ULEZ Cameras could be illegal

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

qwertyK
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 19:16

ULEZ Cameras could be illegal

Post by qwertyK »

This is from The Telegraph:

"Using spy cameras to catch motorists with polluting cars may be illegal, the surveillance commissioner has ruled.

Professor Fraser Sampson, the commissioner, said the use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras to identify motorists breaching low emission zones was of “questionable legality” and there was “limited evidence it would benefit society”.

He warned of “state overreach” and called for a “democratic debate” over whether the climate change crisis was so serious that it justified such “intrusive tactics” against motorists.

The move by Professor Sampson, a former police officer and terrorism expert, raises the prospect that motorists could mount legal challenges against fines.

It comes as Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, plans to expand the ultra low emission zone (ULEZ) to the whole of Greater London and increase fines to £180 for non-payment of the charge.

It will mean hundreds more ANPR cameras to catch motorists, as 400 were needed at a cost of £130 million to police the expansion of the ULEZ to the north and south circulars. Around 124,000 warning notices were issued to non-compliant vehicles in just the first month after its extension in October.

At least nine other cities including Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, Sheffield, Glasgow and Edinburgh are introducing or considering similar zones.


Professor Sampson, a former chair of the Association of Policing and Crime Chief Executives, said there was support for the Government’s policy of reducing emissions and encouraging cleaner vehicles.

But he said the advisory group he chaired was concerned the extension of ANPR to enforce it “is not justified and there is limited evidence that it would benefit society. Therefore its legality is questionable”.

He said it went beyond the initial purpose of ANPR to combat terrorism and crime, was potentially disproportionate and raised concerns over not only its legitimacy but also whether police and other law enforcement agencies would get access to the data.

“Proportionality is a key legal concept and it’s a relative concept – the greater the anticipated harm the more room for intrusive tactics,” he said in his formal response to Mr Khan’s ULEZ expansion plans.

Already a public backlash to use of ANPR
“How far do the risks of climate change and the COP26 response mean the state can use whatever methods it likes in the name of combating climate change because nothing is comparable to the enormity of the overall threat? This needs further democratic debate.”

He warned that there had already been a backlash to the use of ANPR to identify potential breaches of lockdown and that this potential “overreach” could undermine public support for a vital crime-fighting technology.

“ANPR is a well-established form of community surveillance," he added. "The fact that it’s established is important – because people have grown up with it and to an extent have so far, generally, trusted its use – or at least haven’t been as worried about its misuse as some newer surveillance capability.

“In that respect ANPR is a bit like old school CCTV and given its criticality to policing and wider enforcement by a range of government agencies, we extend its overreach at our peril.”

Police are already trialling cameras that can spot if someone is using a mobile phone while they are driving - or whether occupants in a car are wearing a seatbelt.

As technology advanced, Professor Sampson said: “Will people still be as accepting of ANPR once it can recognise the occupants of a moving vehicle, identifying their children, when and where they got their flu jabs, their passport and if they’ve paid their tax bill?”

The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s office is an independent body in the home office that oversees compliance with codes on the use of cameras such as CCTV, ANPR and facial recognition and advises ministers on their legality.

ANPR came to the fore in 1993 when it was deployed as part of a "Ring of Steel" camera network around the City of London following a series of deadly IRA attacks using bombs in vehicles.

It has since been expanded to the entire motorway and A-road network with the data collected now centralised in a national police ANPR database. The technology is also used to enforce the London congestion charge and in numerous car parks"
User avatar
JammyDodge
Member
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2018 13:17

Re: ULEZ Cameras could be illegal

Post by JammyDodge »

I doubt this will go anywhere
This basically would make ANPR cameras illegal for any use other than criminal, which isn't the only use as a benefit to society
Designing Tomorrow, Around the Past
qwertyK
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 19:16

Re: ULEZ Cameras could be illegal

Post by qwertyK »

JammyDodge wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 22:31 I doubt this will go anywhere
This basically would make ANPR cameras illegal for any use other than criminal, which isn't the only use as a benefit to society
I read another article and it claimed the case against the ULEZ cameras was that the police could then use them to track people etc, rather than just enforcement of cars breaching emissions
User avatar
trickstat
Member
Posts: 8738
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 14:06
Location: Letchworth Gdn City, Herts

Re: ULEZ Cameras could be illegal

Post by trickstat »

qwertyK wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 22:33
JammyDodge wrote: Wed Aug 03, 2022 22:31 I doubt this will go anywhere
This basically would make ANPR cameras illegal for any use other than criminal, which isn't the only use as a benefit to society
I read another article and it claimed the case against the ULEZ cameras was that the police could then use them to track people etc, rather than just enforcement of cars breaching emissions
Presumably the difference is that non-ULEZ ANPR cameras tend to just be at the edge of town or cities rather than at multiple points within them?
Phil
Member
Posts: 2271
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 18:03
Location: Burgess Hill,W Sussex, UK

Re: ULEZ Cameras could be illegal

Post by Phil »

What a load of drivel!

The ability to own / drive a motor vehicle is not a basic human right - its a privilege (something the likes of the Telegraph NEVER acknowledge) that comes with rules, including the requirement to pay financially for the pollution it causes in urban environments.

The use of ANPR to determine which drivers are liable for the charge is perfectly reasonable and legal - if this 'surveillance commissioner' thinks otherwise why hasn't he started court proceedings?

Provided popper data protection rules are met (and to be honest I would be far more worried about private car park operators than branches of local government then there is no 'risk' to motorists or society at large.
User avatar
FosseWay
Assistant Site Manager
Posts: 19621
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 22:26
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Re: ULEZ Cameras could be illegal

Post by FosseWay »

Surely any questionability about ULEZs lies in the concept of charging for more polluting vehicles and in the level of charging applied. Once you as a society have decided these things, any reasonable means of enforcement - i.e. it only catches people who don't pay and it doesn't have disproportionate collateral effects - is by definition OK.

Also, why is it per se unacceptable to use ANPR to enforce this, when it's presumably still OK to use it to enforce speed/congestion charge/bridge tolls/you name it? What's so different about the ULEZ?

Personally I don't have a particular problem with accountable authorities using ANPR to trace people who refuse to follow the rules of the road, or to help in the solving of crime. I have a much bigger issue with the fact that private operators of e.g. car parks seem to have in practice unrestricted access to the DVLA database and can therefore use ANPR for private purposes. It's this that needs cracking down on, not enforcement of national traffic legislation.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: ULEZ Cameras could be illegal

Post by Bryn666 »

What's the betting this guy owns a giant SUV or other non-compliant vehicle...

Funny how all these types want to criminalise everything and have no problem with the state snooping everywhere else but the second their precious "right to pollute" is questioned they turn into freedom fighter extraordinaire.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
dseagull
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 22:20

Re: ULEZ Cameras could be illegal

Post by dseagull »

The full (it's not very long!) policy paper; https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -expansion
User avatar
Helvellyn
Member
Posts: 24664
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 22:31
Location: High Peak

Re: ULEZ Cameras could be illegal

Post by Helvellyn »

FosseWay wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 08:21
Personally I don't have a particular problem with accountable authorities using ANPR to trace people who refuse to follow the rules of the road, or to help in the solving of crime. I have a much bigger issue with the fact that private operators of e.g. car parks seem to have in practice unrestricted access to the DVLA database and can therefore use ANPR for private purposes. It's this that needs cracking down on, not enforcement of national traffic legislation.
I do (as you'd probably guess), very big problems with it.
Bomag
Member
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 23:26

Re: ULEZ Cameras could be illegal

Post by Bomag »

The issues seems to be using existing ANPR for enforcement of a civil charge, which is mission creep. If they set up their own camera system, as with average limit enforcement, then all type approval and certification process should be open and challangeable if not compliant.
kiran_mk2
Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2018 19:58

Re: ULEZ Cameras could be illegal

Post by kiran_mk2 »

Not sure how enforcing ULEZs are not of benefit to society. As well as CO2 emissions are they not also designed to remove particulates and NOx which has been proven to cause long term health impacts, especially in children. I would say that forcing local government to pay for a second set of ANPR cameras to enforce ULEZs is more of a drag on society than using existing infrastructure.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: ULEZ Cameras could be illegal

Post by KeithW »

Bomag wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 12:19 The issues seems to be using existing ANPR for enforcement of a civil charge, which is mission creep. If they set up their own camera system, as with average limit enforcement, then all type approval and certification process should be open and challangeable if not compliant.
That has been happening for years, see parking enforcement, tunnel tolls etc, every motorway service area and many if not most supermarket car parks and hospitals already do this. Many use Parking Eye.

https://www.parkingeye.co.uk/

Here is the guidance on the use of such systems
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/update-to-surveillance-camera-code/amended-surveillance-camera-code-of-practice-accessible-version wrote: 1.1 Surveillance camera systems operating in public places must always have a clearly defined purpose or purposes in pursuit of a legitimate aim and be necessary to address a pressing need (or needs). Such a legitimate aim and pressing need include national security, public safety, the economic well-being of the country, the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. That purpose (or purposes) should be capable of translation into clearly articulated objectives against which the ongoing requirement for operation or use of the systems and any images or other information obtained can be assessed.
User avatar
Vierwielen
Member
Posts: 5674
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 21:21
Location: Hampshire

Re: ULEZ Cameras could be illegal

Post by Vierwielen »

One of the differences between the UK and many other countries regarding the use of ULEZ cameras is that the UK has a centralised number-plate registraion system, so it is relatively easy to track somebidy without good reason (eg Rishi tracking where Liz's car is going and thereby knowing who she is talking to and vice-versa). In countries where cars are registered at a local level, ther eis far ore bureaucracy to track a particular person. For example, when I was in South Africa, my car had the registration plate TCO 1544. If the police needed to contact me about an unpaid fine (or something), they would have had to contact the Careltonville Town Council to see who owned the car and then follow me up. As a result, for more people knew what the police were doing, and this in itself acts as a brake on illegal monitoring.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: ULEZ Cameras could be illegal

Post by KeithW »

Vierwielen wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 18:12 One of the differences between the UK and many other countries regarding the use of ULEZ cameras is that the UK has a centralised number-plate registraion system, so it is relatively easy to track somebidy without good reason (eg Rishi tracking where Liz's car is going and thereby knowing who she is talking to and vice-versa). In countries where cars are registered at a local level, ther eis far ore bureaucracy to track a particular person. For example, when I was in South Africa, my car had the registration plate TCO 1544. If the police needed to contact me about an unpaid fine (or something), they would have had to contact the Careltonville Town Council to see who owned the car and then follow me up. As a result, for more people knew what the police were doing, and this in itself acts as a brake on illegal monitoring.
We stopped doing local registration of vehicles 50 years ago when DVLA Swansea took over. I still recall the registration of my last vehicle licensed in Middlesbrough - SXG 811. Fake plates are not a new phenomena , you could just order a a set of number plates at any car parts store.

The crime rate in South Africa is not something we would wish to emulate.
Bomag
Member
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 23:26

Re: ULEZ Cameras could be illegal

Post by Bomag »

KeithW wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 13:31
Bomag wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 12:19 The issues seems to be using existing ANPR for enforcement of a civil charge, which is mission creep. If they set up their own camera system, as with average limit enforcement, then all type approval and certification process should be open and challangeable if not compliant.
That has been happening for years, see parking enforcement, tunnel tolls etc, every motorway service area and many if not most supermarket car parks and hospitals already do this. Many use Parking Eye.

https://www.parkingeye.co.uk/

Here is the guidance on the use of such systems
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/update-to-surveillance-camera-code/amended-surveillance-camera-code-of-practice-accessible-version wrote: 1.1 Surveillance camera systems operating in public places must always have a clearly defined purpose or purposes in pursuit of a legitimate aim and be necessary to address a pressing need (or needs). Such a legitimate aim and pressing need include national security, public safety, the economic well-being of the country, the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. That purpose (or purposes) should be capable of translation into clearly articulated objectives against which the ongoing requirement for operation or use of the systems and any images or other information obtained can be assessed.
You are confusing specific systems operated by private firms or tunnel operators with the 'centralised' network monitering the wider network. This was justified for specific reasons in relation to data protection, which did not include enforceing the ULEZ charge system.
User avatar
trickstat
Member
Posts: 8738
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 14:06
Location: Letchworth Gdn City, Herts

Re: ULEZ Cameras could be illegal

Post by trickstat »

