RE: 2021 ULEZ expansion | PH Explains
Discussion
btdk5 said:
audikentman said:
I would have thought not having a ULEZ would affect the poorest most, they are the people who have to walk and cycle so are more affected by polluting vehicles.
The cost of buying a ULEZ compliant vechicle is from about 3k.
You can buy a Mazda 6 for about £700. It’s compliant. The cost of buying a ULEZ compliant vechicle is from about 3k.
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emissio...
Type R Tom said:
You destroy your argument in the first sentence. I think you need to be reported to HMRC as you pay no tax
The cycling paradox - cycling is only for white middle class men / cyclists don't pay for the roads!
I cycle because it is quicker to get to work and for fitness. I would spend every minute in my car if not. My point is that these "Cycle Lanes" and road changes made in the last 18 months actually create more congestion and pollution. The cycling paradox - cycling is only for white middle class men / cyclists don't pay for the roads!
Transport in London used to be based on horse drawn vehicles, Steam engines, and coal fired heating, so it was up to its neck in horse sh*t, flies, soot, and smoke. Then people changed to the much cleaner forms of transport, which included motor vehicles, and electric trains, but the hundreds of thousand of dwellings, and other buildings continued to churn out huge volumes of smoke, and other gases. Any major city which crams hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people into a relatively small space has historically always been, is still, and is likely to remain a dirty sh*thole (just like a lot of London still is now) If people want to live there that is fine, but jumping into a cesspit, and then complaining about the smell of sh*t, is not very progressive.
With all the dwellings, restaurants, businesses, take away`s, etc crammed into a small area London and places with similar demographics, are likely to remain a polluted hole for the foreseeable future. As the old saying goes, lie down with dogs and you cannot be surprised if you get fleas.
I was born, grew up, and worked there for decades, but remember the sheer joy of getting out of the place for good.
With all the dwellings, restaurants, businesses, take away`s, etc crammed into a small area London and places with similar demographics, are likely to remain a polluted hole for the foreseeable future. As the old saying goes, lie down with dogs and you cannot be surprised if you get fleas.
I was born, grew up, and worked there for decades, but remember the sheer joy of getting out of the place for good.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Transport in London used to be based on horse drawn vehicles, Steam engines, and coal fired heating, so it was up to its neck in horse sh*t, flies, soot, and smoke. Then people changed to the much cleaner forms of transport, which included motor vehicles, and electric trains, but the hundreds of thousand of dwellings, and other buildings continued to churn out huge volumes of smoke, and other gases. Any major city which crams hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people into a relatively small space has historically always been, is still, and is likely to remain a dirty sh*thole (just like a lot of London still is now) If people want to live there that is fine, but jumping into a cesspit, and then complaining about the smell of sh*t, is not very progressive.
With all the dwellings, restaurants, businesses, take away`s, etc crammed into a small area London and places with similar demographics, are likely to remain a polluted hole for the foreseeable future. As the old saying goes, lie down with dogs and you cannot be surprised if you get fleas.
I was born, grew up, and worked there for decades, but remember the sheer joy of getting out of the place for good.
I love the bitter posts from people who didn’t make it and had to move away. With all the dwellings, restaurants, businesses, take away`s, etc crammed into a small area London and places with similar demographics, are likely to remain a polluted hole for the foreseeable future. As the old saying goes, lie down with dogs and you cannot be surprised if you get fleas.
I was born, grew up, and worked there for decades, but remember the sheer joy of getting out of the place for good.
I don’t think you get them for any other geographic area.
croyde said:
It's a bit insulting that people, ie good intelligent friends of mine, are called stupid because they don't know what a ULEZ, LEZ or CC is.
Maybe stupid, definitely ignorant.Edited by croyde on Monday 25th October 11:34
Anecdotally, I live in Surrey, not near ULEZ and it will never affect me but I've noticed ULEZ adverts on mainstream TV in the last couple of months. Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy springs to mind here.
Wide arse said:
I cycle because it is quicker to get to work and for fitness. I would spend every minute in my car if not. My point is that these "Cycle Lanes" and road changes made in the last 18 months actually create more congestion and pollution.
There was some “young chap” on tv this morning being interviewed by the Wigan witch He was eloquent and quite passionate about everyone cycling to work or walking everywhere and the environment but I couldn’t help feeling his life is lived in a bubble of able bodied youth
I wonder what the 70 year old version of the 30 year old on tv this morning would think of his idea for how we should ALL be moving about
As a young man I lived in London, and hardly ever used my car, now as an ( sadly ) older one, I live in the middle of nowhere, the big empty as I call it, and cars are absolutely essential here, and whilst I have a pedal cycle I use it for pleasure it could never replace a car
I don't think I've ever seen any pro cycling campaigner suggest that everyone everywhere should be walking or using bikes exclusively. Obviously that is not going to happen, nor is it reasonable to expect it to. I should think he was referring to those in more built up areas who were able to do so. Obviously not only do we have the climate issue, we also have a country full of fat f
ks that cost the NHS much cash each year, so there's really little downside to getting people into using their bodies to get around, if it is suitable.
ks that cost the NHS much cash each year, so there's really little downside to getting people into using their bodies to get around, if it is suitable.btdk5 said:
I love the bitter posts from people who didn’t make it and had to move away.
