- cross-posted to:
- fuck_cars@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- fuck_cars@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
This is the third study in the last week that shows just how wrongheaded the government is to pursue supposedly ‘pro-motorist’ policies.
Please inform me how the government is being pro motorist with things like ULEZ popping up in all major cities, constant narrowing of roads in place of cycle lanes and constant reductions of speed limits everywhere, and road tax and insurance constantly rising. It’s becoming incredibly expensive to be a motorist in the UK.
As discussed in this article, the government is busily ignoring its own reports and its own advisers. Instead, they’re trying to make it harder to implement life-saving policies like ULEZ, LTNs and 20mph zones, and even trying to make it harder for councils to fine motorists who break the law (more great stuff from ‘the party of law and order’!).
There’s no such thing as road tax, but full duty, which motorists do pay, has not risen. It’s been frozen for, I think, 14 years. Hunt froze it again the Budget just the other day! There may be other car-specific taxes I’m not aware of and you’re sort of right that the overall tax burden has increased, but I don’t know how much that applies to motorists specifically.
EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to add: there’s one important sense in which clean air policies benefit motorists more than anybody, because the people most exposed to air pollution are people in cars. So, proven effective clean air policies like ULEZ certainly benefit motorists’ health, which is why I described the government’s new strategy as ‘supposedly’ pro-motorist. Not sure you can describe a policy to make people breathe poisonous air as ‘pro’ that group!
Even if you build a school in an area of low pollution, the number of parents I see leaving their car idling whilst dropping off their kids is mind blowing.
The number who think it’s okay to park on the zigzags because they left their hazards on is similarly incredible.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
An analysis has found that almost nine in 10 planned new school sites exceed three World Health Organization (WHO) targets on major air pollutants.
The study, published in the journal Archives of Disease in Childhood, suggests thousands of children enrolling at the new schools face a major threat to their health because of their greater susceptibility to the effects of air pollution.
The WHO global air quality guidelines (AQG) set out numerical targets for annual exposure to major pollutants, including small particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).
Pollutant levels were particularly high at sites in London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, while those in other large cities, including Liverpool, Bristol and Newcastle, were relatively low.
The researchers acknowledged that they used annual averages to estimate air pollution levels at the new school sites, and that more granular data, incorporating different times of day and seasonality, would provide a more detailed picture.
“Unless current recommendations are replaced with mandatory standards, it is unlikely that those proposing or designing new schools will make these assessments unless there is an individual already involved in the process who is both well-informed and passionate about reducing the impact of pollution.”
The original article contains 557 words, the summary contains 196 words. Saved 65%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
