Modal shift from cars to buses or trams and the difference in perception between these modes

[Dentonian]

Eh? In what way is a flight not public transport?

The flight *is* public transport. Ryanair is not a public transport mode. It is just one provider of that mode.

 

[Dentonian]

Yes you're right in that the bus has a bad image, but in my view simply because as a mode of transport it often offers a poor quality journey experience. People experience this first-hand and impressions stick.

In answer to your question, on the other occasions it was train (by an extremely not as-the-crow-flies route thanks to line closures) or combination of train/bike. Yes occasionally parts of the journey may have been crowded, but nothing like as cramped as the bus.

As regards the buses in my local station forecourt, this still goes on to this day. Couldn't tell you OTOMH how old they are, but certainly not ancient.

Probably badly maintained then! Coincidentally, I have just uncovered some official (ie. not BBC propoganda, and NOT provided by the bus industry, either) briefing notes about transport related pollution in GM. Because of the rapid improvement in diesel technology, especially regarding Euro6 which most buses built since about 2012 conform to, it acknowledges that cars are not the major source of pollution many believe. The biggest offenders are "Large" Goods Vehicles (NOx especially, with Buses making "only a low contribution" except on heavily bussed corridors. Franchising or not, this WILL be addressed with LEZs very soon.

 

[AlterEgo]

Noting that I did not name this "off shoot" thread, and indeed only found it existed a few minutes ago; the whole point here is NOT the mode of transport, but the HUMAN BEINGS using it. If saying *I* and millions of others are "The bottom of society" isn't extreme right wing prejudice by complete strangers, then what is?

Yes, it’s about the people who are perceived to use that service and whether other people feel perceive they ought to be using it too. I’m still not clear why you have tried to bring politics into it.

It’s part of human nature that we all try to project an image of ourselves to make ourselves seem socially acceptable and comfortable. This is a human trait found among people of all political persuasions. It is not a “right wing” thing.

I could afford to dress very nicely indeed, and look like one of the polo set. If I wanted. But I don’t. It’s not because I’m prejudiced against polo players or the upper class. It’s because I don’t feel like I belong there and it’s not what I should look like.

I could dress like a homeless person. There are very few of us who would appear like that out of choice. That’s not prejudice against homeless people.

Since you asked for examples of extreme right wing prejudice by complete strangers, I’d point to gaybashing, banning the Irish and blacks from establishments, violent misogyny, outing trans people, torching Eastern Europeans out of their homes, murdering a Labour MP, and many other things.

I wouldn’t point to someone who thought buses were downmarket and not an aspirational form of transport as an example of “extreme right wing prejudice”.

Not sure how much clearer I can make that.

 

[judethegreat]

What exactly does a homeless person look like??

 

[Clip]

ITo me that's no different than saying you wouldn't go into a "gay" bar, because its socially unacceptable, or you wouldn't buy from a business that employs people with different coloured skin, because its socially unacceptable. But then again, I'm not a qualified psychologist.

You're right, you are not. To honestly think that you could even come close to comparing racism and homophobia to people not wanting to go on a bus is astounding. They are not comparable by a very very wide margin and your faux OUTRAGE is very misplaced.

​

What exactly does a homeless person look like??

I think we know what that poster was getting at in as much as that may be a stereotype we all knew what they meant.

 

[keith1879]

Franchising or indeed other Reform options should put a stop to this, as in terms of route and general frequency (if not exact timetable) Franchised buses should be just as stable as rail.

BTW, presumably "picking a car" is a mistake; Did you mean "picking a job", possibly? If you had a reliable (in all senses) bus service, you would be far less likely to need a car than if you had a "reliable", but remote Rail/tram service.

No - I did mean picking a car. There are two decisions - whether to have a car at all and which one to have. If you intend to use it for commuting you are likely to make a different choice than if it will just be for leisure. I understand your argument about franchising but I doubt if perceptions will change.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Probably badly maintained then!

And there lies the crux of the matter.

Well-maintained Euro 6 engines on modern well-maintained large vehicles (buses, HGVs) don't produce much NOx at all. Some studies show that some diesel cars produce more than a bus, because the bus has the Euro 6 technology and the cars don't (after all, who wants to pump a huge tank of urea into their car?).

