only allowed if your exit is
clear.
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring offences,
confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, along with the many
other restrictions mentioned, is a system created to make personal
transport difficult, inconvenient, and expensive, with the result of
essentially condemning people to travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony, >> and to live in 15-minute cities; none of which were ever put to an
electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are
available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare
anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
On 14 Sep 2026 at 09:42:59 BST, Pancho wrote:
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being
enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning
right, but not if turning left.
IIUC the right turn stopping in a box junction is only allowed if your exit is
clear.
On 14/09/2026 09:42, Pancho wrote:
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being
enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning
right, but not if turning left. Suddenly I'm fined for doing something
I've done wrong, without penalty, for 25 years. I've had more penalties
in the last few years than I have in the rest of my life.
You're allowed to stop in a box junction to turn right if the only thing preventing you is oncoming traffic. I thought everyone knew that. The same
consideration doesn't apply to a left turn.
On 9/14/26 10:30, RJH wrote:
On 14 Sep 2026 at 09:42:59 BST, Pancho wrote:
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being
enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning
right, but not if turning left.
IIUC the right turn stopping in a box junction is only allowed if
your exit is clear.
Why would you stop if your exit was clear?
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring offences,
confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, along with the many >>> other restrictions mentioned, is a system created to make personal
transport difficult, inconvenient, and expensive, with the result of
essentially condemning people to travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony,
and to live in 15-minute cities; none of which were ever put to an
electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are
available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare
anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
But what if the good school, the good hospital, the good doctor or dentist surgery, the good solicitor or barrister isnrCOt in your particular 15-minute city? What happened to freedom of choice?
On 2026-09-14 10:56, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 14/09/2026 09:42, Pancho wrote:
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being
enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning
right, but not if turning left.
But not, it appears, if the box junction is in a roundabout with traffic
signals. Then you can only enter the box if your exit from it is clear.
But in that case there is no question of waiting to turn right ?!!
On 2026-09-14, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 10:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring offences,
confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, along with the many >>>> other restrictions mentioned, is a system created to make personal
transport difficult, inconvenient, and expensive, with the result of
essentially condemning people to travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony,
and to live in 15-minute cities; none of which were ever put to an
electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are
available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare
anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
I'm not clear what has to be available within this 15-minute walk.
Schools, and a supermarket or other food shops of course, but what about
other kinds of shops? Or hairdressers? Or a railway station? Large bus
interchange? Cinema? Theatre? Opera house?
You're supposed to have "essential life needs" within 15 minutes:
living, working, commerce, healthcare, education, and entertainment.
I'm pretty sure opera houses don't come under any of those (they are "entertainment", of course, but probably out of reach of many people financially).
Introducing the "15-Minute City": Sustainability, Resilience and Place Identity in Future Post-Pandemic Cities (2021) https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities4010006
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring offences,
confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, along with the many >>>> other restrictions mentioned, is a system created to make personal
transport difficult, inconvenient, and expensive, with the result of
essentially condemning people to travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony,
and to live in 15-minute cities; none of which were ever put to an
electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are
available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare
anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
But what if the good school, the good hospital, the good doctor or dentist >> surgery, the good solicitor or barrister isnrCOt in your particular 15-minute
city? What happened to freedom of choice?
I don't know, what did happen to freedom of choice? What are you
talking about? Have you been befuddled by fake news again and are
labouring under the mistaken impression that you're not allowed
to leave the "15 minute city"?
On 9/14/26 10:30, RJH wrote:
On 14 Sep 2026 at 09:42:59 BST, Pancho wrote:Why would you stop if your exit was clear?
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being
enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning
right, but not if turning left.
IIUC the right turn stopping in a box junction is only allowed if your
exit is
clear.
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring offences,
confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, along with the many >>>> other restrictions mentioned, is a system created to make personal
transport difficult, inconvenient, and expensive, with the result of
essentially condemning people to travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony,
and to live in 15-minute cities; none of which were ever put to an
electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are
available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare
anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
But what if the good school, the good hospital, the good doctor or dentist >> surgery, the good solicitor or barrister isnrCOt in your particular 15-minute
city? What happened to freedom of choice?
I don't know, what did happen to freedom of choice? What are you
talking about? Have you been befuddled by fake news again and are
labouring under the mistaken impression that you're not allowed
to leave the "15 minute city"?
On 14/09/2026 10:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring offences,
confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, along with the
many
other restrictions mentioned, is a system created to make personal
transport difficult, inconvenient, and expensive, with the result of
essentially condemning people to travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs
pony,
and to live in 15-minute cities; none of which were ever put to an
electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are
available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare
anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
So there's a general hospital within every "15 minute city"?
And the boundary is drawn so as to include everyon'e place of work, as
well their place of worship?
Wow... who knew?
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring offences,
confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, along with the many
other restrictions mentioned, is a system created to make personal
transport difficult, inconvenient, and expensive, with the result of
essentially condemning people to travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony, >> and to live in 15-minute cities; none of which were ever put to an
electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are
available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare
anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
On 2026-09-14, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 9/14/26 10:30, RJH wrote:
On 14 Sep 2026 at 09:42:59 BST, Pancho wrote:
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being >>>> enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning
right, but not if turning left.
IIUC the right turn stopping in a box junction is only allowed if
your exit is clear.
Why would you stop if your exit was clear?
Because traffic is passing in the lane that you need to cross to reach
your exit.
On 14/09/2026 10:30, RJH wrote:
On 14 Sep 2026 at 09:42:59 BST, Pancho wrote:
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being
enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning
right, but not if turning left.
IIUC the right turn stopping in a box junction is only allowed if your exit >> is
clear.
If it were clear, you wouldn't need to stop.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring offences, >>>>> confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, along with the many >>>>> other restrictions mentioned, is a system created to make personal
transport difficult, inconvenient, and expensive, with the result of >>>>> essentially condemning people to travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony,
and to live in 15-minute cities; none of which were ever put to an
electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are
available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare
anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
But what if the good school, the good hospital, the good doctor or dentist >>> surgery, the good solicitor or barrister isnrCOt in your particular 15-minute
city? What happened to freedom of choice?
I don't know, what did happen to freedom of choice? What are you
talking about? Have you been befuddled by fake news again and are
labouring under the mistaken impression that you're not allowed
to leave the "15 minute city"?
So when you say rCLCondemning people to live in places where essential services are available locally and easy to get torCY, that leaves a lot
to be desired from the wider range of services. Pubs, restaurants,
cinemas, ladies of the evening, for example, arenrCOt essential
services. The 15-minute city as described sounds like a miserable Marxist-inspired Puritan-style hellhole.
On 2026-09-14 10:50, Pancho wrote:
On 9/14/26 10:30, RJH wrote:
On 14 Sep 2026 at 09:42:59 BST, Pancho wrote:Why would you stop if your exit was clear?
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being >>>> enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning
right, but not if turning left.
IIUC the right turn stopping in a box junction is only allowed if
your exit is
clear.
To give way to oncoming traffic, (ie traffic coming towards you from directly opposite).
You can stop to wait for a gap in oncoming traffic, provided your exit
is clear and it's only the oncoming traffic holding you up.
nib
On 2026-09-14 10:50, Pancho wrote:
On 9/14/26 10:30, RJH wrote:
On 14 Sep 2026 at 09:42:59 BST, Pancho wrote:Why would you stop if your exit was clear?
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being >>>> enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning
right, but not if turning left.
IIUC the right turn stopping in a box junction is only allowed if
your exit is
clear.
To give way to oncoming traffic, (ie traffic coming towards you from directly opposite).
You can stop to wait for a gap in oncoming traffic, provided your exit
is clear and it's only the oncoming traffic holding you up.
On 14/09/2026 09:42, Pancho wrote:
On 9/14/26 06:51, Alan Lee wrote:
On 13/09/2026 14:32, John wrote:
I have received a PCN for travelling in Birmingham's clean air zone.
I'm not from that area so not familiar with them.-a The PCN is for
-u120 (reduced to -u60 if paid within 14 days).
I've just looked at the Clean Air Zones through the Country. What a
mess. My car is OK for most of them, but it has to pay to go into
Birmingham and Bristol (London is different again). Yet my van, with a
larger engine, and less MPG does not get charged in any of the zones
(excl. London)
HTF is it so complicated?
No wonder people get confused with it. If it's a Governement
coordinated scheme, it should be pretty simple to look up your vehicle
to see if it complies, but each area has different rules, hence it's
difficult to keep up with the requirements if you are travelling
through the Country.
Rant over.
It isn't just clean air, there are now a multitude of hard to understand
offences. Some London boroughs are 20mph, others are 30 mph. Bus lanes
are timed, or non-intuitively marked. School street signs are hard to spot. >>
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being
enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning
right, but not if turning left. Suddenly I'm fined for doing something
I've done wrong, without penalty, for 25 years. I've had more penalties
in the last few years than I have in the rest of my life.
You're allowed to stop in a box junction to turn right if the only thing preventing you is oncoming traffic. I thought everyone knew that. The
same consideration doesn't apply to a left turn.
On 2026-09-14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring offences,
confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, along with the many >>> other restrictions mentioned, is a system created to make personal
transport difficult, inconvenient, and expensive, with the result of
essentially condemning people to travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony,
and to live in 15-minute cities; none of which were ever put to an
electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are
available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare
anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
I don't understand how literate people buy into the conspiracy theory interpretation of "15-minute cities".
On 14/09/2026 15:01, JNugent wrote:
On 14/09/2026 10:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring offences,
confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, along with the
many
other restrictions mentioned, is a system created to make personal
transport difficult, inconvenient, and expensive, with the result of
essentially condemning people to travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs >>>> pony,
and to live in 15-minute cities; none of which were ever put to an
electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are
available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare
anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
So there's a general hospital within every "15 minute city"?
And the boundary is drawn so as to include everyon'e place of work, as
well their place of worship?
Wow... who knew?
I think it's an aspiration. Something to think about when planning new
towns or extending old ones.
We are in an ordinary London suburb, and we are:
17 minutes walk to the local transport hubs (two of them, in different directions)
12 minutes walk to local shops (where the dentist is, too)
20 minutes walk to better shops
20 minutes walk to the doctor
5 minutes walk to a choice of parks
45 minutes journey to the opera!
And, I'm retired now, but for the previous 10 years I had a journey up
two flights of stairs to work.
So, an ordinary London suburb is not necessarily that far off being a 15 minute city. Most Londoners have a longer commute to work, though.
On 14/09/2026 16:12, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring
offences, confusing rules, differing rules for different areas,
along with the many other restrictions mentioned, is a system
created to make personal transport difficult, inconvenient, and
expensive, with the result of essentially condemning people to
travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony, and to live in 15-minute
cities; none of which were ever put to an electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are
available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare
anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
I don't understand how literate people buy into the conspiracy theory
interpretation of "15-minute cities".
I've never been sure about this "15 minute cities" business, but...
have you driven a car in London or Oxford recently?
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:ngqd6aFo58eU2@mid.individual.net...
On 14/09/2026 10:30, RJH wrote:
On 14 Sep 2026 at 09:42:59 BST, Pancho wrote:
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being >>>> enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning
right, but not if turning left.
IIUC the right turn stopping in a box junction is only allowed if your exit >>> is clear.
If it were clear, you wouldn't need to stop.
No.
Just collide with any oncoming traffic.
What happens if you're in the box waiting to turn right, and traffic coming the other way and turning left comes to a halt in the side road and blocks the junction, so stopping you leaving the box?
Do any cameras take several
timed shots to show why you're stuck, or is there just one to show you're
in the box when there's no exit?
On 14/09/2026 12:05, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 10:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring offences, >>>>> confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, along with the many >>>>> other restrictions mentioned, is a system created to make personal
transport difficult, inconvenient, and expensive, with the result of >>>>> essentially condemning people to travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony,
and to live in 15-minute cities; none of which were ever put to an
electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are
available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare
anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
I'm not clear what has to be available within this 15-minute walk.
Schools, and a supermarket or other food shops of course, but what about >>> other kinds of shops? Or hairdressers? Or a railway station? Large bus
interchange? Cinema? Theatre? Opera house?
You're supposed to have "essential life needs" within 15 minutes:
living, working, commerce, healthcare, education, and entertainment.
I'm pretty sure opera houses don't come under any of those (they are
"entertainment", of course, but probably out of reach of many people
financially).
Introducing the "15-Minute City": Sustainability, Resilience and Place
Identity in Future Post-Pandemic Cities (2021)
https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities4010006
That article isn't exactly readable, and, even if we exclude opera, the
rest isn't going to be available within a 15 minute walk. Currently,
you'd be lucky to have a supermarket and a post office within 15 minutes.
On 14/09/2026 17:35, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ngqd6aFo58eU2@mid.individual.net...
On 14/09/2026 10:30, RJH wrote:
On 14 Sep 2026 at 09:42:59 BST, Pancho wrote:
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being >>>>> enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning
right, but not if turning left.
IIUC the right turn stopping in a box junction is only allowed if your exit
is clear.
If it were clear, you wouldn't need to stop.
No.
Just collide with any oncoming traffic.
You again?
I really would have said that you would understand what "exit is clear" means.
But I was obviously wrong (it happens...).
On 2026-09-14, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 16:12, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring
offences, confusing rules, differing rules for different areas,
along with the many other restrictions mentioned, is a system
created to make personal transport difficult, inconvenient, and
expensive, with the result of essentially condemning people to
travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony, and to live in 15-minute >>>>> cities; none of which were ever put to an electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are
available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare
anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
I don't understand how literate people buy into the conspiracy theory
interpretation of "15-minute cities".
I've never been sure about this "15 minute cities" business, but...
have you driven a car in London or Oxford recently?
I drive a car in London fairly frequently. What's your point?
On 14/09/2026 11:11, Max Demian wrote:
You're allowed to stop in a box junction to turn right if the only thing
preventing you is oncoming traffic. I thought everyone knew that. The
same consideration doesn't apply to a left turn.
What happens if you're in the box waiting to turn right, and traffic
coming the other way and turning left comes to a halt in the side road
and blocks the junction, so stopping you leaving the box? Do any cameras take several timed shots to show why you're stuck, or is there just one
to show you're in the box when there's no exit?
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring offences, >>>>> confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, along with the many >>>>> other restrictions mentioned, is a system created to make personal
transport difficult, inconvenient, and expensive, with the result of >>>>> essentially condemning people to travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony,
and to live in 15-minute cities; none of which were ever put to an
electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are
available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare
anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
But what if the good school, the good hospital, the good doctor or dentist >>> surgery, the good solicitor or barrister isnrCOt in your particular 15-minute
city? What happened to freedom of choice?
I don't know, what did happen to freedom of choice? What are you
talking about? Have you been befuddled by fake news again and are
labouring under the mistaken impression that you're not allowed
to leave the "15 minute city"?
So when you say rCLCondemning people to live in places where essential services are available locally and easy to get torCY, that leaves a lot to be desired from the wider range of services. Pubs, restaurants, cinemas,
ladies of the evening, for example, arenrCOt essential services. The 15-minute city as described sounds like a miserable Marxist-inspired Puritan-style hellhole.