KeithW wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 20:25
Vierwielen wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 18:12 One of the differences between the UK and many other countries regarding the use of ULEZ cameras is that the UK has a centralised number-plate registraion system, so it is relatively easy to track somebidy without good reason (eg Rishi tracking where Liz's car is going and thereby knowing who she is talking to and vice-versa). In countries where cars are registered at a local level, ther eis far ore bureaucracy to track a particular person. For example, when I was in South Africa, my car had the registration plate TCO 1544. If the police needed to contact me about an unpaid fine (or something), they would have had to contact the Careltonville Town Council to see who owned the car and then follow me up. As a result, for more people knew what the police were doing, and this in itself acts as a brake on illegal monitoring.
We stopped doing local registration of vehicles 50 years ago when DVLA Swansea took over. I still recall the registration of my last vehicle licensed in Middlesbrough - SXG 811. Fake plates are not a new phenomena , you could just order a a set of number plates at any car parts store.

The crime rate in South Africa is not something we would wish to emulate.
Talking of fake plates, a work colleague recently received 3 penalty notices for non-payment of the London Congestion Charge. Each time she was working at home about 70 miles away and she doesn't drive a Lexus which was the car on the photos. These fines have now been waived.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: ULEZ Cameras could be illegal

Post by KeithW »

Bomag wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 23:05
KeithW wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 13:31
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/update-to-surveillance-camera-code/amended-surveillance-camera-code-of-practice-accessible-version wrote: 1.1 Surveillance camera systems operating in public places must always have a clearly defined purpose or purposes in pursuit of a legitimate aim and be necessary to address a pressing need (or needs). Such a legitimate aim and pressing need include national security, public safety, the economic well-being of the country, the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. That purpose (or purposes) should be capable of translation into clearly articulated objectives against which the ongoing requirement for operation or use of the systems and any images or other information obtained can be assessed.
You are confusing specific systems operated by private firms or tunnel operators with the 'centralised' network monitering the wider network. This was justified for specific reasons in relation to data protection, which did not include enforceing the ULEZ charge system.
Well no, the act makes no reference to such a limitation, the code of practice clearly refers to a much wider use.
2. This code of practice is issued by the Secretary of State under Sections 29 to 31 of PoFA 2012. It provides guidance on the appropriate and effective use of surveillance camera systems by relevant authorities (as defined by Section 33(5) of PoFA 2012) in England and Wales who must, under Section 33(1) of PoFA 2012, have regard to the code when exercising any functions to which the code relates. Other operators and users of surveillance camera systems in England and Wales are encouraged to adopt the code voluntarily. It is a significant step in the ongoing process of delivering the government’s commitment to the ‘further regulation of CCTV’ which it believes is a task that is best managed in gradual and incremental stages. As understanding and application of the code increases the government may consider including other bodies as relevant authorities who will have to have regard to the code.

See section 33(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/section/33/enacted wrote: 33 Effect of code

(1)A relevant authority must have regard to the surveillance camera code when exercising any functions to which the code relates.

(2)A failure on the part of any person to act in accordance with any provision of the surveillance camera code does not of itself make that person liable to criminal or civil proceedings.

(3)The surveillance camera code is admissible in evidence in any such proceedings.

(4)A court or tribunal may, in particular, take into account a failure by a relevant authority to have regard to the surveillance camera code in determining a question in any such proceedings.

(5)In this section “relevant authority” means—
(a)a local authority within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1972,
(b)the Greater London Authority,
(c)the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority,
(d)the Sub-Treasurer of the Inner Temple or the Under-Treasurer of the Middle Temple, in their capacity as a local authority,
(e)the Council of the Isles of Scilly,
(f)a parish meeting constituted under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1972,
(g)a police and crime commissioner,
(h)the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime,
(i)the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a police authority,
(j)any chief officer of a police force in England and Wales,
(k)any person specified or described by the Secretary of State in an order made by statutory instrument.

(6)An order under subsection (5) may, in particular—
(a)restrict the specification or description of a person to that of the person when acting in a specified capacity or exercising specified or described functions,
(b)contain transitional, transitory or saving provision.

(7)So far as an order under subsection (5) contains a restriction of the kind mentioned in subsection (6)(a) in relation to a person, the duty in subsection (1) applies only to the person in that capacity or (as the case may be) only in relation to those functions.