But do all bus operators use exclusively well-maintained Euro 6 engines on modern well-maintained buses? Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Up here, there are three main operators: Arriva, Go and Stagecoach.

Arriva have brought a load of 52-plate ex-London buses up here, put new fakey-leather seats and WiFi in and given them a lick of paint. They're attempting to call this a premium "MAX" experience. On my route, which doesn't merit such poshness, they're using W-reg buses. Go have pretty much done the same, although at least they have the good sense to put cherished number plates on the buses to disguise how old they are. Stagecoach started to put WiFi on some buses but, presumably, got bored. Other than that, their buses are in original spec from 2006.

Why on earth would I leave my car at home for a 15-year-old bus, even if it does have plastic seats?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If it's well-maintained, why do we have an obsession about vehicle age in this country?

(Of course it often isn't, but that's separate from how new it is)

 

[Dentonian]

Yes, it’s about the people who are perceived to use that service and whether other people feel perceive they ought to be using it too. I’m still not clear why you have tried to bring politics into it.

It’s part of human nature that we all try to project an image of ourselves to make ourselves seem socially acceptable and comfortable. This is a human trait found among people of all political persuasions. It is not a “right wing” thing.

I could afford to dress very nicely indeed, and look like one of the polo set. If I wanted. But I don’t. It’s not because I’m prejudiced against polo players or the upper class. It’s because I don’t feel like I belong there and it’s not what I should look like.

I could dress like a homeless person. There are very few of us who would appear like that out of choice. That’s not prejudice against homeless people.

Since you asked for examples of extreme right wing prejudice by complete strangers, I’d point to gaybashing, banning the Irish and blacks from establishments, violent misogyny, outing trans people, torching Eastern Europeans out of their homes, murdering a Labour MP, and many other things.

I wouldn’t point to someone who thought buses were downmarket and not an aspirational form of transport as an example of “extreme right wing prejudice”.

Not sure how much clearer I can make that.

In view of the examples you give, I accept I shouldn't have used the word "extreme". However, I stand by what I said, as I do not, and never have judged anyone on anything other than their behaviour. And by behaviour, I mean how their actions impact on others both individually and throughout society. In other words, the only people who I place at the "bottom of society" are criminals and others who willfully endanger or inconvenience other people (or animals).

 

[Tetchytyke]

If it's well-maintained, why do we have an obsession about vehicle age in this country?

If it's well maintained, and regularly refreshed, nobody will notice the age.

When its a clapped out ex-London bus that sounds like a Massey Ferguson, no amount of posh plastic seating will make it a premium experience.

How many 15-year-old buses are well looked after? Transdev Keighley's buses are. Can't think of many else.

 

[Firesprite]

There is also the perception factor typified by Thatcher's apocryphal quote about anyone over 25 having to use a bus being a failure in life.

Only problem is that she never actually said that or anything like that, it's a persistant urban myth.

It was Loelia Ponsonby, one of the wives of 2nd Duke of Westminster who said "Anybody seen in a bus over the age of 30 has been a failure in life"

 

[edwin_m]

Only problem is that she never actually said that or anything like that, it's a persistant urban myth.

It was Loelia Ponsonby, one of the wives of 2nd Duke of Westminster who said "Anybody seen in a bus over the age of 30 has been a failure in life"

Hence my use of the word "apochryphal". But it does sum up quite well the attitude of a certain segment of society, likely to include the people behind bus deregulation in the 1980s.

 

[Dentonian]

Only problem is that she never actually said that or anything like that, it's a persistant urban myth.

It was Loelia Ponsonby, one of the wives of 2nd Duke of Westminster who said "Anybody seen in a bus over the age of 30 has been a failure in life"

It WAS widely reported in the lead up to De-reg that Thatcher paraphrased it, changing 30 to 26. I'm not sure of he significance of 26, btw. Also, Thatcher specifically said *men* not anybody. I hadn't realised the original was less sexist.

 

[Firesprite]

It WAS widely reported in the lead up to De-reg that Thatcher paraphrased it, changing 30 to 26. I'm not sure of he significance of 26, btw. Also, Thatcher specifically said *men* not anybody. I hadn't realised the original was less sexist.