On 14/09/2026 20:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 16:12, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring
offences, confusing rules, differing rules for different areas,
along with the many other restrictions mentioned, is a system
created to make personal transport difficult, inconvenient, and
expensive, with the result of essentially condemning people to
travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony, and to live in 15-minute >>>>>> cities; none of which were ever put to an electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are
available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare
anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
I don't understand how literate people buy into the conspiracy theory
interpretation of "15-minute cities".
I've never been sure about this "15 minute cities" business, but...
have you driven a car in London or Oxford recently?
I drive a car in London fairly frequently. What's your point?
You haven't seen a six lane road reduced to two lanes (and from a 40mph limit to 20mph)?
On 14/09/2026 16:00, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 9/14/26 10:30, RJH wrote:
On 14 Sep 2026 at 09:42:59 BST, Pancho wrote:
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being >>>>> enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning
right, but not if turning left.
IIUC the right turn stopping in a box junction is only allowed if
your exit is clear.
Why would you stop if your exit was clear?
Because traffic is passing in the lane that you need to cross to reach
your exit.
Really?
I wonder what the PP could have meant when he wrote: "...if your exit is clear"?
On 14/09/2026 16:00, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 9/14/26 10:30, RJH wrote:
On 14 Sep 2026 at 09:42:59 BST, Pancho wrote:
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being >>>>> enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning
right, but not if turning left.
IIUC the right turn stopping in a box junction is only allowed if
your exit is clear.
Why would you stop if your exit was clear?
Because traffic is passing in the lane that you need to cross to reach
your exit.
Really?
I wonder what the PP could have meant when he wrote: "...if your exit is clear"?
On 14/09/2026 17:35, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ngqd6aFo58eU2@mid.individual.net...
On 14/09/2026 10:30, RJH wrote:
On 14 Sep 2026 at 09:42:59 BST, Pancho wrote:
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being >>>>> enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning
right, but not if turning left.
IIUC the right turn stopping in a box junction is only allowed if your exit
is clear.
If it were clear, you wouldn't need to stop.
No.
Just collide with any oncoming traffic.
You again?
I really would have said that you would understand what "exit is clear" means.
On 2026-09-14, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 20:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 16:12, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring
offences, confusing rules, differing rules for different areas,
along with the many other restrictions mentioned, is a system
created to make personal transport difficult, inconvenient, and
expensive, with the result of essentially condemning people to
travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony, and to live in 15-minute >>>>>>> cities; none of which were ever put to an electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are
available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare
anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
I don't understand how literate people buy into the conspiracy theory >>>>> interpretation of "15-minute cities".
I've never been sure about this "15 minute cities" business, but...
have you driven a car in London or Oxford recently?
I drive a car in London fairly frequently. What's your point?
You haven't seen a six lane road reduced to two lanes (and from a 40mph
limit to 20mph)?
A six lane road reduced to two lanes? I definitely haven't seen that.
Then again I don't immediately recall seeing a six lane road at all...
Do you have an example of what you're talking about?
On 2026-09-14, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 10:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring offences,
confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, along with the many >>>> other restrictions mentioned, is a system created to make personal
transport difficult, inconvenient, and expensive, with the result of
essentially condemning people to travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony,
and to live in 15-minute cities; none of which were ever put to an
electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are
available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare
anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
I'm not clear what has to be available within this 15-minute walk.
Schools, and a supermarket or other food shops of course, but what about
other kinds of shops? Or hairdressers? Or a railway station? Large bus
interchange? Cinema? Theatre? Opera house?
You're supposed to have "essential life needs" within 15 minutes:
living, working, commerce, healthcare, education, and entertainment.
I'm pretty sure opera houses don't come under any of those (they are "entertainment", of course, but probably out of reach of many people financially).
Introducing the "15-Minute City": Sustainability, Resilience and Place Identity in Future Post-Pandemic Cities (2021) https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities4010006
On 15/09/2026 00:40, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 20:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 16:12, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring
offences, confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, >>>>>>>> along with the many other restrictions mentioned, is a system
created to make personal transport difficult, inconvenient, and >>>>>>>> expensive, with the result of essentially condemning people to >>>>>>>> travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony, and to live in 15-minute >>>>>>>> cities; none of which were ever put to an electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are >>>>>>> available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare >>>>>>> anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
I don't understand how literate people buy into the conspiracy theory >>>>>> interpretation of "15-minute cities".
I've never been sure about this "15 minute cities" business, but...
have you driven a car in London or Oxford recently?
I drive a car in London fairly frequently. What's your point?
You haven't seen a six lane road reduced to two lanes (and from a 40mph
limit to 20mph)?
A six lane road reduced to two lanes? I definitely haven't seen that.
Then again I don't immediately recall seeing a six lane road at all...
Do you have an example of what you're talking about?
Do you really drive around central London? I haven't done that for
(around) 10 years. It's generally quicker to take the underground and
walk.
no-one advocating it has suggested that people should be
constrained within those zones, despite what some nutcases claim
On 14 Sep 2026 at 16:59:52 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring offences, >>>>>> confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, along with the many
other restrictions mentioned, is a system created to make personal >>>>>> transport difficult, inconvenient, and expensive, with the result of >>>>>> essentially condemning people to travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony,
and to live in 15-minute cities; none of which were ever put to an >>>>>> electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are
available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare
anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
But what if the good school, the good hospital, the good doctor or dentist >>>> surgery, the good solicitor or barrister isnrCOt in your particular 15-minute
city? What happened to freedom of choice?
I don't know, what did happen to freedom of choice? What are you
talking about? Have you been befuddled by fake news again and are
labouring under the mistaken impression that you're not allowed
to leave the "15 minute city"?
So when you say rCLCondemning people to live in places where essential
services are available locally and easy to get torCY, that leaves a lot to be
desired from the wider range of services. Pubs, restaurants, cinemas,
ladies of the evening, for example, arenrCOt essential services. The
15-minute city as described sounds like a miserable Marxist-inspired
Puritan-style hellhole.
There's no pleasing some people. I bet you regard free ice cream on Sunday as a marxist plot too!
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring offences, >>>>>> confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, along with the many
other restrictions mentioned, is a system created to make personal >>>>>> transport difficult, inconvenient, and expensive, with the result of >>>>>> essentially condemning people to travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony,
and to live in 15-minute cities; none of which were ever put to an >>>>>> electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are
available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare
anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
But what if the good school, the good hospital, the good doctor or dentist >>>> surgery, the good solicitor or barrister isnrCOt in your particular 15-minute
city? What happened to freedom of choice?
I don't know, what did happen to freedom of choice? What are you
talking about? Have you been befuddled by fake news again and are
labouring under the mistaken impression that you're not allowed
to leave the "15 minute city"?
So when you say rCLCondemning people to live in places where essential
services are available locally and easy to get torCY, that leaves a lot
to be desired from the wider range of services. Pubs, restaurants,
cinemas, ladies of the evening, for example, arenrCOt essential
services. The 15-minute city as described sounds like a miserable
Marxist-inspired Puritan-style hellhole.
What on earth are you on about? You appear to be deeply confused.
The point is that it *does* have the essential services. There's
nothing to say that it doesn't have other things! Come to that,
there's nothing to say you have those other things now!
On 2026-09-14, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 10:22, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring offences,
confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, along with the many >>>> other restrictions mentioned, is a system created to make personal
transport difficult, inconvenient, and expensive, with the result of
essentially condemning people to travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony,
and to live in 15-minute cities; none of which were ever put to an
electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are
available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare
anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
I'm not clear what has to be available within this 15-minute walk.
Schools, and a supermarket or other food shops of course, but what about
other kinds of shops? Or hairdressers? Or a railway station? Large bus
interchange? Cinema? Theatre? Opera house?
You're supposed to have "essential life needs" within 15 minutes:
living, working, commerce, healthcare, education, and entertainment.
I'm pretty sure opera houses don't come under any of those (they are "entertainment", of course, but probably out of reach of many people financially).
Introducing the "15-Minute City": Sustainability, Resilience and Place Identity in Future Post-Pandemic Cities (2021) https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities4010006
JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 17:35, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ngqd6aFo58eU2@mid.individual.net...
On 14/09/2026 10:30, RJH wrote:
On 14 Sep 2026 at 09:42:59 BST, Pancho wrote:
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being >>>>>> enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning >>>>>> right, but not if turning left.
IIUC the right turn stopping in a box junction is only allowed if your exit
is clear.
If it were clear, you wouldn't need to stop.
No.
Just collide with any oncoming traffic.
You again?
I really would have said that you would understand what "exit is clear"
means.
But I was obviously wrong (it happens...).
Highway Code is available onlinerCa
Rule 174
Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road (see rCyRoad markingsrCO). You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT enter the box unless you can cross over it completely without stopping.
=====
https://www.kwik-fit.com/blog/understanding-the-uks-yellow-box-junction-rules?srsltid=AfmBOoq7oFgzpDnoGunab3Xbsw_poh6G5wQORuVfy_B7CfNq1xVEBS00
This page from Kwik-Fit includes a picture of the sign saying rCLDO NOT ENTER BOX unless YOUR EXIT IS CLEARrCY. The description covers the case of waiting in the box if oncoming traffic is the only thing preventing you from proceeding.
I doubt that oncoming traffic violating the rules and blocking your path would let you off the hook.
On 2026-09-14, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 20:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 16:12, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring
offences, confusing rules, differing rules for different areas,
along with the many other restrictions mentioned, is a system
created to make personal transport difficult, inconvenient, and
expensive, with the result of essentially condemning people to
travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony, and to live in 15-minute >>>>>>> cities; none of which were ever put to an electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are
available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare
anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
I don't understand how literate people buy into the conspiracy theory >>>>> interpretation of "15-minute cities".
I've never been sure about this "15 minute cities" business, but...
have you driven a car in London or Oxford recently?
I drive a car in London fairly frequently. What's your point?
You haven't seen a six lane road reduced to two lanes (and from a 40mph
limit to 20mph)?
A six lane road reduced to two lanes? I definitely haven't seen that.
Then again I don't immediately recall seeing a six lane road at all...
Do you have an example of what you're talking about?
On 14 Sep 2026 at 16:28:27 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 16:00, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 9/14/26 10:30, RJH wrote:
On 14 Sep 2026 at 09:42:59 BST, Pancho wrote:
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being >>>>>> enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning >>>>>> right, but not if turning left.
IIUC the right turn stopping in a box junction is only allowed if
your exit is clear.
Why would you stop if your exit was clear?
Because traffic is passing in the lane that you need to cross to reach
your exit.
Really?
I wonder what the PP could have meant when he wrote: "...if your exit is
clear"?
Not that!
On 14 Sep 2026 at 16:28:27 BST, JNugent wrote:
On 14/09/2026 16:00, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 9/14/26 10:30, RJH wrote:
On 14 Sep 2026 at 09:42:59 BST, Pancho wrote:
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being >>>>>> enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning >>>>>> right, but not if turning left.
IIUC the right turn stopping in a box junction is only allowed if
your exit is clear.
Why would you stop if your exit was clear?
Because traffic is passing in the lane that you need to cross to reach
your exit.
Really?
Yes
I wonder what the PP could have meant when he wrote: "...if your exit is
clear"?
Um - the place where you want go is *not* choked up with traffic. If it is, keep out of the box.
Box junctions are a good idea IMHO - if drivers know how they work. There's a few round here that are honoured more in breach, leaving the perpetrator marooned in the box and blocking traffic in all directions.
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:ngr1ejFra05U3@mid.individual.net...
On 14/09/2026 17:35, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ngqd6aFo58eU2@mid.individual.net...
On 14/09/2026 10:30, RJH wrote:
On 14 Sep 2026 at 09:42:59 BST, Pancho wrote:
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being >>>>>> enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning >>>>>> right, but not if turning left.
IIUC the right turn stopping in a box junction is only allowed if your exit
is clear.
If it were clear, you wouldn't need to stop.
No.
Just collide with any oncoming traffic.
You again?
I really would have said that you would understand what "exit is clear" means.
Yes. It means that the *exit is *clear"; and thus free from any obstruction which might otherwise impede the driver from proceeding, .
Which of itself, has no bearing on the possibility that in order
to reach that totally and unambigupously *clear exit*, a driver
may first need to cross a line of oncoming traffic.
Which to repeat, has no bearing whatsoever, on whether that exit is
clear or not
On 15/09/2026 00:40, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 20:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 16:12, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring
offences, confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, >>>>>>>> along with the many other restrictions mentioned, is a system
created to make personal transport difficult, inconvenient, and >>>>>>>> expensive, with the result of essentially condemning people to >>>>>>>> travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony, and to live in 15-minute >>>>>>>> cities; none of which were ever put to an electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are >>>>>>> available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare >>>>>>> anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
I don't understand how literate people buy into the conspiracy theory >>>>>> interpretation of "15-minute cities".
I've never been sure about this "15 minute cities" business, but...
have you driven a car in London or Oxford recently?
I drive a car in London fairly frequently. What's your point?
You haven't seen a six lane road reduced to two lanes (and from a 40mph
limit to 20mph)?
A six lane road reduced to two lanes? I definitely haven't seen that.
Then again I don't immediately recall seeing a six lane road at all...
Do you have an example of what you're talking about?
Do you really drive around central London? I haven't done that for
(around) 10 years. It's generally quicker to take the underground and walk.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring offences, >>>>>>> confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, along with the many
other restrictions mentioned, is a system created to make personal >>>>>>> transport difficult, inconvenient, and expensive, with the result of >>>>>>> essentially condemning people to travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony,
and to live in 15-minute cities; none of which were ever put to an >>>>>>> electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are
available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare
anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
But what if the good school, the good hospital, the good doctor or dentist
surgery, the good solicitor or barrister isnrCOt in your particular 15-minute
city? What happened to freedom of choice?
I don't know, what did happen to freedom of choice? What are you
talking about? Have you been befuddled by fake news again and are
labouring under the mistaken impression that you're not allowed
to leave the "15 minute city"?
So when you say rCLCondemning people to live in places where essential
services are available locally and easy to get torCY, that leaves a lot
to be desired from the wider range of services. Pubs, restaurants,
cinemas, ladies of the evening, for example, arenrCOt essential
services. The 15-minute city as described sounds like a miserable
Marxist-inspired Puritan-style hellhole.
What on earth are you on about? You appear to be deeply confused.
The point is that it *does* have the essential services. There's
nothing to say that it doesn't have other things! Come to that,
there's nothing to say you have those other things now!
The concept of 15 minute cities quietly assumes that all services are equal in performance. But, for example, we all know of GP surgeries, or schools,
or Post Offices, etc, which are best avoided. While people arenrCOt trapped in their 15 minute cities, it does make a mockery of the idea if the best comprehensive school or whatever, is in a neighbouring city.
On 15/09/2026 12:12 AM, Owen Rees wrote:
JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 17:35, billy bookcase wrote:
Highway Code is available onlinerCa
Rule 174
Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road (see >> rCyRoad markingsrCO). You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane
is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn
right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other >> vehicles waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT enter >> the box unless you can cross over it completely without stopping.
