ULEZ London

[tggzzz]

This is about air pollution. There is fairly rigorous analysis of excess deaths caused by pollution in London.

The way to prevent this is to tax people for bad behaviour to both fund the schemes and make untenable behaviour unaffordable.

There is no conspiracy other than a lot of people not wanting to be told what to do because they don't give a fuck if it inconveniences them. I can see a lot of that in this thread.

I'm not so sure, it is, under the FOI scheme, it was declared that in 20 years, there has only been 1 recorded death attributed to air pollution in London. Add to this, that in a few years time, new cars have to EV, and also that many manufactures are now dropping some cars from their range and the replacements, are all EV's and this is happening now, then by default the pollution is being reduced all the time.

That's an unconvincing argument. I would expect that air pollution would contribute to the cause of death, but only the primary reason for death be recorded on the death certificate. Example: emphysema on the certificate, but smoking 80/day not recorded on the certificate.

There are many ways in which air pollution can screwup people's lives without causing death.

It would also make a lot of sense to remove obstacles to the flow of traffic, so vehicles spend less time idling in jams. It seems to be the case that these days there are more restrictions on roads, speed bumps, cycle lanes, traffic-calming measures, 20mph zones, it is a fact engines produce more pollutants at low speeds. Another way to help the position, is to make sure that the workers actually have way more disposable money in their pockets, and then many will make the switch to newer, cleaner, more reliable and therefore less expensive cars to run, automatically, and that would improve everyone's standard of living at the same time.

I've yet to see a decent analysis of how 20mph zones, traffic calming and other mechanisms will reduce overall pollution.

By what measure do engines at low speed produce more pollutants? How does that measure relate to driving in city centres, cf suburban driving.

Considering 20mph zones in cities....
They are indeed a minor pain.
A lot of the fuel in congested city centres is used while stationary: the 20mph limit doesn't change that.
Accelerating from 0 to 30mph uses 2.25* the fuel/pollution that accelerating from 0 to 20mph does; (³⁰/₂₀)² and all that.
Badly maintained diesels visibly emit much more filth when accelerating.
I can noticeably reduce pollution (i.e. increase mpg averaged over a journey) in my local city by reducing the number of accelerations and coasting at 20mph to the next holdup.

Thus handwaving indicates it a isn't simple one-sided calculation.

[Specmaster]

That's an unconvincing argument. I would expect that air pollution would contribute to the cause of death, but only the primary reason for death be recorded on the death certificate. Example: emphysema on the certificate, but smoking 80/day not recorded on the certificate.

There are many ways in which air pollution can screwup people's lives without causing death.

Agreed, smoking, alcohol, drugs, even coffee have a negative effect on people's health but I don't see any signs of a massive crack down on these. Poorly maintained diesels, and petrol engines for that matter, should all be weeded out by the annual MOT tests.

The best way of improving air quality is to make public transport, better and more affordable so people can elect to use that whenever possible because it rewards them in the pocket, no parking fees or hassle, no risk of picking up a fine on the way. Thus only using the car when there is no suitable PT available that goes where you want to go.

You need a carrot, not a stick to change peoples habits.

[bd139]

Smoking and alcohol are heavily taxed to fund the NHS and discourage bad behaviour which is exactly what is happening here. NHS has been running schemes to get people off both. And drugs are illegal. They literally raided someone's house over the road from me the other day. I don't know how you even came to that conclusion!?

Regarding the 20mph thing, it was not about emissions at all. Someone said there might be benefits to it and this escalated via meta-studies into a possible benefit which was an easy tick box. This was then latched on to propagandists and papers and promoted as a bollocks metric to excuse people who were annoyed about doing 20mph in a former 30mph limit. Which is exactly what is being quoted here by your good selves.

Really it's about survivability in an accident. 20mph zones are usually in very high population density areas. In perspective, from a UK DOT analysis:

20mph -> fatality rate is 5%.
30mph -> fatality rate is 45%
40mph -> fatality rate is 95%

That's a big difference for a little bit of inconvenience.

You need a stick and you need to beat people with it to change. Or we're all fucked.

This is a completely separate issue to the ULEZ which is usually used to reframe the discussion by people who can't tell the difference between two separate issues or treat them independently.

[AVGresponding]

Emissions at 20mph vs 30mph is not as simple as that. It depends a lot on the gearing. If your gearing allows for optimal revs at 20, then fine, but if not, then it can easily be worse.
As for economy, in simplistic terms and ignoring acceleration, the fastest you can go, closest to optimal revs, and without going fast enough to incur aero losses, is best, which for modern cars is probably somewhere between 40-50mph.

As for safety, I put it to you this way; would you rather step out in front of me, doing 30mph, or a modern driver who is probably paying more attention to their phone than the road, doing 20mph?

[tggzzz]

Emissions at 20mph vs 30mph is not as simple as that. It depends a lot on the gearing. If your gearing allows for optimal revs at 20, then fine, but if not, then it can easily be worse.

I didn't mention travelling at 20/30mph. I discussed accelerating from 0mph to those speeds. In a city centre travelling at 30mph is good going (20mph near me )

In a typical car, accelerating 0->30mph uses as much fuel as travelling ~0.75km at 30mph. ( http://withouthotair.com/cA/page_256.shtml )
So “city-driving” is dominated by kinetic energy and braking if the distance between stops is less than 750 m. Under these conditions, it’s a good
idea, if you want to save energy:
- to reduce the mass of your car;
- to get a car with regenerative brakes (which roughly halve the energy lost in braking – see Chapter 20); and
- to drive more slowly.

As for economy, in simplistic terms and ignoring acceleration, the fastest you can go, closest to optimal revs, and without going fast enough to incur aero losses, is best, which for modern cars is probably somewhere between 40-50mph.

As for safety, I put it to you this way; would you rather step out in front of me, doing 30mph, or a modern driver who is probably paying more attention to their phone than the road, doing 20mph?

Pedestrians here pay more attention to their phone than traffic. I have yet to see one to jump off the ground when they finally realise where they are, but it is a close thing.

Without better information, my rule of thumb is that on the flat and still air, the best fuel consumption in a petrol car is at 2000-2500pm in top gear. That's irrelevant driving in city centres; acceleration dominates

[tggzzz]

You need a stick and you need to beat people with it to change. Or we're all fucked.

You can get more with a stick and a carrot than with a stick alone. The carrot has to be large enough to be worth eating.

[bd139]

You need a stick and you need to beat people with it to change. Or we're all fucked.

You can get more with a stick and a carrot than with a stick alone. The carrot has to be large enough to be worth eating.

Unlikely to work. People only react to significant problems or changes somewhere around 30 seconds after they have happened.

Perhaps a pig board is a better analogy

[bd139]

Without better information, my rule of thumb is that on the flat and still air, the best fuel consumption in a petrol car is at 2000-2500pm in top gear. That's irrelevant driving in city centres; acceleration dominates

My car tells me which is the most efficient gear to be in at any time. It depends on the torque ratio between the engine and the wheels and the RPM.

Anyway this is a meta-discussion which leads back to the main point: The best thing is not driving a piece of shit slowly around a city in traffic which is exactly what the ULEZ is stopping people from doing.

The ULEZ is a process that will slowly pressure the worst cars off the road. The emissions ratings will be compressed slowly so as not to hurt people too badly. Eventually it'll be nearly impossible to drive anything other than an EV in the city. That's the stick, which is a light tapping on the backside for now. Lots of people are complaining about getting a thwack for their bad behaviour.

[Specmaster]

The point I was trying to make, maybe badly, that unlike using a car to get to and from work etc and smoking, alcohol, drugs etc was that the car can and is often a necessary evil as very often the place where a person lives, and works are miles apart and as already mentioned, either poorly served, or not all served by public transport. Getting to work is vital in order to live and support one's family, smoking, alcohol and drugs are not, they are life choices and one can survive without them.

In that case a charge of £12.50 a day is an additional deduction of £62.50 a week based on only working 5 days a week. That is an absurd amount of extra burden to dump on the poorest members of the society especially with the current cost of living and many people relying on foodbanks, despite being in full-time employment. It is a disproportionate tax on them, the wealthier people will not even flinch at that amount, and many of those will be driving massively overpowered cars, such as Chelsea tractors, super cars, big luxury cars etc, which will produce the most emissions by default.

[tggzzz]

Anyway this is a meta-discussion which leads back to the main point: The best thing is not driving a piece of shit slowly around a city in traffic which is exactly what the ULEZ is stopping people from doing.

Not quite. I wouldn't mind so much if only very polluting cars were forced off the road. But the rules push cars that are presumed to be polluting off the road, and leaves are that are polluting on the road. OTOH the MoT test measures before acting.

The ULEZ is a process that will slowly pressure the worst cars off the road. The emissions ratings will be compressed slowly so as not to hurt people too badly.

...like nobody drown in a lake of average depth 3" .

In reality 1/3 of people (who can least afford it) bear the penalty, whereas 2/3 (who could afford a new car get off scot fee). Sod the poor; I'm alright Jack.

[bd139]

Not quite. I wouldn't mind so much if only very polluting cars were forced off the road. But the rules push cars that are presumed to be polluting off the road, and leaves are that are polluting on the road. OTOH the MoT test measures before acting.

They are gated on emissions standards at both design (objective) and MoT (measurement) steps.

In reality 1/3 of people (who can least afford it) bear the penalty, whereas 2/3 (who could afford a new car get off scot fee). Sod the poor; I'm alright Jack.

Circular argument from earlier. Point terminated arleady.

The point I was trying to make, maybe badly, that unlike using a car to get to and from work etc and smoking, alcohol, drugs etc was that the car can and is often a necessary evil as very often the place where a person lives, and works are miles apart and as already mentioned, either poorly served, or not all served by public transport.

As mentioned earlier that is a risk that you should at least attempt to mitigate. The reality is that if you can't afford a replacement car (not new one) then you can't afford the car you have anyway. You are one accident away from being unemployed. And if that's a tenable risk you can probably offset it with some inconvenience with public transport.

Getting to work is vital in order to live and support one's family, smoking, alcohol and drugs are not, they are life choices and one can survive without them.

Giving up something which is a mortal risk to you is however a better way of framing it. I mean I was piss poor and doing on call IT in a £450 junker Rover I couldn't afford to replace for a year. If that died then I was shit out of luck. Calling around I managed to negotiate a job where I could hop on the tram instead and then someone nicked the car proving my point.

In that case a charge of £12.50 a day is an additional deduction of £62.50 a week based on only working 5 days a week. That is an absurd amount of extra burden to dump on the poorest members of the society especially with the current cost of living and many people relying on foodbanks, despite being in full-time employment. It is a disproportionate tax on them, the wealthier people will not even flinch at that amount, and many of those will be driving massively overpowered cars, such as Chelsea tractors, super cars, big luxury cars etc, which will produce the most emissions by default.

Is insurance, tax, maintenance, petrol, building a replacement vehicle fund a burden? Yes that too. And I would flinch at £62.50 which is why the hell I replace the damn Fiat which would have screwed me.

As for the emissions, you're probably wrong. My neighbour's Porsche Cayenne Turbo is ULEZ compliant as is the Vogue SE opposite as is the 2003 Astra next to me. Mostly because they're not a shitty old Diesels, not because they're big luxury cars.

I notice the 20mph limit thing went uncommented. I assume I was victorious on that point.

[mnementh]

Getting to work is vital in order to live and support one's family, smoking, alcohol and drugs are not, they are life choices and one can survive without them.

Giving up something which is a mortal risk to you is however a better way of framing it. I mean I was piss poor and doing on call IT in a £450 junker Rover I couldn't afford to replace for a year. If that died then I was shit out of luck. Calling around I managed to negotiate a job where I could hop on the tram instead and then someone nicked the car proving my point.

It's arguable that the point really proven there is:

"No matter how shitty you've got it, there's always somebody who's enough worse off that your shit looks good."

mnem
"It's all shit. Pick a flavor and dig in." ~mum

[Specmaster]

@bd139
The points you raise have multiple flaws, of which I highlight just a couple here.

The only way those cars you mentioned, apart from the Astra, qualify as being ULEZ compliant is in their hybrid versions which will allow them to drive about 20 miles or so in pure electric mode, when their ICE engine kicks in they will emit vast volumes of CO2, far in excess of what my lowly diesel-engined Skoda puts out. As an example, a 4.6 litre petrol Range Rover Vogue SE emits 641g/mile, versus my car Škoda Superb 2.O Litre L&K, diesel emits 224g/mile, a tad over a 1/3rd of that of the Range Rover.

The driver of the Range Rover would be paying the same amount of tax, £12.50 as I would be if the new scheme goes ahead and yet, they are creating 3 times the pollution I would be, and their car is going to be worth several times what mine is, suggesting that they have considerably more disposable income so paying that daily charge is not in any form, uncomfortable for them. The same would also be true for the Porsche Cayenne Turbo emits at least 360g/mile in ICE mode, certainly not comparable. Even when running purely in electric mode, it is highly debatable if they could travel across the ULEZ from edge to edge without invoking the engine.

Also the point you raised about you were able to negotiate a job where you could hop on a tram, you are using yourself as an example, totally unfair when you have a particular skill set that the vast majority do not have, many people have a dull mundane job that just involves manual labour and their skills are not actively sought after by employers, you are comparing apples with pineapples

The 20mph part, I concede the point about risks of fatal incidents increasing with higher speeds, and therefore greater chances of surviving an accident with a car doing 20mph, so how long will it be before someone pushes the button for a 10mph limit, and then what, do we go all the way back to having to have a person walking in front of us with a red flag?
Surely, thats the job of town planners to try and ensure that cars and pedestrians are kept apart from each as much as is possible, by means of distance or barriers?

[tggzzz]

In reality 1/3 of people (who can least afford it) bear the penalty, whereas 2/3 (who could afford a new car get off scot fee). Sod the poor; I'm alright Jack.

Circular argument from earlier. Point terminated arleady.

Point still valid. Point apparently needs to be repeated and addressed.

The reality is that if you can't afford a replacement car (not new one) then you can't afford the car you have anyway. You are one accident away from being unemployed. And if that's a tenable risk you can probably offset it with some inconvenience with public transport.

Not true.

It is entirely possible - and it is the case for a horrifying number of people - that they can afford "small" weekly outgoings but can't afford "large" lump sum outlays. There's a whole industry built around that concept, from "payday loans" and "pawnbrokers" at bottom end to lease-to-buy and hire purchase at the top end (top and bottom are obviously relative terms).

Personally I'd ban the lot. My attitude has always been "if you haven't got the cash in your account, wait until you have". My father had two exceptions to that: buying a house and buying a cooking stove. As a result, the only loan I have ever had is a mortgage.

I notice the 20mph limit thing went uncommented. I assume I was victorious on that point.

I responded in detail.

[Specmaster]

Guys, it just gets gloomier, 1st July 2025 sees Euro 7 engines mandatary on all new cars and that will also signal current exempt cars with Euro 6 engines being brought into ULEZ schemes across the country. So people like me with Euro 5 engines will have nowhere to run, jumping from 5 to 6 will make zero difference. People will be hanging onto their old cars for as long as they pass MOT tests.

There are also plans underway to make motoring even more expensive, with multiple charges being brought to bear depending on your location. It seems that those living in cities and large towns are very likely to have the following applied to their expenses, Road Fund Licence, Pay per Mile, ULEZ and Congestion charges, while those living in the countryside, should escape the last 2 unless they need to actually go into those areas where they apply.

Currently EV are exempt from Congestion, ULEZ and Road Tax, but as more old cars do get taken off the road due to these increased extra burdens, the revenue they used to generate will be lost, so these EV's will be brought into the schemes to replace the lost revenue, that I think is a given.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP18e1qZJtU

[AVGresponding]

Emissions at 20mph vs 30mph is not as simple as that. It depends a lot on the gearing. If your gearing allows for optimal revs at 20, then fine, but if not, then it can easily be worse.

I didn't mention travelling at 20/30mph. I discussed accelerating from 0mph to those speeds. In a city centre travelling at 30mph is good going (20mph near me )

In a typical car, accelerating 0->30mph uses as much fuel as travelling ~0.75km at 30mph. ( http://withouthotair.com/cA/page_256.shtml )
So “city-driving” is dominated by kinetic energy and braking if the distance between stops is less than 750 m. Under these conditions, it’s a good
idea, if you want to save energy:
- to reduce the mass of your car;
- to get a car with regenerative brakes (which roughly halve the energy lost in braking – see Chapter 20); and
- to drive more slowly.

As for economy, in simplistic terms and ignoring acceleration, the fastest you can go, closest to optimal revs, and without going fast enough to incur aero losses, is best, which for modern cars is probably somewhere between 40-50mph.

As for safety, I put it to you this way; would you rather step out in front of me, doing 30mph, or a modern driver who is probably paying more attention to their phone than the road, doing 20mph?

Pedestrians here pay more attention to their phone than traffic. I have yet to see one to jump off the ground when they finally realise where they are, but it is a close thing.

Without better information, my rule of thumb is that on the flat and still air, the best fuel consumption in a petrol car is at 2000-2500pm in top gear. That's irrelevant driving in city centres; acceleration dominates

I wasn't even referring to your post. I was referring to the relative efficiency of travelling at a constant speed at the two speed limits.

The figures you quoted for acceleration are simplified; a great deal depends on how hard you accelerate. The facts about efficient acceleration are counter-intuitive to many people. Brisk acceleration is more efficient than gentle acceleration, for example.

[tggzzz]

Emissions at 20mph vs 30mph is not as simple as that. It depends a lot on the gearing. If your gearing allows for optimal revs at 20, then fine, but if not, then it can easily be worse.

I didn't mention travelling at 20/30mph. I discussed accelerating from 0mph to those speeds. In a city centre travelling at 30mph is good going (20mph near me )

In a typical car, accelerating 0->30mph uses as much fuel as travelling ~0.75km at 30mph. ( http://withouthotair.com/cA/page_256.shtml )
So “city-driving” is dominated by kinetic energy and braking if the distance between stops is less than 750 m. Under these conditions, it’s a good
idea, if you want to save energy:
- to reduce the mass of your car;
- to get a car with regenerative brakes (which roughly halve the energy lost in braking – see Chapter 20); and
- to drive more slowly.

As for economy, in simplistic terms and ignoring acceleration, the fastest you can go, closest to optimal revs, and without going fast enough to incur aero losses, is best, which for modern cars is probably somewhere between 40-50mph.

As for safety, I put it to you this way; would you rather step out in front of me, doing 30mph, or a modern driver who is probably paying more attention to their phone than the road, doing 20mph?

Pedestrians here pay more attention to their phone than traffic. I have yet to see one to jump off the ground when they finally realise where they are, but it is a close thing.

Without better information, my rule of thumb is that on the flat and still air, the best fuel consumption in a petrol car is at 2000-2500pm in top gear. That's irrelevant driving in city centres; acceleration dominates

I wasn't even referring to your post. I was referring to the relative efficiency of travelling at a constant speed at the two speed limits.

The figures you quoted for acceleration are simplified; a great deal depends on how hard you accelerate. The facts about efficient acceleration are counter-intuitive to many people. Brisk acceleration is more efficient than gentle acceleration, for example.

The figures I mention are generally applicable, and indicate relative magnitudes. They are a very useful model.

Of course any model can be refined for specific circumstances - but you have to specify the circumstances and the limits under which the new model is valid.

As for the affect of "brisk" acceleration being "more efficient", it would help to remove adjectives and replace them by numbers.
So, what constitutes "brisk"? 0-50 in 5s? Maintaining a specific RPM?
And how much is the change? 5/10/20/50/100/200/500%?

Yup. I hate adjectives. I blame the liberal arts mob for persuading people to use them.

[Zenith]

Yup. I hate adjectives. I blame the liberal arts mob for persuading people to use them.

Have you considered that your comment should be re-contextualised to make it more holistic, less judgemental, more diverse, and positively supportive of, ( rather than being open to the charge of denying), inclusivity?

[tggzzz]

Yup. I hate adjectives. I blame the liberal arts mob for persuading people to use them.

Have you considered that your comment should be re-contextualised to make it more holistic, less judgemental, more diverse, and positively supportive of, ( rather than being open to the charge of denying), inclusivity?

After looking up the meaning of that word salad[1]... No; no change there.

I fancy a day out of the smoke. Perhaps a visit to an event at America Hall in Pinhoe on Sunday morning, with a trip to Westonzoyland[2] Pumping Station afterwards.

[1] I'm concerned that you could come up with such stuff - or was it ChatGPT?

[2] Lovely name, makes me think of the Fens. The coincidence isn't surprising.

