LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

1…927928930932933…1128

Comments

  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,154
    Dorset_Boy said:

    rjsterry said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    They could replace the ulez tax with an additional “killing people with pollution” tax?

    We need to ban all cars and head straight for Ricktopia then. Do you really think that charging a section of the population £12.50 a day to drive in greater London is going to make all the difference?

    Sounds like you have swallowed the tfl narrative hook, line and sinker.
    Either it hurts the poor or it doesn’t matter, which is it?
    You haven't answered my question. You go first.
    Yeah I already know people who are changing their cars because their current ones are not economical, and they live in Fulham, so not likely to be hard up.
    So it hurts the poor - in the wallet. Where it makes little difference is in saving the planet. Especially in the outer reaches of Greater London which are effectively semi rural
    🤣

    It's nice and leafy, but have yet to see the NFU set up a branch.
    Cobham
    St Albans
    Oxsted
    Cheshunt
    Hemel
    All have NFU offices......
    :)
    You may consider them to be a be rural though.

    All outside the Greater London boundary aren't they? Basically the sticks.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,172
    kingstongraham said:

    Doesn't it depend what you are trying to present? If it is a comparison between countires, then it is entirely fair. No point in having the right hand side look the same for all countries.

    If the tweeter was looking for something in the study that it wasn't trying to show and wanted to manufacture a reason to be angry, then fair play for finding it.

    Xer. Not tweeter.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    kingstongraham said:

    Dorset_Boy said:

    rjsterry said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    They could replace the ulez tax with an additional “killing people with pollution” tax?

    We need to ban all cars and head straight for Ricktopia then. Do you really think that charging a section of the population £12.50 a day to drive in greater London is going to make all the difference?

    Sounds like you have swallowed the tfl narrative hook, line and sinker.
    Either it hurts the poor or it doesn’t matter, which is it?
    You haven't answered my question. You go first.
    Yeah I already know people who are changing their cars because their current ones are not economical, and they live in Fulham, so not likely to be hard up.
    So it hurts the poor - in the wallet. Where it makes little difference is in saving the planet. Especially in the outer reaches of Greater London which are effectively semi rural
    🤣

    It's nice and leafy, but have yet to see the NFU set up a branch.
    Cobham
    St Albans
    Oxsted
    Cheshunt
    Hemel
    All have NFU offices......
    :)
    You may consider them to be a be rural though.

    All outside the Greater London boundary aren't they? Basically the sticks.
    I think Cobham is the only one inside (by the skin of it's teeth) the M25 and they are selling insurance
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,154
    surrey_commuter said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Dorset_Boy said:

    rjsterry said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    They could replace the ulez tax with an additional “killing people with pollution” tax?

    We need to ban all cars and head straight for Ricktopia then. Do you really think that charging a section of the population £12.50 a day to drive in greater London is going to make all the difference?

    Sounds like you have swallowed the tfl narrative hook, line and sinker.
    Either it hurts the poor or it doesn’t matter, which is it?
    You haven't answered my question. You go first.
    Yeah I already know people who are changing their cars because their current ones are not economical, and they live in Fulham, so not likely to be hard up.
    So it hurts the poor - in the wallet. Where it makes little difference is in saving the planet. Especially in the outer reaches of Greater London which are effectively semi rural
    🤣

    It's nice and leafy, but have yet to see the NFU set up a branch.
    Cobham
    St Albans
    Oxsted
    Cheshunt
    Hemel
    All have NFU offices......
    :)
    You may consider them to be a be rural though.

    All outside the Greater London boundary aren't they? Basically the sticks.
    I think Cobham is the only one inside (by the skin of it's teeth) the M25 and they are selling insurance
    Cobham is definitely in Surrey. Esher is the next town closer in and that's not in the GLA either.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,154
    First.Aspect said:

    I don't know why there is a private vehicle exception for vehicles registered in the ULEZ zone. This would carve out taxis and the low usages people are exercised about, but still include commurers, hgvs, delivery vans tradesmen and wotnot - which is where the majority of the pollution comes from.

    It is one extra line of code in the system automatically issuing the charges.

    Do you mean you think that private vehicles registered in London should be exempt from the charge?
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,172
    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    I don't know why there is a private vehicle exception for vehicles registered in the ULEZ zone. This would carve out taxis and the low usages people are exercised about, but still include commurers, hgvs, delivery vans tradesmen and wotnot - which is where the majority of the pollution comes from.