If you are waiting in the box to turn right and there is oncoming traffic, you HAVE to wait for that traffic to pass or stop.
While you are waiting for that oncoming traffic to pass or stop, describing your way as being "clear" would be an abuse of the language.
Wouldn't it?
On 15/09/2026 12:12 AM, Owen Rees wrote:
JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 17:35, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ngqd6aFo58eU2@mid.individual.net...
On 14/09/2026 10:30, RJH wrote:
On 14 Sep 2026 at 09:42:59 BST, Pancho wrote:
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being >>>>>>> enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning >>>>>>> right, but not if turning left.
IIUC the right turn stopping in a box junction is only allowed if your exit
is clear.
If it were clear, you wouldn't need to stop.
No.
Just collide with any oncoming traffic.
You again?
I really would have said that you would understand what "exit is clear"
means.
But I was obviously wrong (it happens...).
Highway Code is available onlinerCa
Rule 174
Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road (see >> rCyRoad markingsrCO). You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane
is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn
right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other >> vehicles waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT enter >> the box unless you can cross over it completely without stopping.
=====
https://www.kwik-fit.com/blog/understanding-the-uks-yellow-box-junction-rules?srsltid=AfmBOoq7oFgzpDnoGunab3Xbsw_poh6G5wQORuVfy_B7CfNq1xVEBS00
This page from Kwik-Fit includes a picture of the sign saying rCLDO NOT ENTER
BOX unless YOUR EXIT IS CLEARrCY. The description covers the case of waiting >> in the box if oncoming traffic is the only thing preventing you from
proceeding.
I doubt that oncoming traffic violating the rules and blocking your path
would let you off the hook.
If yoiu are waiting in the box to turn right and there is oncoming
traffic, you HAVE to wait for that traffic to pass or stop.
While you are waiting for that oncoming traffic to pass or stop,
describing your way as being "clear" would be an abuse of the language.
Wouldn't it?
I am talking of a designed-in feature of box junctions. You can turn
right (as is the case with ANY crossroads junction) only if your way is clear. Note that this is "turn right", not enter the box intending to
turn right.
And your way is not clear if the lane you have to cross has oncoming
traffic in it - to which you have to cede priority.
Why is this causing certain people such difficulty?
On 15/09/2026 16:40, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2026 12:12 AM, Owen Rees wrote:
JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 17:35, billy bookcase wrote:
Highway Code is available onlinerCa
Rule 174
Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the
road (see
rCyRoad markingsrCO). You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or >>> lane
is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn
right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by
other
vehicles waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT
enter
the box unless you can cross over it completely without stopping.
If you are waiting in the box to turn right and there is oncoming
traffic, you HAVE to wait for that traffic to pass or stop.
Well, it depends how far away the oncoming traffic is etc.
While you are waiting for that oncoming traffic to pass or stop,
describing your way as being "clear" would be an abuse of the language.
Wouldn't it?
The HC does not mention your way.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/09/2026 12:12 AM, Owen Rees wrote:
JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 17:35, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ngqd6aFo58eU2@mid.individual.net...
On 14/09/2026 10:30, RJH wrote:
On 14 Sep 2026 at 09:42:59 BST, Pancho wrote:
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being
enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning >>>>>>>> right, but not if turning left.
IIUC the right turn stopping in a box junction is only allowed if your exit
is clear.
If it were clear, you wouldn't need to stop.
No.
Just collide with any oncoming traffic.
You again?
I really would have said that you would understand what "exit is clear" >>>> means.
But I was obviously wrong (it happens...).
Highway Code is available onlinerCa
Rule 174
Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road (see >>> rCyRoad markingsrCO). You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane
is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn
right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other >>> vehicles waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT enter >>> the box unless you can cross over it completely without stopping.
=====
https://www.kwik-fit.com/blog/understanding-the-uks-yellow-box-junction-rules?srsltid=AfmBOoq7oFgzpDnoGunab3Xbsw_poh6G5wQORuVfy_B7CfNq1xVEBS00
This page from Kwik-Fit includes a picture of the sign saying rCLDO NOT ENTER
BOX unless YOUR EXIT IS CLEARrCY. The description covers the case of waiting
in the box if oncoming traffic is the only thing preventing you from
proceeding.
I doubt that oncoming traffic violating the rules and blocking your path >>> would let you off the hook.
If yoiu are waiting in the box to turn right and there is oncoming
traffic, you HAVE to wait for that traffic to pass or stop.
While you are waiting for that oncoming traffic to pass or stop,
describing your way as being "clear" would be an abuse of the language.
Wouldn't it?
Nobody has described the way as being clear. The phrase rCyexit is clearrCO is
what has been used both in this discussion and on signs that used to be common when box junctions were first introduced. An rCyexitrCO is not the same
as a rCywayrCO.
On 15/09/2026 12:40 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 20:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 16:12, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring
offences, confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, >>>>>>>> along with the many other restrictions mentioned, is a system
created to make personal transport difficult, inconvenient, and >>>>>>>> expensive, with the result of essentially condemning people to >>>>>>>> travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony, and to live in 15-minute >>>>>>>> cities; none of which were ever put to an electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are >>>>>>> available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare >>>>>>> anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
I don't understand how literate people buy into the conspiracy theory >>>>>> interpretation of "15-minute cities".
I've never been sure about this "15 minute cities" business, but...
have you driven a car in London or Oxford recently?
I drive a car in London fairly frequently. What's your point?
You haven't seen a six lane road reduced to two lanes (and from a 40mph
limit to 20mph)?
A six lane road reduced to two lanes? I definitely haven't seen that.
Take a look at Park Lane between Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch.
It used to have three usable lanes in each direction and a 40mph speed limit.
Then again I don't immediately recall seeing a six lane road at all...
You must have been in Park Lane at some stage in your driving career!
Do you have an example of what you're talking about?
Another example would be the M41, Shepherds Bush Green to White City (junction with A40(M)).
It had six lanes.
One of them has now been built on (some years ago, admittedly).
On 15/09/2026 16:48, JNugent wrote:
I am talking of a designed-in feature of box junctions. You can turn
right (as is the case with ANY crossroads junction) only if your way is
clear. Note that this is "turn right", not enter the box intending to
turn right.
And your way is not clear if the lane you have to cross has oncoming
traffic in it - to which you have to cede priority.
Why is this causing certain people such difficulty?
Because some people don't seem to understand.
clipped from elsewhere in this thread:
Rule 174
Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road (see rCyRoad markingsrCO). You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right.
In other words, roughly speaking, if you could travel through and clear--
the junction if oncoming traffic simply vanished, then you're good to
enter the box. Note the rule says "*exit* is clear" not "*way* is clear".
On 15/09/2026 12:40 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 20:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I drive a car in London fairly frequently. What's your point?
You haven't seen a six lane road reduced to two lanes (and from a 40mph
limit to 20mph)?
A six lane road reduced to two lanes? I definitely haven't seen that.
Take a look at Park Lane between Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch.
It used to have three usable lanes in each direction and a 40mph speed limit.
Then again I don't immediately recall seeing a six lane road at all...
On 15/09/2026 16:48, JNugent wrote:
I am talking of a designed-in feature of box junctions. You can turn
right (as is the case with ANY crossroads junction) only if your way
is clear. Note that this is "turn right", not enter the box intending
to turn right.
And your way is not clear if the lane you have to cross has oncoming
traffic in it - to which you have to cede priority.
Why is this causing certain people such difficulty?
Because some people don't seem to understand.
clipped from elsewhere in this thread:
Rule 174
Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road (see rCyRoad markingsrCO). You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right.
In other words, roughly speaking, if you could travel through and clear
the junction if oncoming traffic simply vanished, then you're good to
enter the box. Note the rule says "*exit* is clear" not "*way* is clear".
On 2026-09-15, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/09/2026 12:40 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 20:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 16:12, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring
offences, confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, >>>>>>>>> along with the many other restrictions mentioned, is a system >>>>>>>>> created to make personal transport difficult, inconvenient, and >>>>>>>>> expensive, with the result of essentially condemning people to >>>>>>>>> travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony, and to live in 15-minute >>>>>>>>> cities; none of which were ever put to an electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are >>>>>>>> available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare >>>>>>>> anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
I don't understand how literate people buy into the conspiracy theory >>>>>>> interpretation of "15-minute cities".
I've never been sure about this "15 minute cities" business, but... >>>>>> have you driven a car in London or Oxford recently?
I drive a car in London fairly frequently. What's your point?
You haven't seen a six lane road reduced to two lanes (and from a 40mph >>>> limit to 20mph)?
A six lane road reduced to two lanes? I definitely haven't seen that.
Take a look at Park Lane between Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch.
It used to have three usable lanes in each direction and a 40mph speed
limit.
Then again I don't immediately recall seeing a six lane road at all...
You must have been in Park Lane at some stage in your driving career!
Ah yes fair enough, Park Lane has a lot of lanes. It just doesn't "feel"
like a 6-lane road given the "central reservation" is so wide the two
halves of the road can barely be seen from each other. I have driven on
it very occasionally.
I don't know what changes may have been made to it recently. I seem to
recall I drove on it once this year, it still seemed to have a great
many lanes for driving. What have they done to it, and what does it
have to do with "15-minute cities"? I haven't heard of any schemes
related to that concept in Mayfair.
Do you have an example of what you're talking about?
Another example would be the M41, Shepherds Bush Green to White City
(junction with A40(M)).
It had six lanes.
One of them has now been built on (some years ago, admittedly).
I'm pretty sure motorways and "15-minute cities" have nothing to do
with each other.
On 14/09/2026 12:05 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
I'm not clear what has to be available within this 15-minute walk.
Schools, and a supermarket or other food shops of course, but what about >>> other kinds of shops? Or hairdressers? Or a railway station? Large bus
interchange? Cinema? Theatre? Opera house?
You're supposed to have "essential life needs" within 15 minutes:
living, working, commerce, healthcare, education, and entertainment.
I'm pretty sure opera houses don't come under any of those (they are
"entertainment", of course, but probably out of reach of many people
financially).
Introducing the "15-Minute City": Sustainability, Resilience and Place
Identity in Future Post-Pandemic Cities (2021)
https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities4010006
Everybody's place of work within a 15 minute journey of their home
within a "15 Minute City"?
London is going to have to have an extensive redesign.
On 15/09/2026 12:44 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 Sep 2026 at 16:28:27 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 16:00, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 9/14/26 10:30, RJH wrote:
On 14 Sep 2026 at 09:42:59 BST, Pancho wrote:
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly >>>>>>> being
enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning >>>>>>> right, but not if turning left.
IIUC the right turn stopping in a box junction is only allowed if
your exit is clear.
Why would you stop if your exit was clear?
Because traffic is passing in the lane that you need to cross to reach >>>> your exit.
Really?
I wonder what the PP could have meant when he wrote: "...if your exit is >>> clear"?
Not that!
Your way is "clear" even if you cannot proceed on your way because of
moving traffic coming from the opposite direction and with priority
through the junction?
On 15/09/2026 11:37 AM, GB wrote:
On 15/09/2026 00:40, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 20:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 16:12, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring
offences, confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, >>>>>>>>> along with the many other restrictions mentioned, is a system >>>>>>>>> created to make personal transport difficult, inconvenient, and >>>>>>>>> expensive, with the result of essentially condemning people to >>>>>>>>> travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony, and to live in 15-minute >>>>>>>>> cities; none of which were ever put to an electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are >>>>>>>> available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare >>>>>>>> anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum.
I don't understand how literate people buy into the conspiracy
theory
interpretation of "15-minute cities".
I've never been sure about this "15 minute cities" business, but... >>>>>> have you driven a car in London or Oxford recently?
I drive a car in London fairly frequently. What's your point?
You haven't seen a six lane road reduced to two lanes (and from a 40mph >>>> limit to 20mph)?
A six lane road reduced to two lanes? I definitely haven't seen that.
Then again I don't immediately recall seeing a six lane road at all...
Do you have an example of what you're talking about?
Do you really drive around central London? I haven't done that for
(around) 10 years. It's generally quicker to take the underground and
walk.
That solution is alright for *some* people.
There are those of us for whom walking any distance is not an easy option.
On 15/09/2026 16:26, JNugent wrote:
On 14/09/2026 12:05 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
I'm not clear what has to be available within this 15-minute walk.
Schools, and a supermarket or other food shops of course, but what
about other kinds of shops? Or hairdressers? Or a railway station?
Large bus interchange? Cinema? Theatre? Opera house?
You're supposed to have "essential life needs" within 15 minutes:
living, working, commerce, healthcare, education, and entertainment.
I'm pretty sure opera houses don't come under any of those (they are
"entertainment", of course, but probably out of reach of many people
financially).
Introducing the "15-Minute City": Sustainability, Resilience and Place
Identity in Future Post-Pandemic Cities (2021)
https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities4010006
Everybody's place of work within a 15 minute journey of their home
within a "15 Minute City"?
London is going to have to have an extensive redesign.
How about places of worship? Will there be ones for all (?!) religions,
or will there be separate 15 minute zones for each religion?
On 15/09/2026 16:51, JNugent wrote:
On 15/09/2026 11:37 AM, GB wrote:
On 15/09/2026 00:40, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 20:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 16:12, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:I don't understand how literate people buy into the conspiracy >>>>>>>> theory
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring >>>>>>>>>> offences, confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, >>>>>>>>>> along with the many other restrictions mentioned, is a system >>>>>>>>>> created to make personal transport difficult, inconvenient, and >>>>>>>>>> expensive, with the result of essentially condemning people to >>>>>>>>>> travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony, and to live in 15-minute >>>>>>>>>> cities; none of which were ever put to an electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are >>>>>>>>> available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare >>>>>>>>> anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum. >>>>>>>>
interpretation of "15-minute cities".
I've never been sure about this "15 minute cities" business, but... >>>>>>> have you driven a car in London or Oxford recently?
I drive a car in London fairly frequently. What's your point?
You haven't seen a six lane road reduced to two lanes (and from a 40mph >>>>> limit to 20mph)?
A six lane road reduced to two lanes? I definitely haven't seen that.
Then again I don't immediately recall seeing a six lane road at all... >>>>
Do you have an example of what you're talking about?
Do you really drive around central London? I haven't done that for
(around) 10 years. It's generally quicker to take the underground and
walk.
That solution is alright for *some* people.
There are those of us for whom walking any distance is not an easy option.
Fair enough.
Possibly car driving should be reserved for people who can't reasonably easily walk, rather than for people who prefer not to walk? But, I
accept that might not be a popular change.
It would be easy enough to have a badge like the disabled parking badge,
and private cars wouldn't be allowed in Central London without one.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/09/2026 12:40 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 20:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[rCa]
I drive a car in London fairly frequently. What's your point?
You haven't seen a six lane road reduced to two lanes (and from a 40mph >>>> limit to 20mph)?
A six lane road reduced to two lanes? I definitely haven't seen that.
Take a look at Park Lane between Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch.
It used to have three usable lanes in each direction and a 40mph speed
limit.
Then again I don't immediately recall seeing a six lane road at all...