If it was widely reported as you claim there would be a record, Yet there is none so where is your proof? However, Mrs Thatcher is unusual in that all her public utterances have been transcribed and recorded. Yet there is a record of Douglas Alexander, the Transport Secretary, who made the same comment at the 2006 Labour conference.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3633738/Home-front.html

https://www.theguardian.com/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1560453,00.html

 

[takno]

I recently saw a "public survey" - another shamocracy con; have you ever been canvassed for your political opinions? No, neither have I, nor anyone I know, or anyone my family knows. This (national) survey was actually from about 10 years ago, and straight away it was unrepresentative as it stated that 81% of people asked had a car/van in the household. The national average at that time would have been about 70%.

I've got to take exception to this. I have been surveyed on topics like this, and I know several people who spend their entire day calling people to do these surveys. They are quite vigorous in their methods and really don't just make this stuff up. Also, at the time only 70% (I think it was nearer 75%, and that figure came from a survey as well, but nevermind) of households had a car, but many of the non car-owning households were one or two member pensioner households, while larger households were more likely to have a car, so it's quite likely that 80% or people were in that 70-odd% of households.

It's depressing that people don't value buses as much as they should, and it's often based on massively outdated ideas about what buses are like, but that doesn't mean the survey was wrong

 

[Dentonian]

I've got to take exception to this. I have been surveyed on topics like this, and I know several people who spend their entire day calling people to do these surveys. They are quite vigorous in their methods and really don't just make this stuff up. Also, at the time only 70% (I think it was nearer 75%, and that figure came from a survey as well, but nevermind) of households had a car, but many of the non car-owning households were one or two member pensioner households, while larger households were more likely to have a car, so it's quite likely that 80% or people were in that 70-odd% of households.

It's depressing that people don't value buses as much as they should, and it's often based on massively outdated ideas about what buses are like, but that doesn't mean the survey was wrong

Apologies! As I said, I have NO experience of any kind of consumer survey/canvassing, so won't now how it works. What I would say is that if more than one person in the household is surveyed, then it is not going to be genuinely representative - if only to "exaggerate" the majority. If there are four adults in a household with one car, that represents considerably higher access to car use (NOT neccesarily as a driver) for at least some journeys, than a single occupancy household with no car. Also, the more adults in a household, the higher the household income is likely to be; the higher the possibility of Ecomonics of scale for virtually all aspects of life, and the more disposable income for using taxis to get to (for instance) a train station three miles away, on the occasions when a lift in the family car(s) are not possible. As for overall car ownership per household, the figures I got were from a Government website (likely to be more accurate than a "survey", as it is based on the entire UK population) that said in 2011 74% of households had access to private motorised transport (the GM figure was 72%), so I did assume the 70% figure on the assumption that nationally vehicle ownership had risen between 2006 & 2011. one things for sure, it certainly wasn't 81%!

Besides, the major point is that over a fifth of the (surveyed) population made a decision based on pure prejudice, not on practical considerations such as cost, time, reliability, personal health etc.etc. Not something you expect to see in a supposedly developed, egalitarian nation that is forever preaching morals to other countries.

The irony is that in the majority of cases, apart from a massive improvement in environmental credentials and access for wheelchair users where the bus stop isn't obstructed, today's buses are no better than the were 30+ years ago. Back in the 1970s/1980s every seat on every bus had cushions, and these were replaced every 3-4 years. Today, many have plastic "bum perches", or very thin "flannel" coverings on at least some seats.

 

[Dentonian]

If it was widely reported as you claim there would be a record, Yet there is none so where is your proof? However, Mrs Thatcher is unusual in that all her public utterances have been transcribed and recorded. Yet there is a record of Douglas Alexander, the Transport Secretary, who made the same comment at the 2006 Labour conference.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3633738/Home-front.html

https://www.theguardian.com/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1560453,00.html

With all due respect, there was no such thing as Wikipedia or the internet in 1986, so we are hardly going to be able to obtain proof 32 years later. What is notable, is that I distinctly remember the quote reported as "men over 26", no reference to women, nor to the age of 30. In fact, its only in reading one of these attachments that I've seen the number "29" mentioned for the very first time.

Put another way, I as a lay person caught in the crossfire at the time as both an employee and non-motorist, have no more proof beyond my memory, than those claiming in one of these excerpts, that patronage would have declined further with continued Regulation. Indeed, given some of the theories behind this attitude towards bus users being "blame transference" because of the hatred of "bus barons", it could be argued that that alone is a factor in the decline of bus use. Also, even outside Greater London, you cannot use generalised stats for something that varies so much by location.For instance, between 1986 & 2006, bus use declined by 30% nationally (according to the above news item), but around 36.5% in GM.
And whilst we are talking quotes - and this one was in response to a question I, personally asked some years ago; One time Tory Transport Minister, Steven Norris said "Bus De-regulation has not served (Greater) Manchester as well as we had hoped".

 

[takno]

Besides, the major point is that over a fifth of the (surveyed) population made a decision based on pure prejudice, not on practical considerations such as cost, time, reliability, personal health etc.etc. Not something you expect to see in a supposedly developed, egalitarian nation that is forever preaching morals to other countries.

The irony is that in the majority of cases, apart from a massive improvement in environmental credentials and access for wheelchair users where the bus stop isn't obstructed, today's buses are no better than the were 30+ years ago. Back in the 1970s/1980s every seat on every bus had cushions, and these were replaced every 3-4 years. Today, many have plastic "bum perches", or very thin "flannel" coverings on at least some seats.

Buses are probably more variable across the country now than they were 30 years ago, and I'd say more than 20% of the population probably live in places where the provision is now so poor that the quality of the buses that do arrive is largely irrelevant. Unfortunately the media and commentary on these things is often national, and people assume that the poor provision they've heard about applies in their area as well. The upshot of this is that people in large chunks of South Devon say, where the provision is pretty good, will never get as far as trying it even once.

As to the standards, the improved accessibility for pushchairs probably benefits more people than the wheelchair accessibility. I'd also put the banning of smoking extremely high up the list of improvements, and possibly related, buses are generally cleaner than I remember them being. There is much better provision of information, with real time trackers, and the ability to follow where you are on your phone once you are on the bus. I'm far happier going to get a bus now knowing that there is a physical vehicle just down the road than 15-20 years ago when I could end up waiting for an hour for a bus that never comes. They also seem to have less ambitious timetables, which is slightly annoying when you're on one and make bad time, but vastly improves the chances of them being where they say they will be. Even the increasing use of hybrids is a big benefit, reducing the annoying engine vibrations when you're stopped in traffic.

Over all I'd say the benefits outweigh the admittedly-annoying poor quality of the seats.

 

[Dunnyrail]

This has proved to be a most interesting thread with many good and not some not so good points. I happen to live in St.Neots where the local, Bus Services are pretty much a non event outside peak hours and on Sundays. The only bus that is of any use 7 days a week is the X5 Oxford to Cambridge that has superb Modern 6 wheel Coach like buses. Always a pleasure to use, but still gets stuck in the same traffic that clogs up Cambridge day in day out. There are proposals for a Subway and Light Railway in Cambridge but I suspect it may be Decades away when it is needed NOW. Such is the way of the Country but 1.5 Billion can be found to divert the A14 away from a crumbling bridge over Huntingdon that should NEVER have been built in the first place. And guess what the Ox-Cam Expressway will be built long before the Section of the Ox-Cam line between Bedford and Cambridge is even approved, thus probably negating the point of the line. Do the Railway first then see if there is still a need for the Road. Back on Buses most of the Local ones are run by Whippett a local company that appears to specialise in running old bangers. They have got some newer ones, but we rarely see them here now. Speaking as I do to a lot of people that live here the bus is a little used mode of Transport perhaps being used for the odd trip to either Bedford or Cambridge via the X5. The local services tend to be used by Commuters accesing the Station and Pensioners with Bus Passes.

 

[Dentonian]

Buses are probably more variable across the country now than they were 30 years ago, and I'd say more than 20% of the population probably live in places where the provision is now so poor that the quality of the buses that do arrive is largely irrelevant. Unfortunately the media and commentary on these things is often national, and people assume that the poor provision they've heard about applies in their area as well. The upshot of this is that people in large chunks of South Devon say, where the provision is pretty good, will never get as far as trying it even once.