    It is one extra line of code in the system automatically issuing the charges.

    Do you mean you think that private vehicles registered in London should be exempt from the charge?
    Yes.
  • super_davo
    super_davo Posts: 1,227
    What is the proportion of people moaning about ULEZ Vs those that would actually need to pay it?

    Bearing in mind that 15 year old petrol cars are OK as are diesel cars under 6.

    My own diesel car is caught by it, but weighing up the 2-3 times a year I end up needing to pay it Vs the hugely advantageous road tax I will give up when I change and the sums are clear.

    If I needed to pay 10+ times a year the sums would be different, but then I would replace my car with an equivalent petrol, which need not create a massive outlay (unless I wanted/ was sold something much fancier).

    I've heard stories of people with Tesla's moaning about it, and the main person saying it's a problem here drives a massive gas guzzling panzer wagon that also won't be caught.

    So am I correct that this is just Rightybollox and actually people should just understand it, accept it and work with it, like the entire country has had to do with Brexit?

  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,154
    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    I don't know why there is a private vehicle exception for vehicles registered in the ULEZ zone. This would carve out taxis and the low usages people are exercised about, but still include commurers, hgvs, delivery vans tradesmen and wotnot - which is where the majority of the pollution comes from.

    It is one extra line of code in the system automatically issuing the charges.

    Do you mean you think that private vehicles registered in London should be exempt from the charge?
    Yes.
    Yeah, that's crazy.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,172
    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    I don't know why there is a private vehicle exception for vehicles registered in the ULEZ zone. This would carve out taxis and the low usages people are exercised about, but still include commurers, hgvs, delivery vans tradesmen and wotnot - which is where the majority of the pollution comes from.

    It is one extra line of code in the system automatically issuing the charges.

    Do you mean you think that private vehicles registered in London should be exempt from the charge?
    Yes.
    Yeah, that's crazy.
    Why? It exempts a relatively small number of people and, if my guess about mayor contributions to traffic pollution is correct, still largely achieves the same thing.

    Perhaps I have this wrong. Where is most of London's traffic coming from?
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,154
    edited July 2023
    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    I don't know why there is a private vehicle exception for vehicles registered in the ULEZ zone. This would carve out taxis and the low usages people are exercised about, but still include commurers, hgvs, delivery vans tradesmen and wotnot - which is where the majority of the pollution comes from.

    It is one extra line of code in the system automatically issuing the charges.

    Do you mean you think that private vehicles registered in London should be exempt from the charge?
    Yes.
    Yeah, that's crazy.
    Why? It exempts a relatively small number of people and, if my guess about mayor contributions to traffic pollution is correct, still largely achieves the same thing.

    Perhaps I have this wrong. Where is most of London's traffic coming from?
    There's about 9 million people live within the boundaries of the Greater London Authority which is where the ULEZ is going to extend to cover from the end of next month.

    There's a map here.

    https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ulez-expansion-2023
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,172
    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    I don't know why there is a private vehicle exception for vehicles registered in the ULEZ zone. This would carve out taxis and the low usages people are exercised about, but still include commurers, hgvs, delivery vans tradesmen and wotnot - which is where the majority of the pollution comes from.

    It is one extra line of code in the system automatically issuing the charges.

    Do you mean you think that private vehicles registered in London should be exempt from the charge?
    Yes.
    Yeah, that's crazy.
    Why? It exempts a relatively small number of people and, if my guess about mayor contributions to traffic pollution is correct, still largely achieves the same thing.

    Perhaps I have this wrong. Where is most of London's traffic coming from?
    There's about 9 million people live within the boundaries of the Greater London Authority which is where the ULEZ is going to extend to cover from the end of next month.

    There's a map here.

    https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ulez-expansion-2023
    Sure, and they estimate that's about 200k private vehicles. What usage, as a percentage of the overall non compliant vehicle miles, do those 200k vehicles make up, do you think? And what percentage of emissions?
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 3,607
    super_davo said:

    What is the proportion of people moaning about ULEZ Vs those that would actually need to pay it?

    Bearing in mind that 15 year old petrol cars are OK as are diesel cars under 6.