Using rCOsatelliterCO imagery IrCOve just taken a look at the section of Park Lane that you mention.
It could easily be said to have been designed to punish motorists for the mere temerity of driving a car in London!
Although, of course, one doesnrCOt have to wonder much at the source of this anti-private-vehicle system.
On 16/09/2026 08:19 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-15, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/09/2026 12:40 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 20:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 16:12, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:I don't understand how literate people buy into the conspiracy theory >>>>>>>> interpretation of "15-minute cities".
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring >>>>>>>>>> offences, confusing rules, differing rules for different areas, >>>>>>>>>> along with the many other restrictions mentioned, is a system >>>>>>>>>> created to make personal transport difficult, inconvenient, and >>>>>>>>>> expensive, with the result of essentially condemning people to >>>>>>>>>> travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs pony, and to live in 15-minute >>>>>>>>>> cities; none of which were ever put to an electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services are >>>>>>>>> available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare! How dare >>>>>>>>> anyone implement such a thing without an explicit referendum. >>>>>>>>
I've never been sure about this "15 minute cities" business, but... >>>>>>> have you driven a car in London or Oxford recently?
I drive a car in London fairly frequently. What's your point?
You haven't seen a six lane road reduced to two lanes (and from a 40mph >>>>> limit to 20mph)?
A six lane road reduced to two lanes? I definitely haven't seen that.
Take a look at Park Lane between Hyde Park Corner and Marble Arch.
It used to have three usable lanes in each direction and a 40mph speed
limit.
Then again I don't immediately recall seeing a six lane road at all...
You must have been in Park Lane at some stage in your driving career!
Ah yes fair enough, Park Lane has a lot of lanes. It just doesn't "feel"
like a 6-lane road given the "central reservation" is so wide the two
halves of the road can barely be seen from each other. I have driven on
it very occasionally.
It is (still) part of the inner ring road. One lane each way for cars
and general traffic now. I was in C. London in February and it was the
first time I'd been on Park Lane for years.
I don't know what changes may have been made to it recently. I seem to
recall I drove on it once this year, it still seemed to have a great
many lanes for driving. What have they done to it, and what does it
have to do with "15-minute cities"? I haven't heard of any schemes
related to that concept in Mayfair.
Not much (necessarily) to do with 15 minute cities admittedly, but
certainly relevant within the context of what some call "the war against
the motorist" (not a term of which I am overly fond), of which the miles
and miles of a 20mph limit (even on the Embankment, for God's sake) are another manifestation.
The M41 was de-classified (as was the connected A40(M) Westway) so as to
Do you have an example of what you're talking about?
Another example would be the M41, Shepherds Bush Green to White City
(junction with A40(M)).
It had six lanes.
One of them has now been built on (some years ago, admittedly).
I'm pretty sure motorways and "15-minute cities" have nothing to do
with each other.
fall within Mad Ken's bailiwick (the Mayor does not have any control
over motorways).
Both had 60 limits (50 on the eastern end of Westway with only two lanes
in either direction) when opened in 1970 and for decades after that. Now
they have 30mph limits - yes, thirty miles per hour - even the elevated Westway where pedestrians are still (rightly) prohibited.
London is getting crazier by the day.
On 16/09/2026 12:37 AM, Owen Rees wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/09/2026 12:12 AM, Owen Rees wrote:
JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 17:35, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ngqd6aFo58eU2@mid.individual.net...
On 14/09/2026 10:30, RJH wrote:
On 14 Sep 2026 at 09:42:59 BST, Pancho wrote:
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being
enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning >>>>>>>>> right, but not if turning left.
IIUC the right turn stopping in a box junction is only allowed if your exit
is clear.
If it were clear, you wouldn't need to stop.
No.
Just collide with any oncoming traffic.
You again?
I really would have said that you would understand what "exit is clear" >>>>> means.
But I was obviously wrong (it happens...).
Highway Code is available onlinerCa
Rule 174
Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road (see
rCyRoad markingsrCO). You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane
is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn >>>> right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other >>>> vehicles waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT enter
the box unless you can cross over it completely without stopping.
=====
https://www.kwik-fit.com/blog/understanding-the-uks-yellow-box-junction-rules?srsltid=AfmBOoq7oFgzpDnoGunab3Xbsw_poh6G5wQORuVfy_B7CfNq1xVEBS00
This page from Kwik-Fit includes a picture of the sign saying rCLDO NOT ENTER
BOX unless YOUR EXIT IS CLEARrCY. The description covers the case of waiting
in the box if oncoming traffic is the only thing preventing you from
proceeding.
I doubt that oncoming traffic violating the rules and blocking your path >>>> would let you off the hook.
If yoiu are waiting in the box to turn right and there is oncoming
traffic, you HAVE to wait for that traffic to pass or stop.
While you are waiting for that oncoming traffic to pass or stop,
describing your way as being "clear" would be an abuse of the language.
Wouldn't it?
Nobody has described the way as being clear. The phrase rCyexit is clearrCO is
what has been used both in this discussion and on signs that used to be
common when box junctions were first introduced. An rCyexitrCO is not the same
as a rCywayrCO.
It has been put both ways ever since the thread was started.
I suggest that "exit" and "way" are synonyms in this context.
On 16 Sep 2026 at 09:34:27 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Using rCOsatelliterCO imagery IrCOve just taken a look at the section of Park
Lane that you mention.
It could easily be said to have been designed to punish motorists for the
mere temerity of driving a car in London!
Although, of course, one doesnrCOt have to wonder much at the source of this >> anti-private-vehicle system.
Whatever the bizarre political conspiracy theories I don't think anyone will get many votes in inner London boroughs for increasing traffic and air pollution these days.
On 15/09/2026 02:42 PM, Spike wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring
offences, confusing rules, differing rules for different
areas, along with the many other restrictions mentioned, is a
system created to make personal transport difficult,
inconvenient, and expensive, with the result of essentially
condemning people to travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs
pony, and to live in 15-minute cities; none of which were
ever put to an electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services
are available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare!
How dare anyone implement such a thing without an explicit
referendum.
But what if the good school, the good hospital, the good doctor
or dentist surgery, the good solicitor or barrister isnrCOt in
your particular 15-minute city? What happened to freedom of
choice?
I don't know, what did happen to freedom of choice? What are you
talking about? Have you been befuddled by fake news again and are
labouring under the mistaken impression that you're not allowed
to leave the "15 minute city"?
So when you say rCLCondemning people to live in places where
essential services are available locally and easy to get torCY,
that leaves a lot to be desired from the wider range of services.
Pubs, restaurants, cinemas, ladies of the evening, for example,
arenrCOt essential services. The 15-minute city as described sounds
like a miserable Marxist-inspired Puritan-style hellhole.
What on earth are you on about? You appear to be deeply confused.
The point is that it *does* have the essential services. There's
nothing to say that it doesn't have other things! Come to that,
there's nothing to say you have those other things now!
The concept of 15 minute cities quietly assumes that all services
are equal in performance. But, for example, we all know of GP
surgeries, or schools, or Post Offices, etc, which are best
avoided. While people arenrCOt trapped in their 15 minute cities, it
does make a mockery of the idea if the best comprehensive school or whatever, is in a neighbouring city.
:-)
The Post Office in this village is best avoided. I drive to a
neighbouring village where the service is quicker and better.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/09/2026 12:12 AM, Owen Rees wrote:
JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/09/2026 17:35, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ngqd6aFo58eU2@mid.individual.net...
On 14/09/2026 10:30, RJH wrote:
On 14 Sep 2026 at 09:42:59 BST, Pancho wrote:
Camera penalties mean that previous unenforced rules are suddenly being
enforced. I didn't know you could stop in a box junction if turning >>>>>>>> right, but not if turning left.
IIUC the right turn stopping in a box junction is only allowed if your exit
is clear.
If it were clear, you wouldn't need to stop.
No.
Just collide with any oncoming traffic.
You again?
I really would have said that you would understand what "exit is clear" >>>> means.
But I was obviously wrong (it happens...).
Highway Code is available onlinerCa
Rule 174
Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road (see >>> rCyRoad markingsrCO). You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane
is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn
right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other >>> vehicles waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT enter >>> the box unless you can cross over it completely without stopping.
=====
https://www.kwik-fit.com/blog/understanding-the-uks-yellow-box-junction-rules?srsltid=AfmBOoq7oFgzpDnoGunab3Xbsw_poh6G5wQORuVfy_B7CfNq1xVEBS00
This page from Kwik-Fit includes a picture of the sign saying rCLDO NOT ENTER
BOX unless YOUR EXIT IS CLEARrCY. The description covers the case of waiting
in the box if oncoming traffic is the only thing preventing you from
proceeding.
I doubt that oncoming traffic violating the rules and blocking your path >>> would let you off the hook.
If yoiu are waiting in the box to turn right and there is oncoming
traffic, you HAVE to wait for that traffic to pass or stop.
While you are waiting for that oncoming traffic to pass or stop,
describing your way as being "clear" would be an abuse of the language.
Wouldn't it?
Nobody has described the way as being clear. The phrase rCyexit is clearrCO is
what has been used both in this discussion and on signs that used to be common when box junctions were first introduced. An rCyexitrCO is not the same
as a rCywayrCO.
The tricky edge case is when you enter a box junction to turn right when your exit *is* clear but a large amount of left turning traffic coming the other way and protected by the through traffic fills up all the available space in the side road. This does happen sometimes especially at rush hour.
It isn't helped in cities where through traffic actually speeds up and runs red lights routinely (on the junctions where no red light cameras are installed). Manchester and Newcastle are very bad for this.
On 13/09/2026 14:32, John wrote:
I have received a PCN for travelling in Birmingham's clean air zone.
I'm not from that area so not familiar with them.-a The PCN is for -u120
(reduced to -u60 if paid within 14 days).
I'm appealing, but if the appeal is rejected they say the full amount
will need to be paid.-a This seems to me to be an unfair condition, and
would ask if this is legal?-a Paying the fine then appealing could be
seen as an admission of guilt.
There are signs everywhere about the ULEZ zone. You can go round it if
you have to travel across Birmingham for any reason.
You could argue they don't have to reduce the penalty where paid quickly.
What are the grounds for your appeal?I'm not disputing the signs are there, but being in an unfamiliar area
I broadly support PCNs-a to enforce rules, but I think a lot of theI would agree with you there, there doesn't appear to be standardised
signage and communication needs to be improved, or rules need to be simplified
On 17/09/2026 09:15, Martin Brown wrote:The Essoo case was very similar to what I had theoretically proposed in
It seems to depend how predictable that was, at the time of entry:
The tricky edge case is when you enter a box junction to turn right when
your exit *is* clear but a large amount of left turning traffic coming the >> other way and protected by the through traffic fills up all the available
space in the side road. This does happen sometimes especially at rush hour. >>
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Gillingham%20v%20Newham%3B%20Essoo%20v%20Enfield%3B%20Khan%20v%20TfL.doc
On 13/09/2026 14:32, John wrote:
I have received a PCN for travelling in Birmingham's clean air zone.
I'm not from that area so not familiar with them.-a The PCN is for -u120
(reduced to -u60 if paid within 14 days).
I'm appealing, but if the appeal is rejected they say the full amount
will need to be paid.-a This seems to me to be an unfair condition, and
would ask if this is legal?-a Paying the fine then appealing could be
seen as an admission of guilt.
It seems to be an almost universally applied condition, so I am guessing it's legal. (The AI says it is legal, but that's only an indication.)Thanks GB, see my reply to fredxx.
Given the cost of a failed appeal, it would be sensible to be sure that
you have a good case. For example, the signage was obscured at the point
you entered the system.
On Tue, 15 Sep 2026 16:52:35 +0100
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/09/2026 02:42 PM, Spike wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-14, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It could be said that such rigorous enforcement of motoring
offences, confusing rules, differing rules for different
areas, along with the many other restrictions mentioned, is a >>>>>>>>> system created to make personal transport difficult,
inconvenient, and expensive, with the result of essentially
condemning people to travel by bicycles, busses, shankrCOs
pony, and to live in 15-minute cities; none of which were
ever put to an electoral test.
Condemning people to live in places where essential services
are available locally and easy to get to! What a nightmare!
How dare anyone implement such a thing without an explicit
referendum.
But what if the good school, the good hospital, the good doctor
or dentist surgery, the good solicitor or barrister isnrCOt in
your particular 15-minute city? What happened to freedom of
choice?
I don't know, what did happen to freedom of choice? What are you
talking about? Have you been befuddled by fake news again and are
labouring under the mistaken impression that you're not allowed
to leave the "15 minute city"?
So when you say rCLCondemning people to live in places where
essential services are available locally and easy to get torCY,
that leaves a lot to be desired from the wider range of services.
Pubs, restaurants, cinemas, ladies of the evening, for example,
arenrCOt essential services. The 15-minute city as described sounds
like a miserable Marxist-inspired Puritan-style hellhole.
What on earth are you on about? You appear to be deeply confused.
The point is that it *does* have the essential services. There's
nothing to say that it doesn't have other things! Come to that,
there's nothing to say you have those other things now!
The concept of 15 minute cities quietly assumes that all services
are equal in performance. But, for example, we all know of GP
surgeries, or schools, or Post Offices, etc, which are best
avoided. While people arenrCOt trapped in their 15 minute cities, it
does make a mockery of the idea if the best comprehensive school or
whatever, is in a neighbouring city.
:-)
The Post Office in this village is best avoided. I drive to a
neighbouring village where the service is quicker and better.
So do I, because my village no longer has a Post Office.
On 13/09/2026 21:57, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/09/2026 14:32, John wrote:
I have received a PCN for travelling in Birmingham's clean air zone.
I'm not from that area so not familiar with them.-a The PCN is for
-u120 (reduced to -u60 if paid within 14 days).
I'm appealing, but if the appeal is rejected they say the full amount
will need to be paid.-a This seems to me to be an unfair condition,
and would ask if this is legal?-a Paying the fine then appealing could
be seen as an admission of guilt.
There are signs everywhere about the ULEZ zone. You can go round it if
you have to travel across Birmingham for any reason.
You could argue they don't have to reduce the penalty where paid quickly.
They could, but then to have that reduction but then penalise someone
who believes they have genuine grounds (I'm not saying *I* have) would
seem to me to be unfair term, hence the thread.
What are the grounds for your appeal?I'm not disputing the signs are there, but being in an unfamiliar area
your concentration is on the road ahead and taking into account the
normal traffic signs. Whether that is valid grounds remains to be seen.
Googling the situation reveals this is a common occurrence amongst
people not familiar with the area.
Adam Funk wrote:
no-one advocating it has suggested that people should be
constrained within those zones, despite what some nutcases claim
Oxford's camera-enforced traffic "gates" get turned on in a fortnight
<https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/transport-and-travel/oxford-traffic-filters/map-traffic-filters>
On 2026-09-15, Andy Burns wrote:
Adam Funk wrote:
no-one advocating it has suggested that people should be
constrained within those zones, despite what some nutcases claim
Oxford's camera-enforced traffic "gates" get turned on in a fortnight
<https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/transport-and-travel/oxford-traffic-filters/map-traffic-filters>
None of that confines *people*, just motor vehicles.