I don’t think you get them for any other geographic area.
Bit presumptuous from a yokel whose profile puts them way, way out in the sticks of N5. Mind that sheep, look out for tractors etc I don’t think you get them for any other geographic area.
As someone who lived in Marylebone, but moved out for work (apparently jaunty hairstyles and quinoa aren't the valuable commodities that I had been led to believe), I find myself returning to London only for museums, shows, the Eurostar and to visit friends less fortunate than myself. Apart from that, I find it all a bit smelly and full of grumpy people these days.
Earthdweller said:
Wide arse said:
I cycle because it is quicker to get to work and for fitness. I would spend every minute in my car if not. My point is that these "Cycle Lanes" and road changes made in the last 18 months actually create more congestion and pollution.
There was some “young chap” on tv this morning being interviewed by the Wigan witch He was eloquent and quite passionate about everyone cycling to work or walking everywhere and the environment but I couldn’t help feeling his life is lived in a bubble of able bodied youth
I wonder what the 70 year old version of the 30 year old on tv this morning would think of his idea for how we should ALL be moving about
As a young man I lived in London, and hardly ever used my car, now as an ( sadly ) older one, I live in the middle of nowhere, the big empty as I call it, and cars are absolutely essential here, and whilst I have a pedal cycle I use it for pleasure it could never replace a car
okgo said:
I don't think I've ever seen any pro cycling campaigner suggest that everyone everywhere should be walking or using bikes exclusively. Obviously that is not going to happen, nor is it reasonable to expect it to. I should think he was referring to those in more built up areas who were able to do so. Obviously not only do we have the climate issue, we also have a country full of fat fks that cost the NHS much cash each year, so there's really little downside to getting people into using their bodies to get around, if it is suitable.
I've met one, guy called Dr Robert Davis. Once saw him belittle a woman doing a presentation about travel for the Beijing Olympics, moaned at her for flying and how the people in Bangladesh were getting flooded out. The poor girl got the train one way but couldn't get the time off work for both journeys. ks that cost the NHS much cash each year, so there's really little downside to getting people into using their bodies to get around, if it is suitable.braddo said:
McRors said:
It’s not the government it’s the loony mayor, Sadiq Khan who’s responsible for this. He hates cars and has blocked off roads and caused mayhem in London. He’s an idiot.
Wrong.The cities are mandated by government to clean up air pollution.
grudas said:
checked our cars as my mum lives inside the expanded zone.
2003 Toyota Crown 1jz 2500cc - not exempt
2005 Nissan Cube 1.5 4 pot micra engine - nope, no good.
2004 Honda s2000 2.0 - exempt..
eh?!
wonder if the issue is that the other two are imports.
2003 Toyota Crown 1jz 2500cc - not exempt
2005 Nissan Cube 1.5 4 pot micra engine - nope, no good.
2004 Honda s2000 2.0 - exempt..
eh?!
wonder if the issue is that the other two are imports.
samoht said:
JDM imports are eligible when newer than the enforcement date of the relevant standard. So for petrols, if first registered (in Japan) after 1 Jan 2006, diesels 1 Sep 2015. So you could e.g. drive this EVO IX https://www.pistonheads.com/buy/listing/12188251 within the zone without paying.
The only difference is that cars older than these dates are automatically ineligible, whereas their EU market counterparts may be ok if their original homologation figures come under the 80 mg/km limit for NOx.
The only difference is that cars older than these dates are automatically ineligible, whereas their EU market counterparts may be ok if their original homologation figures come under the 80 mg/km limit for NOx.
donkmeister said:
Bit presumptuous from a yokel whose profile puts them way, way out in the sticks of N5. Mind that sheep, look out for tractors etc
As someone who lived in Marylebone, but moved out for work (apparently jaunty hairstyles and quinoa aren't the valuable commodities that I had been led to believe), I find myself returning to London only for museums, shows, the Eurostar and to visit friends less fortunate than myself. Apart from that, I find it all a bit smelly and full of grumpy people these days.
Well, quite. I mean N5, that’s a bit, well, suburban isn’t it? As someone who lived in Marylebone, but moved out for work (apparently jaunty hairstyles and quinoa aren't the valuable commodities that I had been led to believe), I find myself returning to London only for museums, shows, the Eurostar and to visit friends less fortunate than myself. Apart from that, I find it all a bit smelly and full of grumpy people these days.
London is a dump, and if I didn’t have the good fortune to earn my living there, I’d sell my house (N1, off street parking for 5 cars) in a flash. As it is, I drive in late on Sunday night, do a few days in the office and head out again. Living in the country with a sensible acre-age is vastly better. Lockdown was great (other than the pub being closed).