(8)Before making an order under subsection (5) in relation to any person or description of persons, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a)such persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of the views of the person or persons in relation to whom the order may be made as the Secretary of State considers appropriate,
(b)the Association of Chief Police Officers,
(c)the Information Commissioner,
(d)the Chief Surveillance Commissioner,
(e)the Surveillance Camera Commissioner,
(f)the Welsh Ministers, and
(g)such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(9)No instrument containing an order under subsection (5) is to be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(10)If a draft of an instrument containing an order under subsection (5) would, apart from this subsection, be treated as a hybrid instrument for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament, it is to proceed in that House as if it were not a hybrid instrument.
I suggest that enforcing the ULEZ zone is a proportionate use in the interests of public health as surveys have concluded that up to 9,400 people die prematurely as a result of pollution in London every year.

https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/node/ ... %20service.
Bomag
Member
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 23:26

Re: ULEZ Cameras could be illegal

Post by Bomag »

KeithW wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 09:24
Bomag wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 23:05
KeithW wrote: Thu Aug 04, 2022 13:31
You are confusing specific systems operated by private firms or tunnel operators with the 'centralised' network monitering the wider network. This was justified for specific reasons in relation to data protection, which did not include enforceing the ULEZ charge system.
Well no, the act makes no reference to such a limitation, the code of practice clearly refers to a much wider use.
2. This code of practice is issued by the Secretary of State under Sections 29 to 31 of PoFA 2012. It provides guidance on the appropriate and effective use of surveillance camera systems by relevant authorities (as defined by Section 33(5) of PoFA 2012) in England and Wales who must, under Section 33(1) of PoFA 2012, have regard to the code when exercising any functions to which the code relates. Other operators and users of surveillance camera systems in England and Wales are encouraged to adopt the code voluntarily. It is a significant step in the ongoing process of delivering the government’s commitment to the ‘further regulation of CCTV’ which it believes is a task that is best managed in gradual and incremental stages. As understanding and application of the code increases the government may consider including other bodies as relevant authorities who will have to have regard to the code.


See section 33(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/section/33/enacted wrote: 33 Effect of code

(1)A relevant authority must have regard to the surveillance camera code when exercising any functions to which the code relates.

(2)A failure on the part of any person to act in accordance with any provision of the surveillance camera code does not of itself make that person liable to criminal or civil proceedings.

(3)The surveillance camera code is admissible in evidence in any such proceedings.

(4)A court or tribunal may, in particular, take into account a failure by a relevant authority to have regard to the surveillance camera code in determining a question in any such proceedings.

(5)In this section “relevant authority” means—
(a)a local authority within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1972,
(b)the Greater London Authority,
(c)the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority,
(d)the Sub-Treasurer of the Inner Temple or the Under-Treasurer of the Middle Temple, in their capacity as a local authority,
(e)the Council of the Isles of Scilly,
(f)a parish meeting constituted under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1972,
(g)a police and crime commissioner,
(h)the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime,
(i)the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a police authority,
(j)any chief officer of a police force in England and Wales,
(k)any person specified or described by the Secretary of State in an order made by statutory instrument.

(6)An order under subsection (5) may, in particular—
(a)restrict the specification or description of a person to that of the person when acting in a specified capacity or exercising specified or described functions,
(b)contain transitional, transitory or saving provision.

(7)So far as an order under subsection (5) contains a restriction of the kind mentioned in subsection (6)(a) in relation to a person, the duty in subsection (1) applies only to the person in that capacity or (as the case may be) only in relation to those functions.