As to the standards, the improved accessibility for pushchairs probably benefits more people than the wheelchair accessibility. I'd also put the banning of smoking extremely high up the list of improvements, and possibly related, buses are generally cleaner than I remember them being. There is much better provision of information, with real time trackers, and the ability to follow where you are on your phone once you are on the bus. I'm far happier going to get a bus now knowing that there is a physical vehicle just down the road than 15-20 years ago when I could end up waiting for an hour for a bus that never comes. They also seem to have less ambitious timetables, which is slightly annoying when you're on one and make bad time, but vastly improves the chances of them being where they say they will be. Even the increasing use of hybrids is a big benefit, reducing the annoying engine vibrations when you're stopped in traffic.

Over all I'd say the benefits outweigh the admittedly-annoying poor quality of the seats.

Statistically (!), only 12% of the population live more than 400 metres away from a "regularly served" bus stop. However, I take your point because apart from it being little consolation to the 12%, it is not clear how up to date those statistics are. Nor is it clear what "regularly served" means. In GM and other similar conurbations, I think its something like at least one bus an hour for at least 12 hours (0700-1900?) on Mon-Sats. Until recently, that would have easily included over 90% of the population, but as Metrolink spreads into new areas such as Wythenshawe, that figure is falling.

I would totally agree that the outlawing of Smoking has also been a major step forward, and in fact, I'm shocked that it has been adhered to so well. Firstly (and again we are talking Media attitudes), the whole debate and continued presentation of the 2006 Health Act has been a massive emphasis on pubs and restaurants; no mention of buses (or indeed, trains) or public buildings. Secondly, where I used to live, the vast majority of smokers (nearly all off-peak buses were single deckers, btw) were under 18 - the very age group you expect to have the least respect for the law and their local neighbourhood. Yet, even though I have now moved and live on virtually 100% 'decker operated routes, it has "touch wood" become a complete rarity. In bus stations is another matter - but significantly, I have noticed that the majority of offenders here have been "passing through" bus stations - including walking to Metrolink platforms!!!

The availability of smartphones/apps etc has been raised elsewhere, but when Stagecoach first introduced theirs, it was useless. It now seems more accurate, but there is certainly an issue with wi-fi reception on buses round here.
OTOH, timetables have become *more* ambitious where I travel most, especially off-peak - largely due to trying to load almost the same number of passengers on many fewer buses and a deterioration in driver changeover times. Obs suggest the latter is to do with ticket machines, not in any way the fault of drivers, btw.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As to the standards, the improved accessibility for pushchairs probably benefits more people than the wheelchair accessibility.

Low floor benefits near enough everyone - if you're unsteady on your feet it's one step (if any at all) rather than three. It's like ramps and lifts at stations aren't just for wheelchair users, they're pretty useful if you've got luggage too.

RTPI really is a "killer app" when it works well - being able to know where your bus is removes a lot of doubt about whether it's going to turn up or not.

 

[Dentonian]

Low floor benefits near enough everyone - if you're unsteady on your feet it's one step (if any at all) rather than three. It's like ramps and lifts at stations aren't just for wheelchair users, they're pretty useful if you've got luggage too.

RTPI really is a "killer app" when it works well - being able to know where your bus is removes a lot of doubt about whether it's going to turn up or not.

True, although lack of grab rails is still a bit of an issue, especially when the bus is full. One trend that hasn't changed over the years is that standing passengers (especially young people) tend to crowd out the front of the bus ahead of the stairwell, even when they know they will be on the bus for a good 20 minutes.

 

[Firesprite]

With all due respect, there was no such thing as Wikipedia or the internet in 1986, so we are hardly going to be able to obtain proof 32 years later. What is notable, is that I distinctly remember the quote reported as "men over 26", no reference to women, nor to the age of 30. In fact, its only in reading one of these attachments that I've seen the number "29" mentioned for the very first time..

In 1986 the internet was aready 19 years old, I myself had access from 1981 while a undergrad at UMIST. You are clearly confused with the term 'World Wide Web'. The Web is just one of the ways that information can be disseminated over the Internet. The Internet, not the Web, is also used for email, which relies on SMTP, Usenet news groups, instant messaging and FTP. So the Web is just a portion of the Internet, but the two terms are not synonymous and should not be confused.

As for Wikipedia I would not trust the information unless it can be cross checked, including the date.