    My own diesel car is caught by it, but weighing up the 2-3 times a year I end up needing to pay it Vs the hugely advantageous road tax I will give up when I change and the sums are clear.

    If I needed to pay 10+ times a year the sums would be different, but then I would replace my car with an equivalent petrol, which need not create a massive outlay (unless I wanted/ was sold something much fancier).

    I've heard stories of people with Tesla's moaning about it, and the main person saying it's a problem here drives a massive gas guzzling panzer wagon that also won't be caught.

    So am I correct that this is just Rightybollox and actually people should just understand it, accept it and work with it, like the entire country has had to do with Brexit?

    I'm surprised by how long it stretches back for petrol cars.

  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    kingstongraham said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Dorset_Boy said:

    rjsterry said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    They could replace the ulez tax with an additional “killing people with pollution” tax?

    We need to ban all cars and head straight for Ricktopia then. Do you really think that charging a section of the population £12.50 a day to drive in greater London is going to make all the difference?

    Sounds like you have swallowed the tfl narrative hook, line and sinker.
    Either it hurts the poor or it doesn’t matter, which is it?
    You haven't answered my question. You go first.
    Yeah I already know people who are changing their cars because their current ones are not economical, and they live in Fulham, so not likely to be hard up.
    So it hurts the poor - in the wallet. Where it makes little difference is in saving the planet. Especially in the outer reaches of Greater London which are effectively semi rural
    🤣

    It's nice and leafy, but have yet to see the NFU set up a branch.
    Cobham
    St Albans
    Oxsted
    Cheshunt
    Hemel
    All have NFU offices......
    :)
    You may consider them to be a be rural though.

    All outside the Greater London boundary aren't they? Basically the sticks.
    I think Cobham is the only one inside (by the skin of it's teeth) the M25 and they are selling insurance
    Cobham is definitely in Surrey. Esher is the next town closer in and that's not in the GLA either.
    my writing was clunky as my meaning was just inside the M25, you are right that it is nowhere near London and is definitely sticks. There are farms between Cobham and London.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,425
    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    They could replace the ulez tax with an additional “killing people with pollution” tax?

    We need to ban all cars and head straight for Ricktopia then. Do you really think that charging a section of the population £12.50 a day to drive in greater London is going to make all the difference?

    Sounds like you have swallowed the tfl narrative hook, line and sinker.
    Either it hurts the poor or it doesn’t matter, which is it?
    You haven't answered my question. You go first.
    Yeah I already know people who are changing their cars because their current ones are not economical, and they live in Fulham, so not likely to be hard up.
    So it hurts the poor - in the wallet. Where it makes little difference is in saving the planet. Especially in the outer reaches of Greater London which are effectively semi rural
    It's not about saving the planet.
    Just as well.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,377
    Jezyboy said:

    super_davo said:

    What is the proportion of people moaning about ULEZ Vs those that would actually need to pay it?

    Bearing in mind that 15 year old petrol cars are OK as are diesel cars under 6.

    My own diesel car is caught by it, but weighing up the 2-3 times a year I end up needing to pay it Vs the hugely advantageous road tax I will give up when I change and the sums are clear.

    If I needed to pay 10+ times a year the sums would be different, but then I would replace my car with an equivalent petrol, which need not create a massive outlay (unless I wanted/ was sold something much fancier).

    I've heard stories of people with Tesla's moaning about it, and the main person saying it's a problem here drives a massive gas guzzling panzer wagon that also won't be caught.

    So am I correct that this is just Rightybollox and actually people should just understand it, accept it and work with it, like the entire country has had to do with Brexit?

    I'm surprised by how long it stretches back for petrol cars.


    My 20yo £700 Almera is ULEZ-compliant.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,425
    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    They could replace the ulez tax with an additional “killing people with pollution” tax?

    We need to ban all cars and head straight for Ricktopia then. Do you really think that charging a section of the population £12.50 a day to drive in greater London is going to make all the difference?

    Sounds like you have swallowed the tfl narrative hook, line and sinker.
    Either it hurts the poor or it doesn’t matter, which is it?
    You haven't answered my question. You go first.
    Yeah I already know people who are changing their cars because their current ones are not economical, and they live in Fulham, so not likely to be hard up.
    So it hurts the poor - in the wallet. Where it makes little difference is in saving the planet. Especially in the outer reaches of Greater London which are effectively semi rural
    The poorest are far less likely to own a car and far more likely to use public tansport (22% car ownership in the lowest earning households up to 74% in those earning over £100k).
    What sort of demographic are likely to own petrol cars over 16 year old and diesels over 6 years old. The well off?
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,425
    super_davo said:

    What is the proportion of people moaning about ULEZ Vs those that would actually need to pay it?

    Bearing in mind that 15 year old petrol cars are OK as are diesel cars under 6.

    My own diesel car is caught by it, but weighing up the 2-3 times a year I end up needing to pay it Vs the hugely advantageous road tax I will give up when I change and the sums are clear.

    If I needed to pay 10+ times a year the sums would be different, but then I would replace my car with an equivalent petrol, which need not create a massive outlay (unless I wanted/ was sold something much fancier).

    I've heard stories of people with Tesla's moaning about it, and the main person saying it's a problem here drives a massive gas guzzling panzer wagon that also won't be caught.

    So am I correct that this is just Rightybollox and actually people should just understand it, accept it and work with it, like the entire country has had to do with Brexit?

    No, you're not correct :smile:
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,154
    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    I don't know why there is a private vehicle exception for vehicles registered in the ULEZ zone. This would carve out taxis and the low usages people are exercised about, but still include commurers, hgvs, delivery vans tradesmen and wotnot - which is where the majority of the pollution comes from.

    It is one extra line of code in the system automatically issuing the charges.

    Do you mean you think that private vehicles registered in London should be exempt from the charge?
    Yes.
    Yeah, that's crazy.
    Why? It exempts a relatively small number of people and, if my guess about mayor contributions to traffic pollution is correct, still largely achieves the same thing.

    Perhaps I have this wrong. Where is most of London's traffic coming from?
    There's about 9 million people live within the boundaries of the Greater London Authority which is where the ULEZ is going to extend to cover from the end of next month.

    There's a map here.

    https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ulez-expansion-2023
    Sure, and they estimate that's about 200k private vehicles. What usage, as a percentage of the overall non compliant vehicle miles, do those 200k vehicles make up, do you think? And what percentage of emissions?
    Pretty high.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,425
    rjsterry said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    They could replace the ulez tax with an additional “killing people with pollution” tax?

    We need to ban all cars and head straight for Ricktopia then. Do you really think that charging a section of the population £12.50 a day to drive in greater London is going to make all the difference?

    Sounds like you have swallowed the tfl narrative hook, line and sinker.
    Either it hurts the poor or it doesn’t matter, which is it?
    You haven't answered my question. You go first.
    Yeah I already know people who are changing their cars because their current ones are not economical, and they live in Fulham, so not likely to be hard up.
    So it hurts the poor - in the wallet. Where it makes little difference is in saving the planet. Especially in the outer reaches of Greater London which are effectively semi rural
    🤣

    It's nice and leafy, but have yet to see the NFU set up a branch.
    Have a look at the bits just around Biggin Hill, for example ;)
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    Stevo_666 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    They could replace the ulez tax with an additional “killing people with pollution” tax?

    We need to ban all cars and head straight for Ricktopia then. Do you really think that charging a section of the population £12.50 a day to drive in greater London is going to make all the difference?

    Sounds like you have swallowed the tfl narrative hook, line and sinker.
    Either it hurts the poor or it doesn’t matter, which is it?
    You haven't answered my question. You go first.
    Yeah I already know people who are changing their cars because their current ones are not economical, and they live in Fulham, so not likely to be hard up.
    So it hurts the poor - in the wallet. Where it makes little difference is in saving the planet. Especially in the outer reaches of Greater London which are effectively semi rural
    The poorest are far less likely to own a car and far more likely to use public tansport (22% car ownership in the lowest earning households up to 74% in those earning over £100k).
    What sort of demographic are likely to own petrol cars over 16 year old and diesels over 6 years old. The well off?
    The poorest Londoners are less likely to have access to a car of any description than they are to own one. Less than a quarter of households have access to a private vehicle.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,919
    edited July 2023
    kingstongraham said:

    Doesn't it depend what you are trying to present? If it is a comparison between countires, then it is entirely fair. No point in having the right hand side look the same for all countries.

