eastender ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Sounds like more Livingstone lies to me. The blocks of flats which
line the A41 from Marble Arch to Childs Hill all look pretty
expensive to me. The most deprived areas tend to be pedestrianised
and very quiet.

That may be true in some cities but not so much in London,

Hmmm. I'd say that London had a higher proportion of expensive areas on
main arteries than other cities, with a higher proportion of the poorer
population commuting in from outside.

Most of the major arteries go through bloody well-off areas.

Adrian wrote:

Hmmm. I'd say that London had a higher proportion of expensive areas on
main arteries than other cities, with a higher proportion of the poorer
population commuting in from outside.

Most of the major arteries go through bloody well-off areas.

Really? I live in Hackney, which is mostly not very well off. Then look at
Tower Hamlets, Islington, Newham, Haringey, Southwark, Lambeth, Brent...
I'd say that the more of the traffic burden in terms of pollution, noise
and accidents falls on poorer inner city areas, and children and older
people who use the streets more are the most affected.

E.

eastender ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Hmmm. I'd say that London had a higher proportion of expensive areas
on main arteries than other cities, with a higher proportion of the
poorer population commuting in from outside.

Most of the major arteries go through bloody well-off areas.

Really? I live in Hackney, which is mostly not very well off. Then
look at Tower Hamlets, Islington, Newham, Haringey, Southwark,
Lambeth, Brent...

Which doesn't contradict what I said.

MOST of London's major arteries go through (or very close to) well-off
areas.

Adrian wrote:

MOST of London's major arteries go through (or very close to) well-off
areas.

This does not mean though that well off people are affected as much as
poorer people. I can't see that the Mile End Road is like the A316 through
Richmond in terms of housing density, street population, location of
primary schools and susceptibility.

One health impact is stroke - as this study says:

'Our focus was on proximity to roads and stroke mortality, but a striking
observation was the substantial association between socioeconomic
deprivation and stroke mortality in middle-aged people.'

http://stroke.ahajournals.org/cgi/co...aha;34/12/2776

E.

eastender ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

MOST of London's major arteries go through (or very close to)
well-off areas.

This does not mean though that well off people are affected as much as
poorer people. I can't see that the Mile End Road is like the A316
through Richmond in terms of housing density, street population,
location of primary schools and susceptibility.

Where did I say that?

I was merely pointing out that your original assertion,

People who take taxis are less likely to be those affected by living
near heavy traffic.
Message-ID:

was incorrect. They're probably no more nor less likely. In that respect,
London's geography and demographics are a great leveller.

On 31 Aug, 10:52, Adrian wrote:
I was merely pointing out that your original assertion,

People who take taxis are less likely to be those affected by living
near heavy traffic.

Message-ID:

was incorrect. They're probably no more nor less likely. In that respect,
London's geography and demographics are a great leveller.

But the data, as collated by people who actually know What The Hell
They're Talking About, shows that people who are poor in London are
more likely to be affected by living near heavy traffic than people
who are wealthy.

Unless you're proposing a radically counter-intuitive theory about the
demographics of taxi useage, that strongly suggests that the original
assertion was correct and your 'correction' was not.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Adrian wrote:

I was merely pointing out that your original assertion,

People who take taxis are less likely to be those affected by living
near heavy traffic.
Message-ID:

was incorrect. They're probably no more nor less likely. In that respect,
London's geography and demographics are a great leveller.

Well, if you can provide data that shows that people who use taxis are just
as likely to be poor people who say live near the Mile End Road, then you
have a point. Otherwise, I'm afraid you don't.

E.

eastender ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

I was merely pointing out that your original assertion,

People who take taxis are less likely to be those affected by
living near heavy traffic.
Message-ID:

was incorrect. They're probably no more nor less likely. In that
respect, London's geography and demographics are a great leveller.

Well, if you can provide data that shows that people who use taxis are
just as likely to be poor people who say live near the Mile End Road,
then you have a point. Otherwise, I'm afraid you don't.

**** me, but you really do have a problem with comprehension, don't you?

Adrian wrote:

**** me, but you really do have a problem with comprehension, don't you?

Well, if I've understood you correctly, you are indeed f**ked on this one.

E.

eastender ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

**** me, but you really do have a problem with comprehension, don't
you?

Well, if I've understood you correctly, you are indeed f**ked on this
one.

And therein lies the problem. You clearly DON'T understand me correctly,
because you have an axe to grind.

Your original claim was that a lower proportion of those using taxis would
be likely to be affected than the population at general.

I don't believe that is so, and repeated claims (of the blindingly obvious
fact) that more people are poor than rich doesn't come close to justifying
your assertion.