As for not being able to find any proof, Is that she never said it. Two newspaper reporters with the resources of their papers were unable to find any record, even in their own papers backcopies. Yet take another quote she made six years early to the Conservative Party Conference on 10 October 1980. 'The lady is not for turning', No problem with finding proof of this one.

https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/104431
http://www.britpolitics.co.uk/british-political-speeches-margaret-thatcher-ladys-not-for-turning
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/10/newsid_2541000/2541071.stm

Had she made your claimed quote and that is was widely reported, there would be a record somewhere. The british library has no record of this quote in its Newpaper Archive which dates back to the 1600's.

Yet the only record of this quote being made in a house of commons debate was actally made by the labour MP Tony McNulty on June 15 2004 while as Under-Secretary of State for Transport.
Read Column 697 of the debate.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040615/debtext/40615-20.htm#40615-20_spnew1

A record is kept of all parliamentary proceedings and has been the case since the founding of parliament.

The quote is offen made by members and supporters of the left wing, which may well be where you heard it.

 

[Dentonian]

Wow! A claim I made. My ego is well and truly boosted. All I'm saying is that I remember it being atrributed to Thatcher in the lead up to Dereg. Not; I read it a few years ago, so it must have been true. Clearly, many, many others recall it. As to it coming from "the left wing", that's a subjective term in any context. Never mind the fact that anyone considered a middle of the road "mixed economy" supporter in the mid 1980s, would now be classed as a raving Commie.

 

[edwin_m]

In 1986 the internet was aready 19 years old, I myself had access from 1981 while a undergrad at UMIST. You are clearly confused with the term 'World Wide Web'. The Web is just one of the ways that information can be disseminated over the Internet. The Internet, not the Web, is also used for email, which relies on SMTP, Usenet news groups, instant messaging and FTP. So the Web is just a portion of the Internet, but the two terms are not synonymous and should not be confused.

This is probably true (I haven't looked it up on Wikipedia) but isn't relevant. What is being referred to is widespread access to networking with many people having the ability to read and write content. That didn't really happen until the late 1990s, so generally speaking any older information on the Web will not be a contemporaneous record. There may be exception in certain academic circles, although as an engineering student from 1984 I certainly didn't have Internet access, or if I did nobody told me.

 

[Dunnyrail]

Do I have a memory in the back of my head that the Bus Quote may have been from one of her High ranking male Cabinet Members, perhaps Heseltine or Rifkin or somesuch? There are a lot of them to research:-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ministers_under_Margaret_Thatcher

 

[theageofthetra]

Probably badly maintained then! Coincidentally, I have just uncovered some official (ie. not BBC propoganda, and NOT provided by the bus industry, either) briefing notes about transport related pollution in GM. Because of the rapid improvement in diesel technology, especially regarding Euro6 which most buses built since about 2012 conform to, it acknowledges that cars are not the major source of pollution many believe. The biggest offenders are "Large" Goods Vehicles (NOx especially, with Buses making "only a low contribution" except on heavily bussed corridors. Franchising or not, this WILL be addressed with LEZs very soon.

How will any of this deal with foreign registered vehicles which have rigged emissions systems or have never passed an emissions test due to corruption in their place of issuence,

 

[edwin_m]

How will any of this deal with foreign registered vehicles which have rigged emissions systems or have never passed an emissions test due to corruption in their place of issuence,

This is a concern for HGVs and ideally the same standards would apply across all countries where their operators are free to operate without restriction. Leaving the EU means we will have even less say on that in the future than we do today. It's not really an issue for buses, as far as I know all the ones working in the UK are UK-registered (though I don't know if there is any rule that says they have to be).

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is a concern for HGVs and ideally the same standards would apply across all countries where their operators are free to operate without restriction. Leaving the EU means we will have even less say on that in the future than we do today. It's not really an issue for buses, as far as I know all the ones working in the UK are UK-registered (though I don't know if there is any rule that says they have to be).

We will have a say; we could for example introduce a LEZ covering the whole of the UK and turn back at the border any non-compliant vehicle. Indeed, we could do that without leaving the EU - the key is that it applies to everyone.

 

[edwin_m]

We will have a say; we could for example introduce a LEZ covering the whole of the UK and turn back at the border any non-compliant vehicle. Indeed, we could do that without leaving the EU - the key is that it applies to everyone.

That is possible but would be very costly and disruptive to the UK economy, because hauliers able to operate across Europe would not be able to operate in the UK unless their vehicles met a higher minimum standard. If it is seen as a non-tariff barrier to trade it also invites reciprocal action.