Oxford is quite walkable and has good public transport, and there are
free exemptions for blue badge holders.
I disagree with some aspects of the scheme, because I think it's
designed to gouge parents of Oxford students (most of whom have to
move all their possessions 6 times a year) and it offers 100 free days
a year to Oxford residents.
On 2026-09-17, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2026-09-15, Andy Burns wrote:
Adam Funk wrote:
no-one advocating it has suggested that people should be
constrained within those zones, despite what some nutcases claim
Oxford's camera-enforced traffic "gates" get turned on in a fortnight
<https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/transport-and-travel/oxford-traffic-filters/map-traffic-filters>
None of that confines *people*, just motor vehicles.
Not even "motor vehicles" - just cars.
Oxford is quite walkable and has good public transport, and there are
free exemptions for blue badge holders.
I disagree with some aspects of the scheme, because I think it's
designed to gouge parents of Oxford students (most of whom have to
move all their possessions 6 times a year) and it offers 100 free days
a year to Oxford residents.
They claim it is possible to drive to every location within Oxford
without having to pass through a "filter". I don't know to what degree
this is straightforwardly true rather than "technically true".
(I assume it isn't straightforwardly false.)
They claim it is possible to drive to every location within Oxford
without having to pass through a "filter". I don't know to what degree
this is straightforwardly true rather than "technically true".
(I assume it isn't straightforwardly false.)
From Oxfordshire County Council's perspective, though, that's mostly a "Somebody else's problem" scenario, because most of the ring road (and the parts of it that are going to be most affected by diverted cross-cityjourneys) is operated by National Highways, not the county. Any investment ncessary to upgrade it to handle added traffic, therefore, won't come out of the county's funds. Which is fine for the county and its council taxpayers,
I have received a PCN for travelling in Birmingham's clean air zone. I'mI thought I would make an observation rather than a legal point.
not from that area so not familiar with them.-a The PCN is for -u120 (reduced to -u60 if paid within 14 days).
I'm appealing, but if the appeal is rejected they say the full amount
will need to be paid.-a This seems to me to be an unfair condition, and would ask if this is legal?-a Paying the fine then appealing could be
seen as an admission of guilt.
On 13/09/2026 14:32, John wrote:
I have received a PCN for travelling in Birmingham's clean air
zone. I'm not from that area so not familiar with them.-a The PCN is
for -u120 (reduced to -u60 if paid within 14 days).
I'm appealing, but if the appeal is rejected they say the fullI thought I would make an observation rather than a legal point.
amount will need to be paid.-a This seems to me to be an unfair
condition, and would ask if this is legal?-a Paying the fine then
appealing could be seen as an admission of guilt.
Birmingham council could have allowed the A38 to be available for
all, including cars with polluting engines. The beauty of that is
that the route going through the centre is a smooth continuous 30mph
without the need for stopping and acceleration due to the lack of
roundabouts and lights.
The non ULEZ route goes around Birmingham through the 'middleways',
where the journey is longer and has numerous roundabouts and lights.
The increased pollution for those cars stopping and accelerating will
be significant.
The pollution will then follow the wind into central Birmingham so
back to square 1. Even the M5 now has a 60mph section due to air
quality.
On 13/09/2026 14:32, John wrote:
I have received a PCN for travelling in Birmingham's clean air zone.I thought I would make an observation rather than a legal point.
I'm not from that area so not familiar with them.-a The PCN is for -u120
(reduced to -u60 if paid within 14 days).
I'm appealing, but if the appeal is rejected they say the full amount
will need to be paid.-a This seems to me to be an unfair condition, and
would ask if this is legal?-a Paying the fine then appealing could be
seen as an admission of guilt.
Birmingham council could have allowed the A38 to be available for all, including cars with polluting engines. The beauty of that is that the
route going through the centre is a smooth continuous 30mph without the
need for stopping and acceleration due to the lack of roundabouts and
lights.
The non ULEZ route goes around Birmingham through the 'middleways',
where the journey is longer and has numerous roundabouts and lights. The increased pollution for those cars stopping and accelerating will be significant.
The pollution will then follow the wind into central Birmingham so back
to square 1. Even the M5 now has a 60mph section due to air quality.
If Botley Road is ever closed (again[1]) ...
[1] It's closed at the moment, due to Network Rail rebuilding the railway bridge just south of the station. The traffic filters won't be switched on until it's reopened.
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 22:33:25 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/09/2026 14:32, John wrote:
I have received a PCN for travelling in Birmingham's clean air zone.I thought I would make an observation rather than a legal point.
I'm not from that area so not familiar with them. The PCN is for -u120
(reduced to -u60 if paid within 14 days).
I'm appealing, but if the appeal is rejected they say the full amount
will need to be paid. This seems to me to be an unfair condition, and
would ask if this is legal? Paying the fine then appealing could be
seen as an admission of guilt.
Birmingham council could have allowed the A38 to be available for all,
including cars with polluting engines. The beauty of that is that the
route going through the centre is a smooth continuous 30mph without the
need for stopping and acceleration due to the lack of roundabouts and
lights.
The non ULEZ route goes around Birmingham through the 'middleways',
where the journey is longer and has numerous roundabouts and lights. The
increased pollution for those cars stopping and accelerating will be
significant.
The pollution will then follow the wind into central Birmingham so back
to square 1. Even the M5 now has a 60mph section due to air quality.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1r1zne1ro
Scientists say they have been "stunned" by how quickly young children's
lungs began to recover and grow after pollution restrictions were brought
in where they lived.
Researchers found that children in London whose lung growth had been
stunted by pollution showed impressive improvements after the
introduction of an Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) in 2019 reduced
emissions.
On 20 Sep 2026 at 18:16:41 BST, Jethro wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1r1zne1ro
Scientists say they have been "stunned" by how quickly young children's
lungs began to recover and grow after pollution restrictions were brought
in where they lived.
Researchers found that children in London whose lung growth had been
stunted by pollution showed impressive improvements after the
introduction of an Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) in 2019 reduced
emissions.
While there's probably something in that headline, it is slightly
misleading. In the same study they sampled children in Luton, who
showed similar improvements, but without the ULEZ etc.
On 20 Sep 2026 at 18:16:41 BST, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 22:33:25 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/09/2026 14:32, John wrote:
I have received a PCN for travelling in Birmingham's clean air zone.I thought I would make an observation rather than a legal point.
I'm not from that area so not familiar with them. The PCN is for -u120 >>>> (reduced to -u60 if paid within 14 days).
I'm appealing, but if the appeal is rejected they say the full amount
will need to be paid. This seems to me to be an unfair condition, and >>>> would ask if this is legal? Paying the fine then appealing could be
seen as an admission of guilt.
Birmingham council could have allowed the A38 to be available for all,
including cars with polluting engines. The beauty of that is that the
route going through the centre is a smooth continuous 30mph without the
need for stopping and acceleration due to the lack of roundabouts and
lights.
The non ULEZ route goes around Birmingham through the 'middleways',
where the journey is longer and has numerous roundabouts and lights. The >>> increased pollution for those cars stopping and accelerating will be
significant.
The pollution will then follow the wind into central Birmingham so back
to square 1. Even the M5 now has a 60mph section due to air quality.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1r1zne1ro
Scientists say they have been "stunned" by how quickly young children's
lungs began to recover and grow after pollution restrictions were brought
in where they lived.
Researchers found that children in London whose lung growth had been
stunted by pollution showed impressive improvements after the
introduction of an Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) in 2019 reduced
emissions.
While there's probably something in that headline, it is slightly misleading. In the same study they sampled children in Luton, who showed similar improvements, but without the ULEZ etc.
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 20 Sep 2026 at 18:16:41 BST, Jethro wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 22:33:25 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/09/2026 14:32, John wrote:
I have received a PCN for travelling in Birmingham's clean air zone. >>>>> I'm not from that area so not familiar with them. The PCN is for -u120 >>>>> (reduced to -u60 if paid within 14 days).I thought I would make an observation rather than a legal point.
I'm appealing, but if the appeal is rejected they say the full amount >>>>> will need to be paid. This seems to me to be an unfair condition, and >>>>> would ask if this is legal? Paying the fine then appealing could be >>>>> seen as an admission of guilt.
Birmingham council could have allowed the A38 to be available for all, >>>> including cars with polluting engines. The beauty of that is that the
route going through the centre is a smooth continuous 30mph without the >>>> need for stopping and acceleration due to the lack of roundabouts and
lights.
The non ULEZ route goes around Birmingham through the 'middleways',
where the journey is longer and has numerous roundabouts and lights. The >>>> increased pollution for those cars stopping and accelerating will be
significant.
The pollution will then follow the wind into central Birmingham so back >>>> to square 1. Even the M5 now has a 60mph section due to air quality.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1r1zne1ro
Scientists say they have been "stunned" by how quickly young children's
lungs began to recover and grow after pollution restrictions were brought >>> in where they lived.
Researchers found that children in London whose lung growth had been
stunted by pollution showed impressive improvements after the
introduction of an Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) in 2019 reduced
emissions.
While there's probably something in that headline, it is slightly misleading.
In the same study they sampled children in Luton, who showed similar
improvements, but without the ULEZ etc.
Is there any account taken of exposures to indoor pollution, which can be several times that of the levels outdoors? People can be expected to spend longer indoors than out. Most people sleep around eight hours, but far
fewer spend such time on traffic-laden street corners.
On 2026-09-19 19:23, Mark Goodge wrote:
If Botley Road is ever closed (again[1]) ...
[1] It's closed at the moment, due to Network Rail rebuilding the railway
bridge just south of the station. The traffic filters won't be switched on >> until it's reopened.
Reopened today, after an almost 3+ year closure.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c69qr59y09x0o
Any other long-running closures you'd like to write about?
On 21 Sep 2026 at 10:57:06 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 20 Sep 2026 at 18:16:41 BST, Jethro wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1r1zne1ro
Scientists say they have been "stunned" by how quickly young children's >>>> lungs began to recover and grow after pollution restrictions were brought >>>> in where they lived.
Researchers found that children in London whose lung growth had been
stunted by pollution showed impressive improvements after the
introduction of an Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) in 2019 reduced
emissions.
While there's probably something in that headline, it is slightly misleading.
In the same study they sampled children in Luton, who showed similar
improvements, but without the ULEZ etc.
Is there any account taken of exposures to indoor pollution, which can be
several times that of the levels outdoors? People can be expected to spend >> longer indoors than out. Most people sleep around eight hours, but far
fewer spend such time on traffic-laden street corners.
That is one of the purposes of having a control group.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 21 Sep 2026 at 10:57:06 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 20 Sep 2026 at 18:16:41 BST, Jethro wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1r1zne1ro
Scientists say they have been "stunned" by how quickly young
children's lungs began to recover and grow after pollution
restrictions were brought in where they lived.
Researchers found that children in London whose lung growth had been >>>>> stunted by pollution showed impressive improvements after the
introduction of an Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) in 2019 reduced
emissions.
While there's probably something in that headline, it is slightly
misleading. In the same study they sampled children in Luton, who
showed similar improvements, but without the ULEZ etc.
Is there any account taken of exposures to indoor pollution, which
can be several times that of the levels outdoors? People can be
expected to spend longer indoors than out. Most people sleep around
eight hours, but far fewer spend such time on traffic-laden street
corners.
That is one of the purposes of having a control group.
Of course it is.
The article linked above says this:
rCYIn the study, researchers recruited six to nine-year-olds attending primary schools in London's ultra low emission zone and followed the same children for five years, comparing them to similar children (in terms of socio-economic background, physical activity and ethnicity) in Luton.rCY
Note that the implication of the wording, and it might be the BBCrCOs wording thatrCOs at issue, is that there was a group of kids studied in London over a number of years, that was compared at the end of that study with Luton kids that were selected, at that time, on a number of criteria. IOW, there was
no parallel control group in Luton running at the same time as London.
And the other surprise that springs from this study as reported, is that
the effect of indoor pollution on children is essentially negligible when compared to outdoor pollution.
On 2026-09-21, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 21 Sep 2026 at 10:57:06 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 20 Sep 2026 at 18:16:41 BST, Jethro wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1r1zne1ro
Scientists say they have been "stunned" by how quickly young
children's lungs began to recover and grow after pollution
restrictions were brought in where they lived.
Researchers found that children in London whose lung growth had been >>>>>> stunted by pollution showed impressive improvements after the
introduction of an Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) in 2019 reduced
emissions.
While there's probably something in that headline, it is slightly
misleading. In the same study they sampled children in Luton, who
showed similar improvements, but without the ULEZ etc.
Is there any account taken of exposures to indoor pollution, which
can be several times that of the levels outdoors? People can be
expected to spend longer indoors than out. Most people sleep around
eight hours, but far fewer spend such time on traffic-laden street
corners.
That is one of the purposes of having a control group.
Of course it is.
The article linked above says this:
rCYIn the study, researchers recruited six to nine-year-olds attending
primary schools in London's ultra low emission zone and followed the same
children for five years, comparing them to similar children (in terms of
socio-economic background, physical activity and ethnicity) in Luton.rCY
Note that the implication of the wording, and it might be the BBCrCOs wording
thatrCOs at issue, is that there was a group of kids studied in London over a
number of years, that was compared at the end of that study with Luton kids >> that were selected, at that time, on a number of criteria. IOW, there was
no parallel control group in Luton running at the same time as London.
That is not only not the implication of those words, it is not what the
study did. They selected children in both Luton and London and studied
both groups over 5 years.
And the other surprise that springs from this study as reported, is that
the effect of indoor pollution on children is essentially negligible when
compared to outdoor pollution.
That isn't something that "springs from this study".
I'd suggest reading the actual study rather than continuing to make
up things about it without having any clue what you're talking about:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(26)00163-5/fulltext
Is there any account taken of exposures to indoor pollution, which can be several times that of the levels outdoors? People can be expected to spend longer indoors than out. Most people sleep around eight hours, but far
fewer spend such time on traffic-laden street corners.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
That is not only not the implication of those words, it is not what the
study did. They selected children in both Luton and London and studied
both groups over 5 years.
So The Lancet said, but that didnrCOt appear in the BBCrCOs article.
Unfortunately, in the Study Design section of the LancetrCOs paper, it says this:
quote:
Although Luton had a similar pollutant mix to London, variables such as
NO2, particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 ++m
(PM10), and particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2-+5 ++m (PM2-+5) were lower in Luton than in our central London study area.
unquote
Oh dear.
I'd suggest reading the actual study rather than continuing to make
up things about it without having any clue what you're talking about:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(26)00163-5/fulltext
I just did that. See above. It doesnrCOt look promising.
London apples and Luton orangesrCa
On 2026-09-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
That is not only not the implication of those words, it is not what the
study did. They selected children in both Luton and London and studied
both groups over 5 years.
So The Lancet said, but that didnrCOt appear in the BBCrCOs article.
Unfortunately, in the Study Design section of the LancetrCOs paper, it says >> this:
quote:
Although Luton had a similar pollutant mix to London, variables such as
NO2, particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 ++m
(PM10), and particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2-+5 >> ++m (PM2-+5) were lower in Luton than in our central London study area.
unquote
Oh dear.
Why do you say "oh dear"? Do you understand what the study was, er,
studying? Do you understand that the amount of pollution changed in
London over the course of the study, which was the entire point?
