The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)

First.Aspect

I've got a 3L 440i.

I've got TLF to tell me that if I drive into London with it, I'm helping to improve air quality.

Hurray.

First.Aspect

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

So it's not like the ULEZ at all?

Seems the booze example is really about execution, not about the body of evidence that supports the premise of the policy.

Surprised you're not complaining how unfair it is that poor people can't drink as much.

Well it's a different policy entirely really.

Somehat like the difference between a ULEZ scheme based on actual emissions of a given vehicle, vs one that is based on the emissions standards available to the manufacturers when it was actually built. Stevo, though it pains me to agree with him, posted a picture of a porsche that complies. Presumably something like a 4L turbo diesel X5 from 2015 would comply, but a 1L 2010 diesel Polo doesn't.

Minimum pricing, like ULEZ is a policy that on superficial inspection ought to work, but doesn't seem to actually make any difference to the intended outcome.

It isn't the way we should do policy.

Incidentally, in both cases I'd take the view that the policy that could really make any difference would be too unpopular.

With ULEZ at least its just a few poor people getting screwed.

focuszing723

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

No they're not, and that's what I've been arguing from the start. The trends of how people live are changing and cars are going to be less and less convenient anyway.

The best current solution was found during covid.
But apparently everyone "needs" to go to an office.

Productivity is lower when people are 100% WFH.

That's down to work ethics and incentives. Still, it's a choice. Save the planet and health, or the economy. Saving the economy is just kicking the can down the road.

This is fatalistic nonsense. There is an opportunity to do both.

Change is hard, especially in old age, I appreciate.

I will easily admit to being fatalistic about the planet. We are killing it, as far as humans are concerned. Change doesn't bother me in the slightest, I've not commuted since March 2020 and never will again. So there.

Nah, Earth will be fine and life will evolve again. Humanity and current life forms might be wangered though. Earths only threat is a meteor, comet or the Sun in x amount of time. AI (intelligent matter) will be at a point when it can planet hop too, before it wangers Earth.

focuszing723

It will be interesting to see how AI treats and views Earth? Evolve to protect it, just mine planets devoid of biological life?

focuszing723

Why doesn't a God/creator protect planets from destruction?

pblakeney

focuszing723 said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

No they're not, and that's what I've been arguing from the start. The trends of how people live are changing and cars are going to be less and less convenient anyway.

The best current solution was found during covid.
But apparently everyone "needs" to go to an office.

Productivity is lower when people are 100% WFH.

That's down to work ethics and incentives. Still, it's a choice. Save the planet and health, or the economy. Saving the economy is just kicking the can down the road.

This is fatalistic nonsense. There is an opportunity to do both.

Change is hard, especially in old age, I appreciate.

I will easily admit to being fatalistic about the planet. We are killing it, as far as humans are concerned. Change doesn't bother me in the slightest, I've not commuted since March 2020 and never will again. So there.

Nah, Earth will be fine and life will evolve again. Humanity and current life forms might be wangered though. Earths only threat is a meteor, comet or the Sun in x amount of time. AI (intelligent matter) will be at a point when it can planet hop too, before it wangers Earth.

You clearly ignored this part - "as far as humans are concerned."

focuszing723

Has God got a Ulez compliant car?

focuszing723

pblakeney said:

focuszing723 said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

No they're not, and that's what I've been arguing from the start. The trends of how people live are changing and cars are going to be less and less convenient anyway.

The best current solution was found during covid.
But apparently everyone "needs" to go to an office.

Productivity is lower when people are 100% WFH.

That's down to work ethics and incentives. Still, it's a choice. Save the planet and health, or the economy. Saving the economy is just kicking the can down the road.

This is fatalistic nonsense. There is an opportunity to do both.

Change is hard, especially in old age, I appreciate.

I will easily admit to being fatalistic about the planet. We are killing it, as far as humans are concerned. Change doesn't bother me in the slightest, I've not commuted since March 2020 and never will again. So there.

Nah, Earth will be fine and life will evolve again. Humanity and current life forms might be wangered though. Earths only threat is a meteor, comet or the Sun in x amount of time. AI (intelligent matter) will be at a point when it can planet hop too, before it wangers Earth.

You clearly ignored this part - "as far as humans are concerned."

Yep, ignored that.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Driving from Surrey into Kingston this morning, there was a matrix sign in esher (surrey) saying "new ulez covering whole of London from 29th August", and signs clearly saying where the boundary starts, with an opportunity to avoid it once inside the London borough.

Does it say where to pay, how long you have to pay, the consequences of not having to pay or who has to pay? By analogy to parking (which honestly I don't know is a suitable analogy or not) if that information isn't clearly available then a fine isn't enforceable.

I think that the opponents on ULEZ could really get their teeth into the signage issue.

I suppose TFL will say that the signs are more like yellow lines, in that if you don't know what it means, tough.

Get the popcorn out.

That's exactly what it is like. The information is included in a Traffic Regulation Order and it is up to a driver to know the implications e.g. a double yellow line has no requirement for any signage related to it to tell you you can't wait there at any time and that you are subject to a fine if you don't comply. You would only have signage if the Order only applies at certain times or to certain vehicles (so a single yellow line requires a sign to confirm the duration of restrictions which can be certain times of day or certain periods of the year). You can also have restricted parking signs that don't require any markings once you are within the signed zone or pay and display zones that mean individual parking bays don't require the pay and disply signage (though in that case they do need to tell drivers where / how to pay).

Basically, it's a tried and tested system and if there were loopholes I'm pretty sure they'd have been exploited by now. Besides, the approved signs include ones saying when it applies, the start daye and how to pay https://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-5054.pdf

First.Aspect

ULEZ only applies to certain vehicles. So suspect the "Welcome to the London Borough of ULEZ" will be found not to be sufficient.

So there will be new signs.

First.Aspect

focuszing723 said:

Has God got a Ulez compliant car?

No, He cycles.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

ULEZ only applies to certain vehicles. So suspect the "Welcome to the London Borough of ULEZ" will be found not to be sufficient.

So there will be new signs.

I take it you've never been over or under the Dartford crossing?

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

If there is already 94% compliance, how much difference will part of the remaining 6% make? The evidence that Khan tried to suppress said very little. Which leads me to think there are other motives.

And how long before the daily charge does up and they start moving the goalposts as to what is compliant?

94% within the ulez obviously

That doesn't answer my question.

rick_chasey

Of course they're gonna change the goalposts - you think the ULEZ will now stay as it is in perpetuity?

Stevo_666

skyblueamateur said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

So the position is that you aren't in London, don't own a non-compliant vehicle, but are obsessed with it because you don't want the poorest people to have to pay to drive there.

But you do want some of those people to not pay their £12.50, for them to get fined £180, and to then appeal against their fines, so you can find out if a charge that won't affect you is valid for other people driving into London.

Fair play to you, everyone needs a hobby.

If everyone only commented on stuff that directly affected them, Cake Stop would be a pretty quiet place. Fortunately there is no shortage of posters who think they know better than those who are directly affected.

😂The irony……

Who said I wasn't one of them?

Pross

FWIW I went to Birmingham for a job interview 2 years ago just after their zone came into force. I was aware of it, went online before travelling to check my vehicle wasn't exempt which it wasn't so I paid and drove up. When I left the interview I even reminded the interviewer to check as he wasn't a local. A week or two later I got a fine through the post and went through my emails for the evidence I'd paid which I couldn't find, checked my bank statement and there was nothing showing. I'd obviously messed up the payment process somehow, my fault and lesson learnt.

I also found it a bit of a PITA having to set up an account with TFL when I took my daughter up to her Uni accommodation which is a couple of miles inside the ULEZ and found it a bit annoying that driving the couple of miles in, parking up overnight and driving back out the next day cost the same as if I'd spent the whole time driving around polluting the place. I'm not opposed to the scheme and, as others have said, why should those living in the zone have to cope with the pollution from the likes of me driving into the area? However, I do think it could have been developed by now to make it a bit more intelligent considering how long they've operated charging in the city.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

What, so if they earn money from it, it’s ok to pollute more?

Driving is a privilege not a right.

Who decides who gets the privilege?

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

What, so if they earn money from it, it’s ok to pollute more?

Driving is a privilege not a right.

Who decides who gets the privilege?

DVLA and your own finances. As it always was.

Pross

First.Aspect said:

ULEZ only applies to certain vehicles. So suspect the "Welcome to the London Borough of ULEZ" will be found not to be sufficient.