(8)Before making an order under subsection (5) in relation to any person or description of persons, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a)such persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of the views of the person or persons in relation to whom the order may be made as the Secretary of State considers appropriate,
(b)the Association of Chief Police Officers,
(c)the Information Commissioner,
(d)the Chief Surveillance Commissioner,
(e)the Surveillance Camera Commissioner,
(f)the Welsh Ministers, and
(g)such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(9)No instrument containing an order under subsection (5) is to be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(10)If a draft of an instrument containing an order under subsection (5) would, apart from this subsection, be treated as a hybrid instrument for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament, it is to proceed in that House as if it were not a hybrid instrument.
I suggest that enforcing the ULEZ zone is a proportionate use in the interests of public health as surveys have concluded that up to 9,400 people die prematurely as a result of pollution in London every year.

https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/node/ ... %20service.
The act requires the nature and scope of a ANPR system to be defined. Adding ULEZ enforcement to the existing system would require the system to be justified from first principles which would probably allow the existing system to be challenged. If TfL had set up their own system then following the code of practice should have ensured it was robust. There are numerous attempts to do things on the cheap, the legislation and code of practice are there to stop people who have no idea of the data protection best practice, or those who don't agree with it, from trying to argue that they are able to ignore it as its requires them to do something more expensive, or be limited in its scope.

The evidence I have seen is that there is no correlational between LE zones and any statistically significant reduction in pollution levels and ill health. What there is, is a correlation on levels of congestion. So even a hybrid vehicle taking 4 or more cycles to get through a set of traffic lights (or rat running) is going to be more pollution than a current petrol car getting through a junction on the first or second cycle.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: ULEZ Cameras could be illegal

Post by KeithW »

Bomag wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:19 The act requires the nature and scope of a ANPR system to be defined. Adding ULEZ enforcement to the existing system would require the system to be justified from first principles which would probably allow the existing system to be challenged. If TfL had set up their own system then following the code of practice should have ensured it was robust. There are numerous attempts to do things on the cheap, the legislation and code of practice are there to stop people who have no idea of the data protection best practice, or those who don't agree with it, from trying to argue that they are able to ignore it as its requires them to do something more expensive, or be limited in its scope.

The evidence I have seen is that there is no correlational between LE zones and any statistically significant reduction in pollution levels and ill health. What there is, is a correlation on levels of congestion. So even a hybrid vehicle taking 4 or more cycles to get through a set of traffic lights (or rat running) is going to be more pollution than a current petrol car getting through a junction on the first or second cycle.
Unless of course you can reduce the traffic by for example getting rid of petrol cars, you know something like a ultra low emissions zone might be useful :)

As for pollution and health see
https://thorax.bmj.com/content/74/Suppl_2/A171.2 wrote: Conclusion LEZ’s have been shown to have a positive impact on improving health and reducing health inequalities in areas of high air pollution. Further research is necessary to further assess the relationship LEZ’s have on improving health and reducing health inequalities.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... es-do-work
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44567075

The microclimate of London is notoriously prone to the formation of inversion layers which prevent pollutants escaping, this is why the clean air acts were brought in. The problem is you cant see particulates the way you can smog.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/le ... great-smog

We have the same problem in Middlesbrough as the Tees Valley is also prone to the effect. When the old North Tees Power Station was working you could see the smoke rise to a level at which it flattened out and moved sideways.
https://www.markedbyteachers.com/as-and-a-level/geography/air-pollution-episodes.html wrote: Introduction

Episodes Figure 1: Air pollution episodes can often be a problem in cities such as Middlesbrough [Picture from 1]. Summa Walker EERE UG 4: Air and Water Pollution Modelling UK Air Pollution Episodes An air pollution episode is the term used for a period of poor air quality, lasting up to several days, often extending over a large geographical area [2]. Concentrations of all the measured species may increase at the same time, or only one species may be affected. 'Air Pollution Bands' classify pollution levels into bands to enable air quality levels to be identified, see table 1. Description... Low S Moderate I High A Very High Sulphur Dioxide (ppb, 15 minute averages) <100 100-199 200-399 >=400 Ozone (ppb) <50 (8hr running average) 50-89 (hourly average) 90-179 (hourly average) >=180 (hourly average) Carbon Monoxide (ppm, 8 hour running average) <10 10-14 15-19 >=20 Nitrogen Dioxide (ppb, hourly average) <150 150-299 300-399 >=400 PM10 Particles (�g/m3, 24 hour running average) <50 50-74 75-99 >=100 S = Standard Threshold, I = Information Threshold, A = Alert Threshold Table 1: Air Pollution bands for some major pollutants [from 5] There are different types of episode, caused in different ways: * Winter episodes occur during periods of cold calm weather when pollution emissions are trapped close to their sources and cannot disperse. * Summer episodes are characterised by high ozone levels and occur during warm sunny weather in the summer months. ...read more.