    If the tweeter was looking for something in the study that it wasn't trying to show and wanted to manufacture a reason to be angry, then fair play for finding it.

    Here's the text. They do start by comparing the impact of both hot and cold deaths in total across different age groups. It's definitely not a good graph for that. Fortunately, I'm regularly viewer of terrible Twitter graphs thanks to this forum, so I'm able to let these things slide.

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(23)00023-2/fulltext

  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,562
    edited July 2023
    Dorset_Boy said:

    rjsterry said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    They could replace the ulez tax with an additional “killing people with pollution” tax?

    We need to ban all cars and head straight for Ricktopia then. Do you really think that charging a section of the population £12.50 a day to drive in greater London is going to make all the difference?

    Sounds like you have swallowed the tfl narrative hook, line and sinker.
    Either it hurts the poor or it doesn’t matter, which is it?
    You haven't answered my question. You go first.
    Yeah I already know people who are changing their cars because their current ones are not economical, and they live in Fulham, so not likely to be hard up.
    So it hurts the poor - in the wallet. Where it makes little difference is in saving the planet. Especially in the outer reaches of Greater London which are effectively semi rural
    🤣

    It's nice and leafy, but have yet to see the NFU set up a branch.
    Cobham
    St Albans
    Oxsted
    Cheshunt
    Hemel
    All have NFU offices......
    :)
    You may consider them to be a be rural though.

    Sure, those definitely more rural as there is some farming with a lot of commuter towns and villages mixed in. All are way outside the expanded ULEZ, though.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,562
    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    They could replace the ulez tax with an additional “killing people with pollution” tax?

    We need to ban all cars and head straight for Ricktopia then. Do you really think that charging a section of the population £12.50 a day to drive in greater London is going to make all the difference?

    Sounds like you have swallowed the tfl narrative hook, line and sinker.
    Either it hurts the poor or it doesn’t matter, which is it?
    You haven't answered my question. You go first.
    Yeah I already know people who are changing their cars because their current ones are not economical, and they live in Fulham, so not likely to be hard up.
    So it hurts the poor - in the wallet. Where it makes little difference is in saving the planet. Especially in the outer reaches of Greater London which are effectively semi rural
    The poorest are far less likely to own a car and far more likely to use public tansport (22% car ownership in the lowest earning households up to 74% in those earning over £100k).
    What sort of demographic are likely to own petrol cars over 16 year old and diesels over 6 years old. The well off?
    The poorest Londoners are less likely to have access to a car of any description than they are to own one. Less than a quarter of households have access to a private vehicle.
    And the most likely to suffer the health effects of poor air quality.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • super_davo
    super_davo Posts: 1,227
    briantrumpet said:

    Jezyboy said:

    super_davo said:

    What is the proportion of people moaning about ULEZ Vs those that would actually need to pay it?

    Bearing in mind that 15 year old petrol cars are OK as are diesel cars under 6.

    My own diesel car is caught by it, but weighing up the 2-3 times a year I end up needing to pay it Vs the hugely advantageous road tax I will give up when I change and the sums are clear.

    If I needed to pay 10+ times a year the sums would be different, but then I would replace my car with an equivalent petrol, which need not create a massive outlay (unless I wanted/ was sold something much fancier).

    I've heard stories of people with Tesla's moaning about it, and the main person saying it's a problem here drives a massive gas guzzling panzer wagon that also won't be caught.

    So am I correct that this is just Rightybollox and actually people should just understand it, accept it and work with it, like the entire country has had to do with Brexit?

    I'm surprised by how long it stretches back for petrol cars.


    My 20yo £700 Almera is ULEZ-compliant.
    Yep... its not exactly the toughest bar to clear. On the flip side it's not going to do much for the general environment, but if ever there was a fuss about nothing, it's the ULEZ backlash.

    Still very on brand for the Tories that the only way of getting votes is spreading misinformation and relying on fear...
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,172
    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    I don't know why there is a private vehicle exception for vehicles registered in the ULEZ zone. This would carve out taxis and the low usages people are exercised about, but still include commurers, hgvs, delivery vans tradesmen and wotnot - which is where the majority of the pollution comes from.

    It is one extra line of code in the system automatically issuing the charges.

    Do you mean you think that private vehicles registered in London should be exempt from the charge?
    Yes.
    Yeah, that's crazy.
    Why? It exempts a relatively small number of people and, if my guess about mayor contributions to traffic pollution is correct, still largely achieves the same thing.

    Perhaps I have this wrong. Where is most of London's traffic coming from?
    There's about 9 million people live within the boundaries of the Greater London Authority which is where the ULEZ is going to extend to cover from the end of next month.

    There's a map here.

    https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ulez-expansion-2023
    Sure, and they estimate that's about 200k private vehicles. What usage, as a percentage of the overall non compliant vehicle miles, do those 200k vehicles make up, do you think? And what percentage of emissions?
    Pretty high.
    Well I'm glad we've cleared that up.

    Next on the agenda is the scrappage scheme.

    Environmentally friendly?
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 3,607
    It's about local air quality not overall emissions though...
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,154
    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    I don't know why there is a private vehicle exception for vehicles registered in the ULEZ zone. This would carve out taxis and the low usages people are exercised about, but still include commurers, hgvs, delivery vans tradesmen and wotnot - which is where the majority of the pollution comes from.

    It is one extra line of code in the system automatically issuing the charges.

    Do you mean you think that private vehicles registered in London should be exempt from the charge?
    Yes.
    Yeah, that's crazy.
    Why? It exempts a relatively small number of people and, if my guess about mayor contributions to traffic pollution is correct, still largely achieves the same thing.

    Perhaps I have this wrong. Where is most of London's traffic coming from?
    There's about 9 million people live within the boundaries of the Greater London Authority which is where the ULEZ is going to extend to cover from the end of next month.

    There's a map here.

    https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ulez-expansion-2023
    Sure, and they estimate that's about 200k private vehicles. What usage, as a percentage of the overall non compliant vehicle miles, do those 200k vehicles make up, do you think? And what percentage of emissions?
    Pretty high.
    Well I'm glad we've cleared that up.

    Next on the agenda is the scrappage scheme.

    Environmentally friendly?
    If you have any better analysis let me know.

    Sell it to someone in the sticks. It's a local emissions policy, not a planet saving policy.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,172
    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    kingstongraham said:

    First.Aspect said:

    I don't know why there is a private vehicle exception for vehicles registered in the ULEZ zone. This would carve out taxis and the low usages people are exercised about, but still include commurers, hgvs, delivery vans tradesmen and wotnot - which is where the majority of the pollution comes from.

    It is one extra line of code in the system automatically issuing the charges.

    Do you mean you think that private vehicles registered in London should be exempt from the charge?
    Yes.
    Yeah, that's crazy.
    Why? It exempts a relatively small number of people and, if my guess about mayor contributions to traffic pollution is correct, still largely achieves the same thing.

    Perhaps I have this wrong. Where is most of London's traffic coming from?
    There's about 9 million people live within the boundaries of the Greater London Authority which is where the ULEZ is going to extend to cover from the end of next month.

    There's a map here.

    https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ulez-expansion-2023
    Sure, and they estimate that's about 200k private vehicles. What usage, as a percentage of the overall non compliant vehicle miles, do those 200k vehicles make up, do you think? And what percentage of emissions?
    Pretty high.
    Well I'm glad we've cleared that up.

    Next on the agenda is the scrappage scheme.

    Environmentally friendly?
    If you have any better analysis let me know.

    Sell it to someone in the sticks. It's a local emissions policy, not a planet saving policy.
    It's blunt though isn't it.

    I'm old enough to remember that after a day in London, you'd get home and the water coming off you in the shower would be grey, as would the tissue if you blew your nose.

    So I get it, but I don't think necessarily that these schemes do much more than raise a bit of money.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,377
    First.Aspect said:

    I'm old enough to remember that after a day in London, you'd get home and the water coming off you in the shower would be grey, as would the tissue if you blew your nose.


    Mid 80's, and after a couple of days there my snot was black. It did surprise me somewhat.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    briantrumpet said:

    First.Aspect said:

    I'm old enough to remember that after a day in London, you'd get home and the water coming off you in the shower would be grey, as would the tissue if you blew your nose.


    Mid 80's, and after a couple of days there my snot was black. It did surprise me somewhat.
    Still the same when I visit but I think it’s mainly from using the Underground

Categories