I'd suggest reading the actual study rather than continuing to make
up things about it without having any clue what you're talking about:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(26)00163-5/fulltext
I just did that. See above. It doesnrCOt look promising.
London apples and Luton orangesrCa
Sadly, you still don't have any clue what you're talking about.
On 2026-09-22, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
That is not only not the implication of those words, it is not what the
study did. They selected children in both Luton and London and studied
both groups over 5 years.
So The Lancet said, but that didnrCOt appear in the BBCrCOs article.
Unfortunately, in the Study Design section of the LancetrCOs paper, it says >> this:
quote:
Although Luton had a similar pollutant mix to London, variables such as
NO2, particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 ++m
(PM10), and particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2-+5 >> ++m (PM2-+5) were lower in Luton than in our central London study area.
unquote
Oh dear.
Why do you say "oh dear"? Do you understand what the study was, er,
studying? Do you understand that the amount of pollution changed in
London over the course of the study, which was the entire point?
I'd suggest reading the actual study rather than continuing to make
up things about it without having any clue what you're talking about:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(26)00163-5/fulltext
I just did that. See above. It doesnrCOt look promising.
London apples and Luton orangesrCa
Sadly, you still don't have any clue what you're talking about.
On 2026-09-21, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 20 Sep 2026 at 18:16:41 BST, Jethro wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1r1zne1ro
Scientists say they have been "stunned" by how quickly young children's
lungs began to recover and grow after pollution restrictions were brought >>> in where they lived.
Researchers found that children in London whose lung growth had been
stunted by pollution showed impressive improvements after the
introduction of an Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) in 2019 reduced
emissions.
While there's probably something in that headline, it is slightly
misleading. In the same study they sampled children in Luton, who
showed similar improvements, but without the ULEZ etc.
No, the children in Luton were the control group, because they already
had decent lung capacity, because Luton already had lower levels of
pollution than London, because it is a town of a few hundred thousand
people and not a city of many millions of people.
Are you getting confused by the fact that all the children in the study gained lung capacity because they're children and children grow bigger
as time passes?
On 21 Sep 2026 at 09:10:26 BST, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-21, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 20 Sep 2026 at 18:16:41 BST, Jethro wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1r1zne1ro
Scientists say they have been "stunned" by how quickly young children's >>>> lungs began to recover and grow after pollution restrictions were brought >>>> in where they lived.
Researchers found that children in London whose lung growth had been
stunted by pollution showed impressive improvements after the
introduction of an Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) in 2019 reduced
emissions.
While there's probably something in that headline, it is slightly
misleading. In the same study they sampled children in Luton, who
showed similar improvements, but without the ULEZ etc.
No, the children in Luton were the control group, because they already
had decent lung capacity, because Luton already had lower levels of
pollution than London, because it is a town of a few hundred thousand
people and not a city of many millions of people.
Yes, that much is given in the article.
Note I suggested 'similar' - the London children did show a greater improvement. The article mentiones a number of other variables that
could have affected the finding. And I'm not sure that the comparative increase in lung capacity was statistically significant - just a
guess, I'm far from expert.
Overall, I didn't read the article as 'ULEZ what done it'.
Are you getting confused by the fact that all the children in the study
gained lung capacity because they're children and children grow bigger
as time passes?
No, but then I've not read the study - just made assumptions from the article.
On 2026-09-23, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 21 Sep 2026 at 09:10:26 BST, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-21, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 20 Sep 2026 at 18:16:41 BST, Jethro wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1r1zne1ro
Scientists say they have been "stunned" by how quickly young children's >>>>> lungs began to recover and grow after pollution restrictions were brought >>>>> in where they lived.
Researchers found that children in London whose lung growth had been >>>>> stunted by pollution showed impressive improvements after the
introduction of an Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) in 2019 reduced
emissions.
While there's probably something in that headline, it is slightly
misleading. In the same study they sampled children in Luton, who
showed similar improvements, but without the ULEZ etc.
No, the children in Luton were the control group, because they already
had decent lung capacity, because Luton already had lower levels of
pollution than London, because it is a town of a few hundred thousand
people and not a city of many millions of people.
Yes, that much is given in the article.
Note I suggested 'similar' - the London children did show a greater
improvement. The article mentiones a number of other variables that
could have affected the finding. And I'm not sure that the comparative
increase in lung capacity was statistically significant - just a
guess, I'm far from expert.
Why would you guess? You don't need to be an expert, you can just read
the study, where it says the children in the ULEZ zone did experience
a significantly greater increase in lung function.
Overall, I didn't read the article as 'ULEZ what done it'.
I mean, the BBC article almost literally says "it's ULEZ wot done it".
And the study was designed to test if lung function improved for
children living in the ULEZ zone and found that it did.
Are you getting confused by the fact that all the children in the study
gained lung capacity because they're children and children grow bigger
as time passes?
No, but then I've not read the study - just made assumptions from the
article.
You made poor assumptions then, because when you said that children
in Luton "showed similar improvements", you were wrong.
On 23 Sep 2026 at 14:16:28 BST, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-23, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 21 Sep 2026 at 09:10:26 BST, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-21, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 20 Sep 2026 at 18:16:41 BST, Jethro wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1r1zne1ro
Scientists say they have been "stunned" by how quickly young
children's lungs began to recover and grow after pollution
restrictions were brought> in where they lived.
Researchers found that children in London whose lung growth had been >>>>>> stunted by pollution showed impressive improvements after the
introduction of an Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) in 2019 reduced
emissions.
While there's probably something in that headline, it is slightly
misleading. In the same study they sampled children in Luton, who
showed similar improvements, but without the ULEZ etc.
No, the children in Luton were the control group, because they already >>>> had decent lung capacity, because Luton already had lower levels of
pollution than London, because it is a town of a few hundred thousand
people and not a city of many millions of people.
Yes, that much is given in the article.
Note I suggested 'similar' - the London children did show a greater
improvement. The article mentiones a number of other variables that
could have affected the finding. And I'm not sure that the comparative
increase in lung capacity was statistically significant - just a
guess, I'm far from expert.
Why would you guess? You don't need to be an expert, you can just read
the study, where it says the children in the ULEZ zone did experience
a significantly greater increase in lung function.
It was a few percentage points better in London. If you consider that
to be statistically significant, and you know what that means in
context, I do (of course) defer.
Overall, I didn't read the article as 'ULEZ what done it'.
I mean, the BBC article almost literally says "it's ULEZ wot done it".
And the study was designed to test if lung function improved for
children living in the ULEZ zone and found that it did.
Yes, it does. And if you take the trouble to read my first post in
this thread, I said that the headline appears to be misleading. In
other words, I read the article and found the title misleading.
Are you getting confused by the fact that all the children in the study >>>> gained lung capacity because they're children and children grow bigger >>>> as time passes?
No, but then I've not read the study - just made assumptions from the
article.
You made poor assumptions then, because when you said that children
in Luton "showed similar improvements", you were wrong.
Well, you only need to look at the graph to see that I am right. Or
the text if you take the time to read it: "At the end of the study the children's lung capacity reached near identical levels in both groups"
from a near-identical 2018 base.
On 2026-09-23, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 23 Sep 2026 at 14:16:28 BST, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-23, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 21 Sep 2026 at 09:10:26 BST, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-21, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 20 Sep 2026 at 18:16:41 BST, Jethro wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1r1zne1ro
Scientists say they have been "stunned" by how quickly young
children's lungs began to recover and grow after pollution
restrictions were brought> in where they lived.
Researchers found that children in London whose lung growth had been >>>>>>> stunted by pollution showed impressive improvements after the
introduction of an Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) in 2019 reduced >>>>>>> emissions.
While there's probably something in that headline, it is slightly
misleading. In the same study they sampled children in Luton, who
showed similar improvements, but without the ULEZ etc.
No, the children in Luton were the control group, because they already >>>>> had decent lung capacity, because Luton already had lower levels of
pollution than London, because it is a town of a few hundred thousand >>>>> people and not a city of many millions of people.
Yes, that much is given in the article.
Note I suggested 'similar' - the London children did show a greater
improvement. The article mentiones a number of other variables that
could have affected the finding. And I'm not sure that the comparative >>>> increase in lung capacity was statistically significant - just a
guess, I'm far from expert.
Why would you guess? You don't need to be an expert, you can just read
the study, where it says the children in the ULEZ zone did experience
a significantly greater increase in lung function.
It was a few percentage points better in London. If you consider that
to be statistically significant, and you know what that means in
context, I do (of course) defer.
Or you could do as I did, and defer to the study itself, which says that
the difference is significant.
Overall, I didn't read the article as 'ULEZ what done it'.
I mean, the BBC article almost literally says "it's ULEZ wot done it".
And the study was designed to test if lung function improved for
children living in the ULEZ zone and found that it did.
Yes, it does. And if you take the trouble to read my first post in
this thread, I said that the headline appears to be misleading. In
other words, I read the article and found the title misleading.
Ok. What is misleading about it? The children in the ultra low emission
zone did indeed show significant lung recovery, and the scientists did
indeed say they were "stunned". The headline is the 100% literal truth.
It's possibly the most accurate thing the BBC have published this year.
Are you getting confused by the fact that all the children in the study >>>>> gained lung capacity because they're children and children grow bigger >>>>> as time passes?
No, but then I've not read the study - just made assumptions from the
article.
You made poor assumptions then, because when you said that children
in Luton "showed similar improvements", you were wrong.
Well, you only need to look at the graph to see that I am right. Or
the text if you take the time to read it: "At the end of the study the
children's lung capacity reached near identical levels in both groups"
from a near-identical 2018 base.
You are not right, the graph does not show you to be right, and your
second sentence is not right because a vital part of it ("from a near-identical 2018 base") is untrue and is not in fact a quote from
the text (of the article or the study), and the part of it that is
a quote you have utterly failed to understand (the fact that the lung capacity of the two groups is near identical at the end of the study
shows that the London children have improved).
So ironically the headline that you called "misleading" is nothing of
the sort, but your own claim is so misleading as to be entirely false.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-23, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 23 Sep 2026 at 14:16:28 BST, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-23, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 21 Sep 2026 at 09:10:26 BST, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-21, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 20 Sep 2026 at 18:16:41 BST, Jethro wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1r1zne1ro
Scientists say they have been "stunned" by how quickly young
children's lungs began to recover and grow after pollution
restrictions were brought> in where they lived.
Researchers found that children in London whose lung growth had been >>>>>>>> stunted by pollution showed impressive improvements after the
introduction of an Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) in 2019 reduced >>>>>>>> emissions.
While there's probably something in that headline, it is slightly >>>>>>> misleading. In the same study they sampled children in Luton, who >>>>>>> showed similar improvements, but without the ULEZ etc.
No, the children in Luton were the control group, because they already >>>>>> had decent lung capacity, because Luton already had lower levels of >>>>>> pollution than London, because it is a town of a few hundred thousand >>>>>> people and not a city of many millions of people.
Yes, that much is given in the article.
Note I suggested 'similar' - the London children did show a greater
improvement. The article mentiones a number of other variables that
could have affected the finding. And I'm not sure that the comparative >>>>> increase in lung capacity was statistically significant - just a
guess, I'm far from expert.
Why would you guess? You don't need to be an expert, you can just read >>>> the study, where it says the children in the ULEZ zone did experience
a significantly greater increase in lung function.
It was a few percentage points better in London. If you consider that
to be statistically significant, and you know what that means in
context, I do (of course) defer.
Or you could do as I did, and defer to the study itself, which says that
the difference is significant.
Overall, I didn't read the article as 'ULEZ what done it'.
I mean, the BBC article almost literally says "it's ULEZ wot done it". >>>> And the study was designed to test if lung function improved for
children living in the ULEZ zone and found that it did.
Yes, it does. And if you take the trouble to read my first post in
this thread, I said that the headline appears to be misleading. In
other words, I read the article and found the title misleading.
Ok. What is misleading about it? The children in the ultra low emission
zone did indeed show significant lung recovery, and the scientists did
indeed say they were "stunned". The headline is the 100% literal truth.
It's possibly the most accurate thing the BBC have published this year.
Is there a recognised published authoritative definition of the word rCOstunnedrCO when applied to commenting by the researchers on their findings?
I ask because for the better part of a decade I researched scientific (as opposed to medical) journals to the tune of well over a hundred per month,
as part of my duties. I cannot recall any use, in those thousands of journals, of the word rCOstunned' to describe the findings.
You, of course, might be better acquainted with journal research.
ItrCOs interesting to note that the work reported in the Lancet paper appears to have been funded by public bodies.
Is there a public policy or a number of such policies that assume that emissions control must be rCOa good thingrCO?
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-23, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 23 Sep 2026 at 14:16:28 BST, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-23, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 21 Sep 2026 at 09:10:26 BST, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-21, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 20 Sep 2026 at 18:16:41 BST, Jethro wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1r1zne1ro
Scientists say they have been "stunned" by how quickly young
children's lungs began to recover and grow after pollution
restrictions were brought> in where they lived.
Researchers found that children in London whose lung growth had been >>>>>>>> stunted by pollution showed impressive improvements after the
introduction of an Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) in 2019 reduced >>>>>>>> emissions.
While there's probably something in that headline, it is slightly >>>>>>> misleading. In the same study they sampled children in Luton, who >>>>>>> showed similar improvements, but without the ULEZ etc.
No, the children in Luton were the control group, because they already >>>>>> had decent lung capacity, because Luton already had lower levels of >>>>>> pollution than London, because it is a town of a few hundred thousand >>>>>> people and not a city of many millions of people.
Yes, that much is given in the article.
Note I suggested 'similar' - the London children did show a greater
improvement. The article mentiones a number of other variables that
could have affected the finding. And I'm not sure that the comparative >>>>> increase in lung capacity was statistically significant - just a
guess, I'm far from expert.
Why would you guess? You don't need to be an expert, you can just read >>>> the study, where it says the children in the ULEZ zone did experience
a significantly greater increase in lung function.
It was a few percentage points better in London. If you consider that
to be statistically significant, and you know what that means in
context, I do (of course) defer.
Or you could do as I did, and defer to the study itself, which says that
the difference is significant.
Overall, I didn't read the article as 'ULEZ what done it'.
I mean, the BBC article almost literally says "it's ULEZ wot done it". >>>> And the study was designed to test if lung function improved for
children living in the ULEZ zone and found that it did.
Yes, it does. And if you take the trouble to read my first post in
this thread, I said that the headline appears to be misleading. In
other words, I read the article and found the title misleading.
Ok. What is misleading about it? The children in the ultra low emission
zone did indeed show significant lung recovery, and the scientists did
indeed say they were "stunned". The headline is the 100% literal truth.
It's possibly the most accurate thing the BBC have published this year.
Is there a recognised published authoritative definition of the word rCOstunnedrCO when applied to commenting by the researchers on their findings?
I ask because for the better part of a decade I researched scientific (as opposed to medical) journals to the tune of well over a hundred per month,
as part of my duties. I cannot recall any use, in those thousands of journals, of the word rCOstunned' to describe the findings.