As to air quality, it is infinitely better now than it was 30 years ago. Mainly because the old Routemasters have gone. If thousands of people are dying from air pollution these days, millions must have been dying in the 90s….
It is worth recalling that the purchase of diesel cars was incentivised by tax cuts some years ago and all in the cause of saving the planet by cutting down CO2 emissions. This wheeze, promoted by the European Commission and eagerly adopted by Gordon Brown, turned out to be an environmental disaster because the diesel`s other emissions. In other words a significant element of the problem these charges are meant to solve were caused by the politicians themselves.
We now have another lunge, this time towards electric vehicles for which the country is unprepared. This will, probably is, causing its own environmental disaster in places where metals required for batteries are mined.
It is worth understanding that the real objective is to price and/or regulate the
ICE private car out of existence leaving just the very well off able to afford BEVs. If you wish to get a better, and scientifically well-informed, understanding of the basis on which the climate change agenda is based I recommend "Unsettled?" by Dr Steven E Koonin. This is a very measured account, based on the science sections of IPCC assessment reports. There you will discover, among many other things, that what are presented as certain predictions for the end of the century actually are, in the science sections, one of a range of possible scenarios with "low confidence" attached to them! COP 26 should be re-labelled CON 26.
We now have another lunge, this time towards electric vehicles for which the country is unprepared. This will, probably is, causing its own environmental disaster in places where metals required for batteries are mined.
It is worth understanding that the real objective is to price and/or regulate the
ICE private car out of existence leaving just the very well off able to afford BEVs. If you wish to get a better, and scientifically well-informed, understanding of the basis on which the climate change agenda is based I recommend "Unsettled?" by Dr Steven E Koonin. This is a very measured account, based on the science sections of IPCC assessment reports. There you will discover, among many other things, that what are presented as certain predictions for the end of the century actually are, in the science sections, one of a range of possible scenarios with "low confidence" attached to them! COP 26 should be re-labelled CON 26.
oldtimer2 said:
It is worth recalling that the purchase of diesel cars was incentivised by tax cuts some years ago and all in the cause of saving the planet by cutting down CO2 emissions. This wheeze, promoted by the European Commission and eagerly adopted by Gordon Brown, turned out to be an environmental disaster because the diesel`s other emissions. In other words a significant element of the problem these charges are meant to solve were caused by the politicians themselves.
We now have another lunge, this time towards electric vehicles for which the country is unprepared. This will, probably is, causing its own environmental disaster in places where metals required for batteries are mined.
It is worth understanding that the real objective is to price and/or regulate the
ICE private car out of existence leaving just the very well off able to afford BEVs. If you wish to get a better, and scientifically well-informed, understanding of the basis on which the climate change agenda is based I recommend "Unsettled?" by Dr Steven E Koonin. This is a very measured account, based on the science sections of IPCC assessment reports. There you will discover, among many other things, that what are presented as certain predictions for the end of the century actually are, in the science sections, one of a range of possible scenarios with "low confidence" attached to them! COP 26 should be re-labelled CON 26.
Climate change is separate to your point about 'diesel's other emissions' that affect urban air quality. Ignore CO2 (if that's your thing) and you still have to deal with the other.We now have another lunge, this time towards electric vehicles for which the country is unprepared. This will, probably is, causing its own environmental disaster in places where metals required for batteries are mined.
It is worth understanding that the real objective is to price and/or regulate the
ICE private car out of existence leaving just the very well off able to afford BEVs. If you wish to get a better, and scientifically well-informed, understanding of the basis on which the climate change agenda is based I recommend "Unsettled?" by Dr Steven E Koonin. This is a very measured account, based on the science sections of IPCC assessment reports. There you will discover, among many other things, that what are presented as certain predictions for the end of the century actually are, in the science sections, one of a range of possible scenarios with "low confidence" attached to them! COP 26 should be re-labelled CON 26.
Is a 'probable environmental disaster' better or worse than the existing environmental disaster of extracting minerals and metals to produce and burn fuel combined with the production of combustion engines, gearboxes, fuel systems and exhaust systems?
We can either keep consuming at the same rate with disaster level X or move to disaster level Y. Y is demonstrably smaller than X by any credible methodology you wish to use. And if it does indeed turn out that CO2 is a problem, even better.
my sister has got less than no interest in cars and she's been fully aware of the ULEZ situation for quite some time. Interestingly her road is not in the congestion zone, amusingly it's a one-way street the only way to enter it is.... via the ULEZ 
Her other half can't use a bike (or even the bus) to get to work (as I've heard some fkwits suggest on LBC) as he's a builder and needs to carry his various tools. Ditto friends of his who are in associated trades....
Her other half can't use a bike (or even the bus) to get to work (as I've heard some f
kwits suggest on LBC) as he's a builder and needs to carry his various tools. Ditto friends of his who are in associated trades....Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff