ULEZ London

[Specmaster]

@Cerebus
I would have thought raising a caveat would just draw attention to the very thing that you have successively raised the profile, and given that very thing more attention by simply repeating it.

As to you being blue lighted for your Asthma, I'm truly sorry for, it is no joke fighting for breath, I know only too well. Asthma is something I am hearing about less these days as the pollution levels are in decline in Europe but it is increasing in and around Africa and the less developed parts of the world. I'll leave you to form your own opinion why that is so. What I said in an earlier posting about my Asthma has disappeared, also true for my son as well who has had an inhaler or any other medication now for years.

I used to drive into London on a daily basis and on a summers' day you could see the pollution over London like a large dark mushroom cloud as I drove down the M11, do the same thing now and that is not the case at all. I think if proper research is done, it is far more likely that the car is being made the scape goat for many things. What I have noticed is that most if not all the heavy industry/engineering has moved out of London and indeed in many cases out of the country to places such as China. All the large industrial estates in London where I used to spend so much of my time, are now large retail / leisure parks and with their demise, the pollution levels have dropped dramatically.

[mnementh]

mnem
"...nothing like relaxing drive down the M25 on a warm summer's day..."

[Specmaster]

There is a new job being advertised on TFL website for people to administer the road charges being planned in both London and Coventry, yes Coventry. I did draw attention to this scheme earlier on as cameras were being erected in and around Coventry (nowhere near London, so WTF?)

This link takes you to the job description on their website and the fascinating bit is that they refer to the section of TFL as Road User Charging Unit, so is the ULEZ scheme after all a Trojan horse?

What is interesting is that the position was posted on the 9th June 2023 and applications close on June 25th 2023 or maybe even earlier??

https://tfl.taleo.net/careersection/ext ... e%2FLondon

[Cerebus]

There is a new job being advertised on TFL website for people to administer the road charges being planned in both London and Coventry, yes Coventry. I did draw attention to this scheme earlier on as cameras were being erected in and around Coventry (nowhere near London, so WTF?)

No it's not. If you read the advert it's the existing road user (not usage) charges to be administered, and they're listed as: "RUC schemes including Congestion Charging, Air Quality initiatives and Traffic Enforcement". Those not wearing tinfoil hats will note that Capita, who run much of this stuff on behalf of TfL have large offices in Coventry https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Coventry+CV6+5NX/.

[Specmaster]

There is a new job being advertised on TFL website for people to administer the road charges being planned in both London and Coventry, yes Coventry. I did draw attention to this scheme earlier on as cameras were being erected in and around Coventry (nowhere near London, so WTF?)

No it's not. If you read the advert it's the existing road user (not usage) charges to be administered, and they're listed as: "RUC schemes including Congestion Charging, Air Quality initiatives and Traffic Enforcement". Those not wearing tinfoil hats will note that Capita, who run much of this stuff on behalf of TfL have large offices in Coventry https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Coventry+CV6+5NX/.

Well, I certainly hope that your take on it is correct, but it does not read as London or Coventry are the interview locations as it also states that there may be visits to other TFL locations as required, which I think maybe the locations where the applicants would be based at.

The other thing that makes me dubious is the phrasing of the job description, "Whilst supporting the effective management of performance across all RUC schemes including Congestion Charging, Air Quality initiatives and Traffic Enforcement and focusing on protecting income, excellent customer service and strong operational performance."

A simple statement like "Whilst supporting the effective management of performance of the Congestion Charging, Air Quality initiatives and Traffic Enforcement and focusing on protecting income, excellent customer service and strong operational performance." Would remove all ambiguity, so I suspect that there are other facets to this.

We will know the answer one way or another in due course, but one thing we can all be certain of is the current free ride of EV drivers will be drawing to close soon as they rely on the VED revenue to finance other services.

[Cerebus]

The other thing that makes me dubious is the phrasing of the job description, "Whilst supporting the effective management of performance across all RUC schemes including Congestion Charging, Air Quality initiatives and Traffic Enforcement and focusing on protecting income, excellent customer service and strong operational performance."

A simple statement like "Whilst supporting the effective management of performance of the Congestion Charging, Air Quality initiatives and Traffic Enforcement and focusing on protecting income, excellent customer service and strong operational performance." Would remove all ambiguity, so I suspect that there are other facets to this.

I think that William of Occam would have just said that they were not writing the job description to be completely unambiguous in the face of a paranoid forensic analysis of the text; just as the writers of the books of the bible weren't writing them with a mind to avoiding analysis by biblical numerologists to extract non-existent esoteric meanings from them.

[Specmaster]

Hmm, I thought that air quality in central London was supposed to be really bad and hazardous to ones health. This is certainly true if you are using the underground network but is not true on the surface, even when standing right in the middle of some of the worst junctions. This is admittedly within the existing ULEZ zone so it could be that the offending vehicles are not entering into the zone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n01GckFEkck

Lets wait for part 2 of this video which will be filmed outside of this zone and will in the area of the proposed expansion zone, so lets see if the air there is worse or not, my guess is that it will be far better than that in the centre. If that is true than we are it would seem, being lied to big time, but lets wait for that video and see if my prediction is correct or not.

[bd139]

One Youtuber does not an academic study make...

Please please please read this and then come back and ask is the method and analysis valid? https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1846681111/

[Specmaster]

One Youtuber does not an academic study make...

Please please please read this and then come back and ask is the method and analysis valid? https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1846681111/

I hear what you say BD139 and maybe BD140 as well but he does actually in this part 2 video stand right next door to the official air monitoring station on the North Circular Road outside Ikea (your favourite place and his device is almost identical to the live data from that monitoring station which is available online (link here https://aqicn.org/city/united-kingdom/brent-ikea/) and I must say based on the findings of this un-scientific test, the ULEZ zone is not really valid as the air monitoring data shows. There is one such monitoring site right slap bang in the middle of Victoria Park in Tower Hamlets which is reading the maximum of 500 (Hazardous) now how can that be correct, there is no road near it, just a sports stadium?

Even standing right on the flight path of Heathrow Airport, at Hatton Cross with planes landing overhead, the meter remained firmly in the green safe zone, and looking at the other monitoring stations especially the ones within the disputed areas of Greater London, like Essex etc it is still well within the green zone, even other Cities, Like Chelmsford, Birmingham etc are well down below 20 which is in the green zone.

It seems looking at the data which is out there if we look for it, that these so called Zones are really just a money grab exercise. I shall be watching this live data stream for air quality with great interest, but it does seem to have all the hall marks of other authorities who repeat a lie often enough and others believe it as well We really should be expecting better things from our so called leaders then what we getting, it sums precisely where this country is at as a result of believing repeated lies, for years and years and the people fall for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QJpRrztcDM

[bd139]

Lets throw some flaws in your argument:

1. Were the assumptions of the model defined and normalised across all data sources? No
2. Was the device calibrated against the same reference as the monitoring station? No
3. Is the collection process exactly the same and from the same location? No
4. Is one data point enough to build a hypothesis on? No
5. Was the conclusion backed up with testing? No
6. Was the conclusion independently validated? No

Red flags and biases:

1. Does it align with your pre-existing predjudice evidence in the communicating participant. Yes
2. Does it simplify arguments beyond reasonable scientific study. Yes
3. Does the person presenting the argument have an interest in the results. Yes

This is not science, it's bollocks. You've fallen for non-objective bollocks. Stop watching youtube and parroting this shit for fucks sake and go read a book.

Your argument is based on finding views that match your predefined conclusion and repeating them.

And I haven't even considered the argument being made, just the flaws in it! The problem doesn't even affect you either. It's just another damn polarizing opinion some shitty wankers have leveraged to get clicks and followers

[tggzzz]

This is not science, it's bollocks. You've fallen for non-objective bollocks. Stop watching youtube and parroting this shit for fucks sake and go read a book.

In this context can I strongly recommend Tim Harford's "How To Make The World add Up" (my emphasis)

In How to Make the World Add Up, Tim Harford draws on his experience as both an economist and presenter of the BBC's radio show 'More or Less'. He takes us deep into the world of disinformation and obfuscation, bad research and misplaced motivation to find those priceless jewels of data and analysis that make communicating with numbers worthwhile. Harford's characters range from the art forger who conned the Nazis to the stripper who fell in love with the most powerful congressman in Washington, to famous data detectives such as John Maynard Keynes, Daniel Kahneman and Florence Nightingale. He reveals how we can evaluate the claims that surround us with confidence, curiosity and a healthy level of scepticism.

Using ten simple rules for understanding numbers - plus one golden rule - this extraordinarily insightful book shows how if we keep our wits about us, thinking carefully about the way numbers are sourced and presented, we can look around us and see with crystal clarity how the world adds up.

For those abroad, "More or Less" is one of the best Radio 4 programmes, which examines the extent of truth/falsehoods in various numerical claims found in newspapers, TV, radio.

[Cerebus]

There is one such monitoring site right slap bang in the middle of Victoria Park in Tower Hamlets which is reading the maximum of 500 (Hazardous) now how can that be correct, there is no road near it, just a sports stadium?

It helps if you know what you're talking about. Vicky Park has Victoria Park Road, a slow busy road running for a mile along one long side, on the other long side it has Old Ford Road, another slow busy road, and finally the A12 running across the end of it. Then just down from Old Ford Road is Roman Road, yup another slow, busy road. That is not "no road near it". Grove Road even cuts through the middle of the park. It's a bloody busy area.

[Specmaster]

Because things are published in a book, it does not automatically mean that the all the information contained/presented within it is correct. I keep an open mind on things and also very capable of changing my mind if new evidence comes along to suggest that things aren't as clear cut as I had previously thought but I have to say that so far I have not seen anyone attempting to prove that the air quality is as dire as the London Mayor is claiming.

I live in Essex and have previously suffered from Chronic Asthma and used to have to carry one of these inhalers with me everywhere and they would normally last about a week as I had to use them several times a day in order to breathe. Not just this instant relief type of inhaler either, but also a brown one which dispensed steroids in a spray to help prevent the attacks from happening so often. As you can see from the photo, there is no canister in the inhaler and there hasn't been for years now and I had asthma for over 30 years but as the air has been cleaned up over the years I have not had an attack for over 15 years, so I actually do know that the air quality is vastly improved over what it was and any AQI reading of 50 and below is rated as good.

Looking on the live data map of the UK, almost all areas are in the green, well below AQI index of 50 but in Wales right be the Tata steel works on the coast it is high as 73 which is moderate, and having been down their myself and in the steel works before I retired, the area stinks and I believe that the prime reason way the air is vastly improved is because most of the real heavy industrial areas have mostly shut, including those in London, they are these days large retail parks or been demolished to and housing built on them, even Battersea Power station is now a residential area.

[bd139]

Because things are published in a book, it does not automatically mean that the all the information contained/presented within it is correct. I keep an open mind on things and also very capable of changing my mind if new evidence comes along to suggest that things aren't as clear cut as I had previously thought but I have to say that so far I have not seen anyone attempting to prove that the air quality is as dire as the London Mayor is claiming.

When suggested to read a book it's more a notion of you should really understand what you're talking about before you start talking about it with authority. In this case, the YouTuber in question speaks with authority but the audience, yourself included, is naive regarding the validity of the study and methodology. I would suggest that you go and read a book about statistics and then apply that knowledge to what is being promoted and take a fair rational view of it. It will open your eyes.

Books > YouTube

I live in Essex and have previously suffered from Chronic Asthma and used to have to carry one of these inhalers with me everywhere and they would normally last about a week as I had to use them several times a day in order to breathe. Not just this instant relief type of inhaler either, but also a brown one which dispensed steroids in a spray to help prevent the attacks from happening so often. As you can see from the photo, there is no canister in the inhaler and there hasn't been for years now and I had asthma for over 30 years but as the air has been cleaned up over the years I have not had an attack for over 15 years, so I actually do know that the air quality is vastly improved over what it was and any AQI reading of 50 and below is rated as good.

Been there, got that t-shirt. When I was living in rural Essex! Notably I don't have or need one now in London. There may be other factors past correlation.

Looking on the live data map of the UK, almost all areas are in the green, well below AQI index of 50 but in Wales right be the Tata steel works on the coast it is high as 73 which is moderate, and having been down their myself and in the steel works before I retired, the area stinks and I believe that the prime reason way the air is vastly improved is because most of the real heavy industrial areas have mostly shut, including those in London, they are these days large retail parks or been demolished to and housing built on them, even Battersea Power station is now a residential area.

That's a reasonable hypothesis. But completely irrelevant to the point.

[Specmaster]

There is one such monitoring site right slap bang in the middle of Victoria Park in Tower Hamlets which is reading the maximum of 500 (Hazardous) now how can that be correct, there is no road near it, just a sports stadium?

It helps if you know what you're talking about. Vicky Park has Victoria Park Road, a slow busy road running for a mile along one long side, on the other long side it has Old Ford Road, another slow busy road, and finally the A12 running across the end of it. Then just down from Old Ford Road is Roman Road, yup another slow, busy road. That is not "no road near it". Grove Road even cuts through the middle of the park. It's a bloody busy area.

I do indeed know what I'm talking about Vicky Park was on my out of London daily when I was dealing with the engineering consultants in and around the City Centre 5 days a week so I'm very familiar with it and Victoria Road only runs adjacent to it on the NW side for half a mile, Old Ford Road, runs along the southern side for 0.3 mile, the A12 runs on the eastern side for 0.4 mile and Grove Road runs across the bottom 25% of the park for 0.3 miles between Old Ford Road and does indeed eventually connect to Victoria Road after running through a housing estate. Yes this area can and does get very busy at times of the day but not at the present moment and live traffic data shows very light traffic and the A12 is almost empty looking on traffic cameras but the Air Quality monitoring station is showing a reading off 500 the maximum reading, it is located in the middle of the park, some 500yds away from any of these roads. I therefore suggest that the station is broken. As shown in the video, just moving along the footbridge to about 40 yds from the North Circular the reading on the handheld meter dropped to AQI of 6 and while standing directly above 3 lanes of traffic it was reading AQI of 12. That suggests that Vicky Park should also be well within the Good zone.

I actually welcome any other evidence that contradicts the evidence shown in the video, in fact given the politicians past record with regard to telling the truth I'm inclined to believe things like this that can be seen and are anybody is able to get one of those meters and go and do their own tests and see the results themselves. If someone can restore my faith in what politicians tell me, I'd welcome it, as we should be able to trust what they tell us, but recent events are proving otherwise, do you disagree with that statement?

I have said on many occasions I don't believe in conspiracy theories even if some of the YTubers appear to, I do not automatically dismiss everything that they have to say as BS, except however, that twit who was claiming that 5G was a flaming weapon and that anybody who was vaccinated against Covid was going to be exposed to Bill Gates death rays etc via 5G and also LED street lights, his claim for that was a 500V electrolytic capacitor in the LED driver FFS.

[bd139]

I have said on many occasions I don't believe in conspiracy theories even if some of the YTubers appear to, I do not automatically dismiss everything that they have to say as BS, except however, that twit who was claiming that 5G was a flaming weapon and that anybody who was vaccinated against Covid was going to be exposed to Bill Gates death rays etc via 5G and also LED street lights, his claim for that was a 500V electrolytic capacitor in the LED driver FFS.