On 2026-09-24, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-23, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 23 Sep 2026 at 14:16:28 BST, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-23, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 21 Sep 2026 at 09:10:26 BST, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-21, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 20 Sep 2026 at 18:16:41 BST, Jethro wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1r1zne1ro
Scientists say they have been "stunned" by how quickly young >>>>>>>>> children's lungs began to recover and grow after pollution
restrictions were brought> in where they lived.
Researchers found that children in London whose lung growth had been >>>>>>>>> stunted by pollution showed impressive improvements after the >>>>>>>>> introduction of an Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) in 2019 reduced >>>>>>>>> emissions.
While there's probably something in that headline, it is slightly >>>>>>>> misleading. In the same study they sampled children in Luton, who >>>>>>>> showed similar improvements, but without the ULEZ etc.
No, the children in Luton were the control group, because they already >>>>>>> had decent lung capacity, because Luton already had lower levels of >>>>>>> pollution than London, because it is a town of a few hundred thousand >>>>>>> people and not a city of many millions of people.
Yes, that much is given in the article.
Note I suggested 'similar' - the London children did show a greater >>>>>> improvement. The article mentiones a number of other variables that >>>>>> could have affected the finding. And I'm not sure that the comparative >>>>>> increase in lung capacity was statistically significant - just a
guess, I'm far from expert.
Why would you guess? You don't need to be an expert, you can just read >>>>> the study, where it says the children in the ULEZ zone did experience >>>>> a significantly greater increase in lung function.
It was a few percentage points better in London. If you consider that
to be statistically significant, and you know what that means in
context, I do (of course) defer.
Or you could do as I did, and defer to the study itself, which says that >>> the difference is significant.
Overall, I didn't read the article as 'ULEZ what done it'.
I mean, the BBC article almost literally says "it's ULEZ wot done it". >>>>> And the study was designed to test if lung function improved for
children living in the ULEZ zone and found that it did.
Yes, it does. And if you take the trouble to read my first post in
this thread, I said that the headline appears to be misleading. In
other words, I read the article and found the title misleading.
Ok. What is misleading about it? The children in the ultra low emission
zone did indeed show significant lung recovery, and the scientists did
indeed say they were "stunned". The headline is the 100% literal truth.
It's possibly the most accurate thing the BBC have published this year.
Is there a recognised published authoritative definition of the word
rCOstunnedrCO when applied to commenting by the researchers on their findings?
I ask because for the better part of a decade I researched scientific (as
opposed to medical) journals to the tune of well over a hundred per month, >> as part of my duties. I cannot recall any use, in those thousands of
journals, of the word rCOstunned' to describe the findings.
It is a bit ironic that there appears to be no limit to the amount of
time you are willing to spend writing uninformed comments about a study, given there is clearly an extremely limited amount of time you are
willing to spend reading the study or the article about it.
The word "stunned" does not, of course, appear in the study. It comes
from comments the scientists made to the BBC when it asked them about
their study. You would know this if you had read the article.
It's interesting to note that the work reported in the Lancet paper appears to have been funded by public bodies.
Is there a public policy or a number of such policies that assume that emissions control must be 'a good thing'?
On 2026-09-24, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Is there a recognised published authoritative definition of the word
rCOstunnedrCO when applied to commenting by the researchers on their findings?
I ask because for the better part of a decade I researched scientific (as
opposed to medical) journals to the tune of well over a hundred per month, >> as part of my duties. I cannot recall any use, in those thousands of
journals, of the word rCOstunned' to describe the findings.
It is a bit ironic that there appears to be no limit to the amount of
time you are willing to spend writing uninformed comments about a study, given there is clearly an extremely limited amount of time you are
willing to spend reading the study or the article about it.
The word "stunned" does not, of course, appear in the study. It comes
from comments the scientists made to the BBC when it asked them about
their study. You would know this if you had read the article.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-24, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Is there a recognised published authoritative definition of the word
rCOstunnedrCO when applied to commenting by the researchers on their findings?
I ask because for the better part of a decade I researched scientific (as >>> opposed to medical) journals to the tune of well over a hundred per month, >>> as part of my duties. I cannot recall any use, in those thousands of
journals, of the word rCOstunned' to describe the findings.
It is a bit ironic that there appears to be no limit to the amount of
time you are willing to spend writing uninformed comments about a study,
given there is clearly an extremely limited amount of time you are
willing to spend reading the study or the article about it.
The word "stunned" does not, of course, appear in the study. It comes
from comments the scientists made to the BBC when it asked them about
their study. You would know this if you had read the article.
I really do wish you would learn to read things and understand their
meaning, before sounding off yet again.
I wrote this:
rCYIs there a recognised published authoritative definition of the word rCOstunnedrCO when applied to commenting by the researchers on their findings?rCY
Note that rCOcommenting by the researchers on their findingsrCO does not necessarily mean that the comments by the authors that include the word rCOstunnedrCO were included in the paper they wrote. Indeed, it is all but explicit, but easily missed by the uninformed, that the comments were post publication. It would be very unusual for authors to include such a comment in a published paper, at least in circles that demand rigour and precision, such as scientific research.
On 25 Sep 2026 at 11:06:27 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-24, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
Is there a recognised published authoritative definition of the word
rCOstunnedrCO when applied to commenting by the researchers on their findings?
I ask because for the better part of a decade I researched scientific (as >>>> opposed to medical) journals to the tune of well over a hundred per month, >>>> as part of my duties. I cannot recall any use, in those thousands of
journals, of the word rCOstunned' to describe the findings.
It is a bit ironic that there appears to be no limit to the amount of
time you are willing to spend writing uninformed comments about a study, >>> given there is clearly an extremely limited amount of time you are
willing to spend reading the study or the article about it.
The word "stunned" does not, of course, appear in the study. It comes
from comments the scientists made to the BBC when it asked them about
their study. You would know this if you had read the article.
I really do wish you would learn to read things and understand their
meaning, before sounding off yet again.
I wrote this:
rCYIs there a recognised published authoritative definition of the word
rCOstunnedrCO when applied to commenting by the researchers on their findings?rCY
Note that rCOcommenting by the researchers on their findingsrCO does not
necessarily mean that the comments by the authors that include the word
rCOstunnedrCO were included in the paper they wrote. Indeed, it is all but >> explicit, but easily missed by the uninformed, that the comments were post >> publication. It would be very unusual for authors to include such a comment >> in a published paper, at least in circles that demand rigour and precision, >> such as scientific research.
In which case the "stunned" is a perfectly normal part of the hype that has gone on for the last 50 years at least whenever a scientific paper comes to journalistic attention (usually following an institutional press release) and is of no account whatsoever. I don't know why you even mentioned it.
Journalists always see any trivial paper as a cure for cancer or whatever.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 25 Sep 2026 at 11:06:27 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-24, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[.]
Is there a recognised published authoritative definition of the word >>>>> 'stunned' when applied to commenting by the researchers on their findings?
I ask because for the better part of a decade I researched scientific (as >>>>> opposed to medical) journals to the tune of well over a hundred per month,
as part of my duties. I cannot recall any use, in those thousands of >>>>> journals, of the word 'stunned' to describe the findings.
It is a bit ironic that there appears to be no limit to the amount of
time you are willing to spend writing uninformed comments about a study, >>>> given there is clearly an extremely limited amount of time you are
willing to spend reading the study or the article about it.
The word "stunned" does not, of course, appear in the study. It comes
from comments the scientists made to the BBC when it asked them about
their study. You would know this if you had read the article.
I really do wish you would learn to read things and understand their
meaning, before sounding off yet again.
I wrote this:
"Is there a recognised published authoritative definition of the word
'stunned' when applied to commenting by the researchers on their findings?"
Note that 'commenting by the researchers on their findings' does not
necessarily mean that the comments by the authors that include the word
'stunned' were included in the paper they wrote. Indeed, it is all but
explicit, but easily missed by the uninformed, that the comments were post >>> publication. It would be very unusual for authors to include such a comment >>> in a published paper, at least in circles that demand rigour and precision, >>> such as scientific research.
In which case the "stunned" is a perfectly normal part of the hype that has >> gone on for the last 50 years at least whenever a scientific paper comes to >> journalistic attention (usually following an institutional press release) and
is of no account whatsoever. I don't know why you even mentioned it.
I didn't mention it. I mentioned comments by scientists, not hoipoloi journalists.
Journalists always see any trivial paper as a cure for cancer or whatever.
They would, wouldn't they.
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:nhpamvFm06fU1@mid.individual.net...
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 25 Sep 2026 at 11:06:27 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com>
wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-09-24, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[.]
Is there a recognised published authoritative definition of the
word 'stunned' when applied to commenting by the researchers on
their findings?
I ask because for the better part of a decade I researched
scientific (as opposed to medical) journals to the tune of well
over a hundred per month, as part of my duties. I cannot recall
any use, in those thousands of journals, of the word 'stunned'
to describe the findings.
It is a bit ironic that there appears to be no limit to the
amount of time you are willing to spend writing uninformed
comments about a study, given there is clearly an extremely
limited amount of time you are willing to spend reading the
study or the article about it.
The word "stunned" does not, of course, appear in the study. It
comes from comments the scientists made to the BBC when it asked
them about their study. You would know this if you had read the
article.
I really do wish you would learn to read things and understand
their meaning, before sounding off yet again.
I wrote this:
"Is there a recognised published authoritative definition of the
word 'stunned' when applied to commenting by the researchers on
their findings?"
Note that 'commenting by the researchers on their findings' does
not necessarily mean that the comments by the authors that
include the word 'stunned' were included in the paper they wrote.
Indeed, it is all but explicit, but easily missed by the
uninformed, that the comments were post publication. It would be
very unusual for authors to include such a comment in a published
paper, at least in circles that demand rigour and precision, such
as scientific research.
In which case the "stunned" is a perfectly normal part of the hype
that has gone on for the last 50 years at least whenever a
scientific paper comes to journalistic attention (usually
following an institutional press release) and is of no account
whatsoever. I don't know why you even mentioned it.
I didn't mention it. I mentioned comments by scientists, not
hoipoloi journalists.
Journalists always see any trivial paper as a cure for cancer or
whatever.
They would, wouldn't they.
Actually it is rather surprising that anyone should be "stunned" by
such a result.
I can actually remember the then Secretary of State Kenneth Robinson *
(so around 1964-68) explaining on the radio, how smokers' lungs fully recovered within about 4 years of stopping smoking.
A quick bit of googling 60 years later, seems to "broadly" confirm
this, at least
.
Although Robinson clearly intended to encourage people to give up
smoking straightaway, in fact his message had exactly the opposite
effect with at least some smokers. As it simply allowed them to
postpone their giving up to a later date,
So that if smokers could fully recover their lung function within
four years why not children whose exposure to contaminants was less concentrated, over a possibly shorter period ?
bb
You learn something new every day. I always thought Robinson
himself was actually a doctor. In fact while his father was a doctor, straitened circumstances led to Robinson leaving school at 15.
Apparently he was widely respected as Heath Minister; owing to his willingness to consult and seek advice from all quarters
On 2026-09-23, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 23 Sep 2026 at 14:16:28 BST, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-23, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 21 Sep 2026 at 09:10:26 BST, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-21, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 20 Sep 2026 at 18:16:41 BST, Jethro wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1l1r1zne1ro
Scientists say they have been "stunned" by how quickly young
children's lungs began to recover and grow after pollution
restrictions were brought> in where they lived.
Researchers found that children in London whose lung growth had been >>>>>>> stunted by pollution showed impressive improvements after the
introduction of an Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) in 2019 reduced >>>>>>> emissions.
While there's probably something in that headline, it is slightly
misleading. In the same study they sampled children in Luton, who
showed similar improvements, but without the ULEZ etc.
No, the children in Luton were the control group, because they already >>>>> had decent lung capacity, because Luton already had lower levels of
pollution than London, because it is a town of a few hundred thousand >>>>> people and not a city of many millions of people.
Yes, that much is given in the article.
Note I suggested 'similar' - the London children did show a greater
improvement. The article mentiones a number of other variables that
could have affected the finding. And I'm not sure that the comparative >>>> increase in lung capacity was statistically significant - just a
guess, I'm far from expert.
Why would you guess? You don't need to be an expert, you can just read
the study, where it says the children in the ULEZ zone did experience
a significantly greater increase in lung function.
It was a few percentage points better in London. If you consider that
to be statistically significant, and you know what that means in
context, I do (of course) defer.
Or you could do as I did, and defer to the study itself, which says that
the difference is significant.
Overall, I didn't read the article as 'ULEZ what done it'.
I mean, the BBC article almost literally says "it's ULEZ wot done it".
And the study was designed to test if lung function improved for
children living in the ULEZ zone and found that it did.
Yes, it does. And if you take the trouble to read my first post in
this thread, I said that the headline appears to be misleading. In
other words, I read the article and found the title misleading.
Ok. What is misleading about it? The children in the ultra low emission
zone did indeed show significant lung recovery, and the scientists did
indeed say they were "stunned".
The headline is the 100% literal truth.
It's possibly the most accurate thing the BBC have published this year.
Are you getting confused by the fact that all the children in the study >>>>> gained lung capacity because they're children and children grow bigger >>>>> as time passes?
No, but then I've not read the study - just made assumptions from the
article.
You made poor assumptions then, because when you said that children
in Luton "showed similar improvements", you were wrong.
Well, you only need to look at the graph to see that I am right. Or
the text if you take the time to read it: "At the end of the study the
children's lung capacity reached near identical levels in both groups"
from a near-identical 2018 base.
You are not right, the graph does not show you to be right, and your
second sentence is not right because a vital part of it ("from a near-identical 2018 base") is untrue and is not in fact a quote from
the text (of the article or the study),
and the part of it that is
a quote you have utterly failed to understand (the fact that the lung capacity of the two groups is near identical at the end of the study
shows that the London children have improved).
So ironically the headline that you called "misleading" is nothing of
the sort, but your own claim is so misleading as to be entirely false.
On 23 Sep 2026 at 21:06:51 BST, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-23, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 23 Sep 2026 at 14:16:28 BST, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Why would you guess? You don't need to be an expert, you can just read >>>> the study, where it says the children in the ULEZ zone did experience
a significantly greater increase in lung function.
It was a few percentage points better in London. If you consider that
to be statistically significant, and you know what that means in
context, I do (of course) defer.
Or you could do as I did, and defer to the study itself, which says that
the difference is significant.
Fair enough.
I mean, the BBC article almost literally says "it's ULEZ wot done it". >>>> And the study was designed to test if lung function improved for
children living in the ULEZ zone and found that it did.
Yes, it does. And if you take the trouble to read my first post in
this thread, I said that the headline appears to be misleading. In
other words, I read the article and found the title misleading.
Ok. What is misleading about it? The children in the ultra low emission
zone did indeed show significant lung recovery, and the scientists did
indeed say they were "stunned".
Yes, I know. But so did both groups. So it was not *necessarily* the
case that ULEZ was the main cause - especially with Covid in the
middle of the study.
You made poor assumptions then, because when you said that children
in Luton "showed similar improvements", you were wrong.
Well, you only need to look at the graph to see that I am right. Or
the text if you take the time to read it: "At the end of the study the
children's lung capacity reached near identical levels in both groups"
from a near-identical 2018 base.