[mnementh]

With small engines, particularly fuel-injected ones with variable cam timing, overall efficiency is often increased by stepping on the gas sharply at 3/8-3/4 throttle as needed for a second or three to get up to speed (even if you downshift), then feathering as needed to maintain steady-state speed, as opposed to always using absolute minimum acceleration to get up to speed. This is a well-known hi-miler tactic. You want to minimize the time spent at low RPM with low intake MAP.

mnem
Look ma! I contributed!

[Specmaster]

With small engines, particularly fuel-injected ones with variable cam timing, overall efficiency is often increased by stepping on the gas sharply at 3/8-3/4 throttle as needed for a second or three to get up to speed (even if you downshift), then feathering as needed to maintain steady-state speed, as opposed to always using absolute minimum acceleration to get up to speed. This is a well-known hi-miler tactic. You want to minimize the time spent at low RPM with low intake MAP.

mnem
Look ma! I contributed!

Yep, cleaner air would result from the use of smaller engines, if they placed a ban on all the Chelsea tractors and other cars with similar sized engines from cities, it would make more sense, but of course such a course of action would not raise any revenue so that is never going to happen, is it?

Where on earth are you going to be able to make proper use of those large, powerful engines in cities anyway?

I also hear of stories that many insurance companies are now either refusing or shoving the premiums up to eye watering levels on insuring one of the most common Chelsea tractors as it is almost odds on favourite to be stolen these days and happens so often that it really is a major problem.

Chelsea tractor.jpg

[Specmaster]

There may be a faint glimmer of hope, guys (assuming it does get implemented) as this video explains. Your current car might well be exempt as it is based on NOx and diesel partiticulants levels and you maybe able to get your older car registered as exempt based on your figures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWxCYY8t4DY&t=702s

There are already 8 other similar schemes up and running, and I expect that many others in the planning stages, fuelling even further the belief that does actually have more of a revenue raising objective than the desire to improve air quality, the latter would have far more beneficial results if they targeted business that pollute through their industrial processes and forced them to clean up their act.

Here are the active schemes in existence now.

Bath,
Birmingham,
Bradford,
Bristol,
Greater Manchester,
Portsmouth,
Sheffield,
Tyneside Newcastle and Gateshead.

[mansaxel]

Just a little something I found while visiting the Swedish National Museum of Science and Technology:

[Zenith]

Yup. I hate adjectives. I blame the liberal arts mob for persuading people to use them.

Have you considered that your comment should be re-contextualised to make it more holistic, less judgemental, more diverse, and positively supportive of, ( rather than being open to the charge of denying), inclusivity?

After looking up the meaning of that word salad[1]... No; no change there.

I fancy a day out of the smoke. Perhaps a visit to an event at America Hall in Pinhoe on Sunday morning, with a trip to Westonzoyland[2] Pumping Station afterwards.

[1] I'm concerned that you could come up with such stuff - or was it ChatGPT?

[2] Lovely name, makes me think of the Fens. The coincidence isn't surprising.

I'm intensely annoyed by that sort of obscurantist crap. It doesn't need ChatGPT, a buzz-phrase generator works very well.

I thought of the Pinhoe bash down in Exeter, but it seems a bit far and rather too cold and I have in mind it might be a Newport type event. To be honest I also have other things I ought to attend to.

If you make it down there, be sure to give a report.

[tggzzz]

Have you considered that your comment should be re-contextualised to make it more holistic, less judgemental, more diverse, and positively supportive of, ( rather than being open to the charge of denying), inclusivity?

After looking up the meaning of that word salad[1]... No; no change there.

I fancy a day out of the smoke. Perhaps a visit to an event at America Hall in Pinhoe on Sunday morning, with a trip to Westonzoyland[2] Pumping Station afterwards.

[1] I'm concerned that you could come up with such stuff - or was it ChatGPT?

[2] Lovely name, makes me think of the Fens. The coincidence isn't surprising.

I'm intensely annoyed by that sort of obscurantist crap. It doesn't need ChatGPT, a buzz-phrase generator works very well.

I thought of the Pinhoe bash down in Exeter, but it seems a bit far and rather too cold and I have in mind it might be a Newport type event. To be honest I also have other things I ought to attend to.

If you make it down there, be sure to give a report.

It is, to nobody's surprise, beginning to infest The Other Place, e.g. https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/ ... msg4733057

Pinhoe is on the limit of acceptability; I don't expect much. Without the steam engine to keep me warm, I doubt I'd go. You are that much further away (rightpondian "further", of course).