The people doing these trite "analysis" videos are no better and are just as dangerous. They both influence opinion and policy without the data or analysis skills to back up the assertion.

[tggzzz]

I have said on many occasions I don't believe in conspiracy theories even if some of the YTubers appear to, I do not automatically dismiss everything that they have to say as BS, except however, that twit who was claiming that 5G was a flaming weapon and that anybody who was vaccinated against Covid was going to be exposed to Bill Gates death rays etc via 5G and also LED street lights, his claim for that was a 500V electrolytic capacitor in the LED driver FFS.

The people doing these trite "analysis" videos are no better and are just as dangerous. They both influence opinion and policy without the data or analysis skills to back up the assertion.

Some will be paid shills (I believe "influencer" is the modern term), some will be useful fools, some will be Dunning Krueger exemplars, some will have mental problems, and a vanishingly small proportion will be good.

But hey, "my opinion is just as valid as your opinion", and "don't trust me, do your own research".

[Cerebus]

I do indeed know what I'm talking about Vicky Park was on my out of London daily when I was dealing with the engineering consultants in and around the City Centre 5 days a week so I'm very familiar with it and Victoria Road only runs adjacent to it on the NW side for half a mile, Old Ford Road, runs along the southern side for 0.3 mile, the A12 runs on the eastern side for 0.4 mile and Grove Road runs across the bottom 25% of the park for 0.3 miles between Old Ford Road and does indeed eventually connect to Victoria Road after running through a housing estate.

Here, exactly, is where confirmation bias is twisting your results. All the roads named run the whole width of the park or height of the park, about 1 mile along the width, 1/4 to 1/3 of a mile in height. You're excluding the bits of the road that aren't physically immediately adjacent but are separated by a few 10s of yards at most by minor roads. Pollution won't make that distinction, being airborne. What's the thesis here, things that will actually affect pollution or things that will allow you to claim pollution data isn't valid because there "there is no road near it", to quote your justification for discarding the measured figures offhand?

Yes this area can and does get very busy at times of the day but not at the present moment and live traffic data shows very light traffic and the A12 is almost empty looking on traffic cameras but the Air Quality monitoring station is showing a reading off 500 the maximum reading, it is located in the middle of the park, some 500yds away from any of these roads.

Looking at the camera feeds and perhaps a quick look at google's traffic map isn't exactly a scientific measure of traffic flow. What's the actual flow in vehicle tonnes per hour? What was it half an hour ago, an hour, two hours, What's the integration time of the polution readings? What's the half-life/dispresal rate of the measured pollutants?

Why do you think the 500 yards makes a difference? The local bakery is more than 500 yards from my house. I can tell when they are baking bread, and when they've got a batch of samosa on the go. I invite you to consider the mechanism whereby gases and vapours travel through the air. Would you feel safe in the middle of Vicky Park if the surrounding major roads were releasing something immediately fatal such as a war gas? No, of course you wouldn't. So why dismiss the obvious case that being closely surrounded on three sides by major roads means that the middle of Vicky Park will be significantly affected by pollution from those roads?

I therefore suggest that the station is broken. As shown in the video, just moving along the footbridge to about 40 yds from the North Circular the reading on the handheld meter dropped to AQI of 6 and while standing directly above 3 lanes of traffic it was reading AQI of 12. That suggests that Vicky Park should also be well within the Good zone.

What's the make, model, and serial number of this "handheld" meter? Who calibrated it, when is it out of calibration, is the calibration traceable to national standards? What other readings are available from other calibrated, traceable instruments to provide collateral evidence that this isn't the equivalent of a Friday afternoon DT-350? Do we have a method statement for these measurements? Do we know that accords with accepted metrological practices?

I just can't comprehend your credulity that some bloke on the Internet has comprehensively debunked the professionally monitored pollution monitoring network in London. The London network is scrutinised by many people, the data and methodologies are looked at by many independent researchers into air pollution, but one bloke with a handheld AQI meter of unknown provenance, reliability and validity has proven it all a sham? If we were hearing quotes like "Professor so-and-so, professor of environmental science at respectable institution says in his paper in the July 2022 edition of Environmental science : blah, blah, blah" we might give them some credence, but [Jasper Carrot voice] "He's got a meter" is scant evidence. Have you even tried to find evidence in the traditional scientific literature to support these claims that the whole London air quality monitoring network is bunkum?

Whenever I encounter this kind of stuff, whoever I encounter it from, I can't help noticing the refrain "video", "video", "video", "have you watched the video" getting trotted out in a fashion that is, to me at least, highly reminiscent of the "holy book", "holy book", "holy book", "have you read the holy book" refrain you'll hear from converts of all religions/cults/new-age fads/radical political movements.

(In this regard I feel the need to make full disclosure of my own religious affiliations and that I am a fully paid up member of the cult of "The Temple of the Midnight Bimbos". Motto: "once a bimbo, always a bimbo". Founder and High Priestess: Caroline Robertson, Wicked Witch of the South.)

[Specmaster]

I’m really struggling to understand just why it is that some of you are just swallowing the BS that is being put out by our so-called leaders without questioning it. The ULEZ is just one example, do some research of your own, you seem to ignore the Y tubers as rubbish, which to be fair many are, but some are not and they do have some golden nuggets.

You also dismiss evidence that is there in front of your own eyes, oh no, how silly of me, I forgot that many dismiss the videos and will not watch them and yet are fully prepared to rubbish them, even when they are presenting some evidence that present scientific studies by well-known and respected intuitions which goes completely unnoticed because of the CBA factor.

Case in point the official air quality monitoring website is constantly live and worldwide and gives data for the last 48 hours and the results even in the most congested time periods of the local ones which I’m looking at (UK) are by and large firmly within the green safe zone, and it is these same monitoring stations that ULEZ expansion is based on when it can be clearly seen the figures do not support the claim that air quality in London is bad except in a handful of locations and further research of these locations would also reveal why that is, and a few simple steps could resolve that situation as well.

Same as the question about the handheld meter, when was it calibrated etc, or the distance from the roads to the monitoring location, many of these questions can be found from a few mouse clicks and with regard to the calibration the guy is actually standing next to a monitoring station and clearly shows you the reading on the handheld and live data from the monitoring station on his phone, the readings were both low well within the safe zone and only disagreed by 2 digits out of a scale of 0 to 500 so is perfectly acceptable. If it was way out of step and the handheld meter showed safe and official station showed moderate for example then I’d be questioning the calibration but when they are so close.
Guys don’t shoot the messenger, who may be the only person who has NOT fallen for a web of deceit, why not if you want to show me that I may have it wrong when I’m trying to sound an alarm to prevent the pied piper leading us all like rats to a place we won’t like, try to show me evidence to the contrary, as I’ve always claimed, my mind is open, that’s how we learn is it not?
I post below 3 tables, one shows the air quality ratings and any precautions that vulnerable people need to be aware of, another shows the various countries worldwide and look at the worst offenders, top of the list is India and haven’t we just signed a trade deal with India, and doesn’t that stand likely to make their pollution levels possibly higher? And other shows the air quality for the London area including the areas that Sadiq Khan wants to expand the ULEZ to which are already firmly planted well within the no risk category, so why does he need to expand the zone to those areas?
Fun fact, it has been proven by some German scientists and I did post this a few years back on EEV blog that showed that these monitoring stations are often located in a totally unrepresentative locations, and even then they discovered that those of us who use gas for heating and cooking are exposed to levels of 51 to 150 in our own homes and would be safer to stand by a major highway.

Air quality table.jpg

world rankings.jpg

London area.jpg

[Cerebus]

The air quality measurements were apparently taken with a ELITech TemTop LKC-1000S+. This is available for £109.99 from [Note affiliate link, the video maker gets a cut] https://www.elitecheu.com/products/temt ... id=Shahzad), complete with massive 11 page manual which makes no mention whatsoever of the accuracy of the instrument or of what standards it was traceably calibrated to.

Here, of all places, the absence of any specifications whatsoever for the accuracy of this "instrument" speaks volumes.

There I've "done my own research" and concluded that this is complete and utter bullshit from someone who has even less idea than I have how to take reliable air quality measurements.

[Specmaster]

The air quality measurements were apparently taken with a ELITech TemTop LKC-1000S+. This is available for £109.99 from [Note affiliate link, the video maker gets a cut] https://www.elitecheu.com/products/temt ... id=Shahzad), complete with massive 11 page manual which makes no mention whatsoever of the accuracy of the instrument or of what standards it was traceably calibrated to.

Here, of all places, the absence of any specifications whatsoever for the accuracy of this "instrument" speaks volumes.

There I've "done my own research" and concluded that this is complete and utter bullshit from someone who has even less idea than I have how to take reliable air quality measurements.

A 2 less significant digit difference does not equate to a reasonable enough transfer standard for comparison for you, this is against a supposed lab grade instrument really If your research is just purely based on inability of finding any calibration data for the meter then it is pretty clear that you have closed your mind to anything other then what the PTB tell you. Have we not learned anything from the last 4 years? I remember when they were trying to get people to convert over to diesel and they got that wrong didn't they, but have never ever admitted it nor have they ever apologised to those people who made the switch.

[Cerebus]

The air quality measurements were apparently taken with a ELITech TemTop LKC-1000S+. This is available for £109.99 from [Note affiliate link, the video maker gets a cut] https://www.elitecheu.com/products/temt ... id=Shahzad), complete with massive 11 page manual which makes no mention whatsoever of the accuracy of the instrument or of what standards it was traceably calibrated to.

Here, of all places, the absence of any specifications whatsoever for the accuracy of this "instrument" speaks volumes.

There I've "done my own research" and concluded that this is complete and utter bullshit from someone who has even less idea than I have how to take reliable air quality measurements.

A 2 less significant digit difference does not equate to a reasonable enough transfer standard for comparison for you, this is against a supposed lab grade instrument really If your research is just purely based on inability of finding any calibration data for the meter then it is pretty clear that you have closed your mind to anything other then what the PTB tell you. Have we not learned anything from the last 4 years? I remember when they were trying to get people to convert over to diesel and they got that wrong didn't they, but have never ever admitted it nor have they ever apologised to those people who made the switch.

It literally has no accuracy specifications. How can you even pretend to offer up any claims about it's accuracy based on one reading where it agrees with the official stations, and then use it to "prove" the inaccuracy of the official results. You can't have it both ways.

Instruments agreeing at ONE POINT does not even prove anything other than that one point. A single point does not describe anything other than a single point - it doesn't describe any line, curve, or even surface.

I don't give a DAMN what PTB (sic) say. I'm not having an argument about the ins and outs of ULEZ, ULEZ is not the point here. We're talking here about basic metrology, logic and science. About nothing more that what it requires to take accurate, valid measurements. With your education and experience you should know at least the basics of that stuff, but you seem to be happy to throw all that away in your cult like pursuit of the 'truth' about ULEZ. Our minds are not closed, it's just that we have a basic requirement here for reason and good scientific method to be used. It is NOT close minded to say "There is a right way of making measurements", or "There is a right way to design scientific experiments to eliminate bias", or to say "Joe Blow who walks in with an AQI meter he bought off the Internet that has no accuracy specification and who has no idea what a sampling plan is, is wildly unlikely to be producing valid, repeatable measurements".

You've lost the plot mate, completely. If it was a case of several of the experienced engineers here making a set of measurements with calibrated, traceable, quality DMMs and cross checking their measurements, versus some newbie with the £10 Chinese DMM of the month, I would hope you would still side with the experienced engineers as being infinitely more likely to be right. Yet on this one issue you've decided to side with the newbie with a £100 AQI meter because he's a member of your political faction. Does that seem sane to you?