So there will be new signs.

It has already been in place for years, whilst it has been expanded why would the need for all this information need to be advertised now?

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Who else's arguing in favour? KG is directly affected as well. Seems to be a chorus of non-Londoners poking their noses in to things that don't concern them.

What a totally d1ck comment.

Cities across the country are looking for revenue generating opportunities. Once its done in London, others will follow.

If you take that view incidentally, stop opining about house building and nimbys anywhere other than where you live in the SE, eh?

Let's add to that - it does concern people who live outside London but who have to travel in. However in the Metropolitan bubble, they don't count it would seem.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

What, so if they earn money from it, it’s ok to pollute more?

Driving is a privilege not a right.

Who decides who gets the privilege?

Local government.

Stevo_666

TheBigBean said:

Anyone seen the light and gone car free yet?

Is that directed at anyone in particular?

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Who else's arguing in favour? KG is directly affected as well. Seems to be a chorus of non-Londoners poking their noses in to things that don't concern them.

What a totally d1ck comment.

Cities across the country are looking for revenue generating opportunities. Once its done in London, others will follow.

If you take that view incidentally, stop opining about house building and nimbys anywhere other than where you live in the SE, eh?

Let's add to that - it does concern people who live outside London but who have to travel in. However in the Metropolitan bubble, they don't count it would seem.

It concerns people who travel in *in their non-compliant cars*.

I travel in most days, doesn't concern me.

rjsterry

Just so everyone gets an idea of the 'full blown rebellion' that the Spectator is claiming, anti-ulez protestors are notably less organised than the local 5G/antivax f***wits, who can at least muster a regular half dozen plackard wavers.

Give it 6 months and it'll just be another thing that pub bores moan about.

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Driving from Surrey into Kingston this morning, there was a matrix sign in esher (surrey) saying "new ulez covering whole of London from 29th August", and signs clearly saying where the boundary starts, with an opportunity to avoid it once inside the London borough.

Does it say where to pay, how long you have to pay, the consequences of not having to pay or who has to pay? By analogy to parking (which honestly I don't know is a suitable analogy or not) if that information isn't clearly available then a fine isn't enforceable.

I think that the opponents on ULEZ could really get their teeth into the signage issue.

Exactly what I have been saying upthread but some people have been trying to ignore because they don't want it to be so.

Let's see what happens when the appeals against the fines roll in - which very likely they will do in considerable volumes.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

Who else's arguing in favour? KG is directly affected as well. Seems to be a chorus of non-Londoners poking their noses in to things that don't concern them.

What a totally d1ck comment.

Cities across the country are looking for revenue generating opportunities. Once its done in London, others will follow.

If you take that view incidentally, stop opining about house building and nimbys anywhere other than where you live in the SE, eh?

Let's add to that - it does concern people who live outside London but who have to travel in. However in the Metropolitan bubble, they don't count it would seem.

It concerns people who travel in *in their non-compliant cars*.

I travel in most days, doesn't concern me.

Clearly, didn't think I had to spell that out given what we are discussing.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

ULEZ only applies to certain vehicles. So suspect the "Welcome to the London Borough of ULEZ" will be found not to be sufficient.

So there will be new signs.

I take it you've never been over or under the Dartford crossing?

Not recently, but I am from Surrey and I remember when under was the only option.

Suspect that there aren't an army of Stevos opposing road tolls, so they will probably get away with those signs.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

Just so everyone gets an idea of the 'full blown rebellion' that the Spectator is claiming, anti-ulez protestors are notably less organised than the local 5G/antivax f***wits, who can at least muster a regular half dozen plackard wavers.

Give it 6 months and it'll just be another thing that pub bores moan about.

it's a great example of reactionary right wing politics.

pblakeney

Pross said:

That's exactly what it is like. The information is included in a Traffic Regulation Order and it is up to a driver to know the implications e.g. a double yellow line has no requirement for any signage related to it to tell you...

The only problem with the yellow line analogy is that you can continue driving and find another parking place. With ULEZ you cannot do a u-turn without paying. AFAIK.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

What, so if they earn money from it, it’s ok to pollute more?

Driving is a privilege not a right.

Who decides who gets the privilege?

Local government.

How is that? Local government has no say on me driving my car.