Middle
Bomag
Member
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 23:26

Re: ULEZ Cameras could be illegal

Post by Bomag »

KeithW wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:44
Bomag wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 12:19 The act requires the nature and scope of a ANPR system to be defined. Adding ULEZ enforcement to the existing system would require the system to be justified from first principles which would probably allow the existing system to be challenged. If TfL had set up their own system then following the code of practice should have ensured it was robust. There are numerous attempts to do things on the cheap, the legislation and code of practice are there to stop people who have no idea of the data protection best practice, or those who don't agree with it, from trying to argue that they are able to ignore it as its requires them to do something more expensive, or be limited in its scope.

The evidence I have seen is that there is no correlational between LE zones and any statistically significant reduction in pollution levels and ill health. What there is, is a correlation on levels of congestion. So even a hybrid vehicle taking 4 or more cycles to get through a set of traffic lights (or rat running) is going to be more pollution than a current petrol car getting through a junction on the first or second cycle.
Unless of course you can reduce the traffic by for example getting rid of petrol cars, you know something like a ultra low emissions zone might be useful :)

As for pollution and health see
https://thorax.bmj.com/content/74/Suppl_2/A171.2 wrote: Conclusion LEZ’s have been shown to have a positive impact on improving health and reducing health inequalities in areas of high air pollution. Further research is necessary to further assess the relationship LEZ’s have on improving health and reducing health inequalities.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... es-do-work
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44567075

The microclimate of London is notoriously prone to the formation of inversion layers which prevent pollutants escaping, this is why the clean air acts were brought in. The problem is you cant see particulates the way you can smog.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/le ... great-smog

We have the same problem in Middlesbrough as the Tees Valley is also prone to the effect. When the old North Tees Power Station was working you could see the smoke rise to a level at which it flattened out and moved sideways.
https://www.markedbyteachers.com/as-and-a-level/geography/air-pollution-episodes.html wrote: Introduction

Episodes Figure 1: Air pollution episodes can often be a problem in cities such as Middlesbrough [Picture from 1]. Summa Walker EERE UG 4: Air and Water Pollution Modelling UK Air Pollution Episodes An air pollution episode is the term used for a period of poor air quality, lasting up to several days, often extending over a large geographical area [2]. Concentrations of all the measured species may increase at the same time, or only one species may be affected. 'Air Pollution Bands' classify pollution levels into bands to enable air quality levels to be identified, see table 1. Description... Low S Moderate I High A Very High Sulphur Dioxide (ppb, 15 minute averages) <100 100-199 200-399 >=400 Ozone (ppb) <50 (8hr running average) 50-89 (hourly average) 90-179 (hourly average) >=180 (hourly average) Carbon Monoxide (ppm, 8 hour running average) <10 10-14 15-19 >=20 Nitrogen Dioxide (ppb, hourly average) <150 150-299 300-399 >=400 PM10 Particles (�g/m3, 24 hour running average) <50 50-74 75-99 >=100 S = Standard Threshold, I = Information Threshold, A = Alert Threshold Table 1: Air Pollution bands for some major pollutants [from 5] There are different types of episode, caused in different ways: * Winter episodes occur during periods of cold calm weather when pollution emissions are trapped close to their sources and cannot disperse. * Summer episodes are characterised by high ozone levels and occur during warm sunny weather in the summer months. ...read more.

Middle
Any data from 2020 onwards in relation to traffic is not statistically significant. There is correlation over the last 20 years that a turnover of the vehicle stock with less polluting vehicles is statistically significant. The point here is the impact of a charge is not the same as the impact of improving the efficiency of the vehicle stock. The BMJ linked to is based on four locations which requires more works to validate the level of restriction to any improvement and I would not trust either BBC or the Gaurdain to understand the level of maths to separate the statistical reliability of the evidence of all the aspects which impact on pollution.

This is the same sort of spurious chunter on speed limits. When looking at POPE, reduced permanent speed limits as part of highway improvement works reduced reduce accidents. This is not the same as evidence showing that reducing the limit will directly improve safety. As found with temporary limits, the lower the limit the without changing the underlying design speed the less effective the limit is at maintaining safety.
Post Reply