[Specmaster]

It literally has no accuracy specifications. How can you even pretend to offer up any claims about it's accuracy based on one reading where it agrees with the official stations, and then use it to "prove" the inaccuracy of the official results. You can't have it both ways.

Instruments agreeing at ONE POINT does not even prove anything other than that one point. A single point does not describe anything other than a single point - it doesn't describe any line, curve, or even surface.

Nope, I'm not even arguing that the meter is accurate, I know full well that that meter is not going to be fully calibrated anywhere near to the degree that ones used in those monitoring stations are, but it is close enough to provide a pretty good indicator on the general standard of the air, I'm not a stupid wingnut.

That meter is a brand new one supplied to the video maker by the dealer so it would be as it left the factory and therefore could be relied upon to provide a pretty good indication. Looking at the readings on the live data map, even the readings he obtained at Heathrow do bear some resemblance to the official figures in Heathrow, which is still firmly planted well within the green and safe regions of quality standards on both official equipment and that cheap meter, so come on surely you can see that is a reasonable means to check if what is being claimed for the existence of the expansion of ULEZ is actually anywhere to being valid or not?

My whole thrust in this discussion is not how bloody marvellous this cheap air meter thingy is but that, we are being lied to about the reasons for the entire ULEZ scheme in the first place.

As my late father used to say, one day they will find a way to tax us for the air we breathe, and this is getting perilously close to that. This song he said is how we will end up, deep in debt to the PTB.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1980WfKC0o

[Cerebus]

Nope, I'm not even arguing that the meter is accurate, I know full well that that meter is not going to be fully calibrated anywhere near to the degree that ones used in those monitoring stations are, but it is close enough to provide a pretty good indicator on the general standard of the air, I'm not a stupid wingnut.

You go "I'm not arguing that the meter is accurate" ... "but it is close enough to provide a pretty good indicator". So you're saying it's not accurate and it's accurate enough in the same sentence. Doesn't contradicting yourself ring alarm bells in the back of your mind?

How do you know it is accurate enough? You have no specification, no evidence whatsoever to conclude that is it 'accurate enough'. If you don't have data, if you don't have evidence, then all you have is faith, and faith ain't science, it's religion (or politics, the two are frequently indistinguishable).

I'll take you back to what Chris had to say about confirmation bias, you want to believe so you quietly discard all the evidence that screams "this is not to be trusted".

Lets throw some flaws in your argument:

1. Were the assumptions of the model defined and normalised across all data sources? No
2. Was the device calibrated against the same reference as the monitoring station? No
3. Is the collection process exactly the same and from the same location? No
4. Is one data point enough to build a hypothesis on? No
5. Was the conclusion backed up with testing? No
6. Was the conclusion independently validated? No

Red flags and biases:

1. Does it align with your pre-existing predjudice evidence in the communicating participant. Yes
2. Does it simplify arguments beyond reasonable scientific study. Yes
3. Does the person presenting the argument have an interest in the results. Yes

This is not science, it's bollocks. You've fallen for non-objective bollocks. Stop watching youtube and parroting this shit for fucks sake and go read a book.

Your argument is based on finding views that match your predefined conclusion and repeating them.

And I haven't even considered the argument being made, just the flaws in it! [my emphasis] The problem doesn't even affect you either. It's just another damn polarizing opinion some shitty wankers have leveraged to get clicks and followers

[bd139]

Specmaster. Recommendation:

1. Shelve your ideology.
2. Work through this rather than some fuckwit on YT: https://www.khanacademy.org/math/statistics-probability
3. Particularly concentrate on the study design unit.
4. Bathe in your newfound rational ability to reason on data rather than treat naive assumptions by fuckwits as verbatim facts.

If you prefer paper, OU M140 is a good chunk of paper to slug through but do MU123 first: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/155624441045