You are not right, the graph does not show you to be right, and your
second sentence is not right because a vital part of it ("from a
near-identical 2018 base") is untrue and is not in fact a quote from
the text (of the article or the study),
Yes, thank you. That's why it's not in fact in quotation marks. It's an observation I made from the graph:
2018: Luton - 1400, London - 1350
2022: Luton - 2200, London - 2200
Luton improvement: 57%
London improvement: 63%
I've drawn the figures from the graph - rough but I think accurate
enough. I call a <5% variation (1400 - 1350), from an imperfect
sample, near identical. I think what you're saying is that a variation
of that size is in fact highly significant?
My experience is of social (but not clinical) data - so you may well
be right. It would have to be a very tight sample though, I'd have
thought.
and the part of it that is a quote you have utterly failed to
understand (the fact that the lung capacity of the two groups is near
identical at the end of the study shows that the London children have
improved).
So ironically the headline that you called "misleading" is nothing of
the sort, but your own claim is so misleading as to be entirely false.
Well, we appear to be looking at two completely different things
On 2026-09-27, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 23 Sep 2026 at 21:06:51 BST, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-23, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 23 Sep 2026 at 14:16:28 BST, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Why would you guess? You don't need to be an expert, you can just read >>>>> the study, where it says the children in the ULEZ zone did experience >>>>> a significantly greater increase in lung function.
It was a few percentage points better in London. If you consider that
to be statistically significant, and you know what that means in
context, I do (of course) defer.
Or you could do as I did, and defer to the study itself, which says that >>> the difference is significant.
Fair enough.
I mean, the BBC article almost literally says "it's ULEZ wot done it". >>>>> And the study was designed to test if lung function improved for
children living in the ULEZ zone and found that it did.
Yes, it does. And if you take the trouble to read my first post in
this thread, I said that the headline appears to be misleading. In
other words, I read the article and found the title misleading.
Ok. What is misleading about it? The children in the ultra low emission
zone did indeed show significant lung recovery, and the scientists did
indeed say they were "stunned".
Yes, I know. But so did both groups. So it was not *necessarily* the
case that ULEZ was the main cause - especially with Covid in the
middle of the study.
Ah. So I was right all along when I suggested that you didn't - and apparently still don't - realise that children tend to become larger
as time passes. Perhaps it's just that you didn't realise that when
the children become bigger, their lungs become bigger too? I'm sorry
if wasn't specific enough about that link.
You made poor assumptions then, because when you said that children
in Luton "showed similar improvements", you were wrong.
Well, you only need to look at the graph to see that I am right. Or
the text if you take the time to read it: "At the end of the study the >>>> children's lung capacity reached near identical levels in both groups" >>>> from a near-identical 2018 base.
You are not right, the graph does not show you to be right, and your
second sentence is not right because a vital part of it ("from a
near-identical 2018 base") is untrue and is not in fact a quote from
the text (of the article or the study),
Yes, thank you. That's why it's not in fact in quotation marks. It's an
observation I made from the graph:
2018: Luton - 1400, London - 1350
2022: Luton - 2200, London - 2200
Luton improvement: 57%
London improvement: 63%
I've drawn the figures from the graph - rough but I think accurate
enough. I call a <5% variation (1400 - 1350), from an imperfect> sample, near
identical. I think what you're saying is that a variation
of that size is in fact highly significant?
I'm saying that neither you nor I are qualified to interpret the
figures - although I'd at least know enough not to abuse statistics
like you're doing there. The experts who are qualified to interpret
the figures, in their peer-reviewed scientific paper, say that the differences are significant.
Oh, but "RJH" on Usenet, who hasn't read the paper and doesn't even
know what the figures are, thinks they might not be significant.
A dilemma indeed.
My experience is of social (but not clinical) data - so you may well
be right. It would have to be a very tight sample though, I'd have
thought.
and the part of it that is a quote you have utterly failed to
understand (the fact that the lung capacity of the two groups is near
identical at the end of the study shows that the London children have
improved).
So ironically the headline that you called "misleading" is nothing of
the sort, but your own claim is so misleading as to be entirely false.
Well, we appear to be looking at two completely different things
Yes. You're looking at a news article, I'm looking at the academic paper.
On 27 Sep 2026 at 02:06:09 BST, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-27, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:Yep.
On 23 Sep 2026 at 21:06:51 BST, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-23, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 23 Sep 2026 at 14:16:28 BST, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Why would you guess? You don't need to be an expert, you can just read >>>>>> the study, where it says the children in the ULEZ zone did experience >>>>>> a significantly greater increase in lung function.
It was a few percentage points better in London. If you consider that >>>>> to be statistically significant, and you know what that means in
context, I do (of course) defer.
Or you could do as I did, and defer to the study itself, which says that >>>> the difference is significant.
Fair enough.
I mean, the BBC article almost literally says "it's ULEZ wot done it". >>>>>> And the study was designed to test if lung function improved for
children living in the ULEZ zone and found that it did.
Yes, it does. And if you take the trouble to read my first post in
this thread, I said that the headline appears to be misleading. In
other words, I read the article and found the title misleading.
Ok. What is misleading about it? The children in the ultra low emission >>>> zone did indeed show significant lung recovery, and the scientists did >>>> indeed say they were "stunned".
Yes, I know. But so did both groups. So it was not *necessarily* the
case that ULEZ was the main cause - especially with Covid in the
middle of the study.
Ah. So I was right all along when I suggested that you didn't - and
apparently still don't - realise that children tend to become larger
as time passes. Perhaps it's just that you didn't realise that when
the children become bigger, their lungs become bigger too? I'm sorry
if wasn't specific enough about that link.
You made poor assumptions then, because when you said that children >>>>>> in Luton "showed similar improvements", you were wrong.
Well, you only need to look at the graph to see that I am right. Or
the text if you take the time to read it: "At the end of the study the >>>>> children's lung capacity reached near identical levels in both groups" >>>>> from a near-identical 2018 base.
You are not right, the graph does not show you to be right, and your
second sentence is not right because a vital part of it ("from a
near-identical 2018 base") is untrue and is not in fact a quote from
the text (of the article or the study),
Yes, thank you. That's why it's not in fact in quotation marks. It's an
observation I made from the graph:
2018: Luton - 1400, London - 1350
2022: Luton - 2200, London - 2200
Luton improvement: 57%
London improvement: 63%
I've drawn the figures from the graph - rough but I think accurate
enough. I call a <5% variation (1400 - 1350), from an imperfect> sample, near
identical. I think what you're saying is that a variation
of that size is in fact highly significant?
I'm saying that neither you nor I are qualified to interpret the
figures - although I'd at least know enough not to abuse statistics
like you're doing there. The experts who are qualified to interpret
the figures, in their peer-reviewed scientific paper, say that the
differences are significant.
Oh, but "RJH" on Usenet, who hasn't read the paper and doesn't even
know what the figures are, thinks they might not be significant.
A dilemma indeed.
My experience is of social (but not clinical) data - so you may well
be right. It would have to be a very tight sample though, I'd have
thought.
and the part of it that is a quote you have utterly failed to
understand (the fact that the lung capacity of the two groups is near
identical at the end of the study shows that the London children have
improved).
So ironically the headline that you called "misleading" is nothing of
the sort, but your own claim is so misleading as to be entirely false.
Well, we appear to be looking at two completely different things
Yes. You're looking at a news article, I'm looking at the academic paper.
Heh - so neither of us 'know'. Over to AI:
--
Question: Might it be misleading to attribute improved lung function to the ULEZ, as this article appears to do?
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(26)00163-5/fulltext
Answer:
Yes, there's a reasonable case that "improved lung function is attributable to
ULEZ" overstates what the study can support, though it's not baseless either. A few things worth weighing:
What the study actually shows
This is the CHILL study (Wood et al., Lancet Public Health, Aug 2026): a five-year natural-experiment design comparing ~3,400 children in London against a comparison group in Luton (similar traffic pollution mix, no clean air zone), tracking lung function (FEV1) and modelled NO2 exposure from 2018rCo2022. London kids started with smaller lungs than Luton kids; over the study period their lung growth trajectories caught up, and this catch-up tracked with falling NO2. That's a fairly strong observational design rCo using
a comparison site to net out general secular trends is about the best you can do without randomizing a city's air quality, and the paper's own language is appropriately hedged ("associated with," "strongly related to" rCo not "caused").
Where the "attributed to ULEZ" framing gets shakier
NO2 exposure, not ULEZ, is the actual explanatory variable in the analysis. ULEZ is one of several contributors to London's falling NO2 over 2018rCo2022 rCo
national vehicle fleet turnover (Euro 6 standards phasing in regardless of location), the pre-existing Low Emission Zone, and the congestion charge all overlapped. Crediting "ULEZ" specifically, rather than "London's air quality improved for a mix of reasons including ULEZ," is a stronger causal claim than
the pollution data alone can isolate.
Comparison-site limits. Luton is one town, much smaller than London, with a different economy and demographics. A single comparator can't rule out that London and Luton diverged for reasons unrelated to air quality (e.g., differential COVID-19 disruption to schooling/testing, differential health service access, other local policies).
Timing overlaps with the pandemic. 2020rCo2021 sits inside the study window rCo
lockdowns affected traffic, air quality, respiratory infections, and school attendance patterns in ways that could differ between London and Luton independent of ULEZ.
Media vs. paper framing. The coverage you're seeing (and quotes like Sadiq Khan's "proves we were right to act") is considerably more assertive than the paper's own causal language. That's a common gap rCo press releases and politically motivated summaries often harden "associated with" into "caused by."
Single study. It's the first study of its kind on this specific question, per the authors rCo encouraging, but not yet replicated.
None of this means the finding is wrong rCo a plausible biological mechanism (reduced NO2 raA better lung development) and a reasonably rigorous design both
point the same way, and this kind of comparison-site approach is standard practice for evaluating policies that can't be randomized. But "ULEZ improved children's lung function" compresses a more careful claim rCo "air quality improvements that occurred alongside ULEZ's introduction were associated with better lung growth trajectories" rCo into something more certain and more specifically attributed than the data alone establishes.
--
Which is pretty much what I've maintained throughout this thread.
Heh - so neither of us 'know'. Over to AI:
--
Question: Might it be misleading to attribute improved lung function to the ULEZ, as this article appears to do?
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(26)00163-5/fulltext
Answer:
Yes, there's a reasonable case that "improved lung function is attributable to
ULEZ" overstates what the study can support, though it's not baseless either. A few things worth weighing:
What the study actually shows
This is the CHILL study (Wood et al., Lancet Public Health, Aug 2026): a five-year natural-experiment design comparing ~3,400 children in London against a comparison group in Luton (similar traffic pollution mix, no clean air zone), tracking lung function (FEV1) and modelled NO2 exposure from 2018rCo2022. London kids started with smaller lungs than Luton kids; over the study period their lung growth trajectories caught up, and this catch-up tracked with falling NO2. That's a fairly strong observational design rCo using
a comparison site to net out general secular trends is about the best you can do without randomizing a city's air quality, and the paper's own language is appropriately hedged ("associated with," "strongly related to" rCo not "caused").
Where the "attributed to ULEZ" framing gets shakier
NO2 exposure, not ULEZ, is the actual explanatory variable in the analysis.
On 27/09/2026 08:15, RJH wrote:
Heh - so neither of us 'know'. Over to AI:
--
Question: Might it be misleading to attribute improved lung function to the >> ULEZ, as this article appears to do?
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(26)00163-5/fulltext
Answer:
Yes, there's a reasonable case that "improved lung function is attributable to
ULEZ" overstates what the study can support, though it's not baseless either.
A few things worth weighing:
What the study actually shows
This is the CHILL study (Wood et al., Lancet Public Health, Aug 2026): a
five-year natural-experiment design comparing ~3,400 children in London
against a comparison group in Luton (similar traffic pollution mix, no clean >> air zone), tracking lung function (FEV1) and modelled NO2 exposure from
2018rCo2022. London kids started with smaller lungs than Luton kids; over the
study period their lung growth trajectories caught up, and this catch-up
tracked with falling NO2. That's a fairly strong observational design rCo using
a comparison site to net out general secular trends is about the best you can
do without randomizing a city's air quality, and the paper's own language is >> appropriately hedged ("associated with," "strongly related to" rCo not
"caused").
Where the "attributed to ULEZ" framing gets shakier
NO2 exposure, not ULEZ, is the actual explanatory variable in the analysis.
I'm surpised your AI does not compare the fall in NO2 in both places.
On 27 Sep 2026 at 02:06:09 BST, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-27, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
I've drawn the figures from the graph - rough but I think accurate
enough. I call a <5% variation (1400 - 1350), from an imperfect>
sample, near identical. I think what you're saying is that a
variation of that size is in fact highly significant?
I'm saying that neither you nor I are qualified to interpret the
figures - although I'd at least know enough not to abuse statistics
like you're doing there. The experts who are qualified to interpret
the figures, in their peer-reviewed scientific paper, say that the
differences are significant.
Oh, but "RJH" on Usenet, who hasn't read the paper and doesn't even
know what the figures are, thinks they might not be significant.
Yep.
Well, we appear to be looking at two completely different things
Yes. You're looking at a news article, I'm looking at the academic paper.
Heh - so neither of us 'know'.
Over to AI:
You learn something new every day. I always thought Robinson
himself was actually a doctor. In fact while his father was a doctor, straitened circumstances led to Robinson leaving school at 15.
Apparently he was widely respected as Heath Minister; owing to his willingness to consult and seek advice from all quarters
An interesting typo there. You have come up with Minister Heath
Robinson.
There's always a Bright Side of Life.
On 2026-09-27, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 27 Sep 2026 at 02:06:09 BST, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-09-27, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
I've drawn the figures from the graph - rough but I think accurate
enough. I call a <5% variation (1400 - 1350), from an imperfect>
sample, near identical. I think what you're saying is that a
variation of that size is in fact highly significant?
I'm saying that neither you nor I are qualified to interpret the
figures - although I'd at least know enough not to abuse statistics
like you're doing there. The experts who are qualified to interpret
the figures, in their peer-reviewed scientific paper, say that the
differences are significant.
Oh, but "RJH" on Usenet, who hasn't read the paper and doesn't even
know what the figures are, thinks they might not be significant.
Yep.
Well, thanks for admitting you're just wasting everyone's time.
Heh - so neither of us 'know'.Well, we appear to be looking at two completely different things
Yes. You're looking at a news article, I'm looking at the academic paper. >>
I'll defer to Descartes on that one.
Over to AI:
Feeding biased questions into a bullshit-generation machine is simply
a further waste of everyone's time.
Over to AI:
Feeding biased questions into a bullshit-generation machine is simply
a further waste of everyone's time.
On 9/27/26 15:10, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Over to AI:
Feeding biased questions into a bullshit-generation machine is simply
a further waste of everyone's time.
I plugged a question into ChatGPT:
'what does "Over the follow-up period, children's FEV1 growth increased
by 10 mL/year (95% CI 5 to 15; p=0-+0002)", mean? Specifically p=0.0002?'
I got a very reasonable answer to this question.
Statistically significant has a very specific meaning which commonly misleads people.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 38:27:05 |
| Calls: | 1,196 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,354 |
| D/L today: |
17 files (19,632K bytes) |
| Messages: | 295,059 |