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

1…109110112114115…191

Comments

  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,137
    Pross 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.

    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?
    Don't ask me.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,137
    rick_chasey said:

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

    No, because it is a tax.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,532
    Stevo_666 said:

    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.
    They do have a say where you can drive it. National government also has a say.

    Hope this hasn't come as a surprise.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,462
    pblakeney said:

    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.
    Well according to KG's post at the end of page 110 that's exactly what you get. As long as you don't pass the first camera then u turning is an option. Presumably anyone choosing to drive into the zone has decided it's necessary though.

  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,354
    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.
    Why thank you FA.

    Ironically the when the last ULEZ expansion to the North and South Circular boundary was on the horizon I took that as a cue to change my car. It was due for a change soon-ish but thought I may as well avoid getting shafted as at the time I lived much closer to the South Circular than I do now and made more trips inside the North & South Circular area. So I swapped my non ULEZ compliant 2.2l diesel runabout for a ULEZ compliant petrol 4l V8. Clearly no dysfunctional behaviour there :smile:
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,137
    There should be safe turning zones. That'll be the next appeal.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,354
    First.Aspect said:

    There should be safe turning zones. That'll be the next appeal.

    Even without that, its going to be carnage with the volume of appeals given it is a pretty well known issue.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Stevo_666 said:

    First.Aspect said:

    There should be safe turning zones. That'll be the next appeal.

    Even without that, its going to be carnage with the volume of appeals given it is a pretty well known issue.
    How many were there for the original ULEZ?
    _
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,354
    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    First.Aspect said:

    There should be safe turning zones. That'll be the next appeal.

    Even without that, its going to be carnage with the volume of appeals given it is a pretty well known issue.
    How many were there for the original ULEZ?
    No idea, but that original ULEZ generated nowhere near the same level of controversy as the current expansion and impacted far fewer people who were less reliant on cars anyway.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,308
    Pross said:

    pblakeney said:

    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.
    Well according to KG's post at the end of page 110 that's exactly what you get. As long as you don't pass the first camera then u turning is an option. Presumably anyone choosing to drive into the zone has decided it's necessary though.

    My point is that unless there is a sign the assumption might be that it is a speed camera and continue on.
    Anyway, this affects so little cars, and certainly not me, it is a mountain range out of a molehill.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Given it's an expansion, it's a non-issue.

    It's just with the LTNs, and the fact that the Tories are desperate to get a foothold in any urban area and that they're now being run by a bunch of reactionary right-wing lot that it's an issue.

    It doesn't affect many people, and in London, £12.50 isn't really very much.
    _
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,354
    rick_chasey said:

    Given it's an expansion, it's a non-issue.

    It's just with the LTNs, and the fact that the Tories are desperate to get a foothold in any urban area and that they're now being run by a bunch of reactionary right-wing lot that it's an issue.

    It doesn't affect many people, and in London, £12.50 isn't really very much.

    Do you inhabit some weird parallel universe where nobody sees this as an issue? Just look at the news and its not just the Torygraph/DM.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,119
    pblakeney said:

    Pross said:

    pblakeney said:

    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.
    Well according to KG's post at the end of page 110 that's exactly what you get. As long as you don't pass the first camera then u turning is an option. Presumably anyone choosing to drive into the zone has decided it's necessary though.

    My point is that unless there is a sign the assumption might be that it is a speed camera and continue on.
    Anyway, this affects so little cars, and certainly not me, it is a mountain range out of a molehill.
    The camera isn't the boundary, there are signs on the boundary and the opportunity (in this case) to drive through surbiton to the a3 to avoid entering the zone. The zone is not bang on the London borough boundary. No idea where the first camera is, it could even be a mobile camera.

  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,119
    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Given it's an expansion, it's a non-issue.

    It's just with the LTNs, and the fact that the Tories are desperate to get a foothold in any urban area and that they're now being run by a bunch of reactionary right-wing lot that it's an issue.

    It doesn't affect many people, and in London, £12.50 isn't really very much.

    Do you inhabit some weird parallel universe where nobody sees this as an issue? Just look at the news and its not just the Torygraph/DM.
    https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/ultra-low-emission-zone-ulez-extensiopn-sadiq-khan-london-air-quality-b1103468.html
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 8,137
    First.Aspect said:

    focuszing723 said:

    Has God got a Ulez compliant car?

    No, He cycles.

    I think God would go for one of these.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,137
    pblakeney said:

    Pross said:

    pblakeney said:

    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.
    Well according to KG's post at the end of page 110 that's exactly what you get. As long as you don't pass the first camera then u turning is an option. Presumably anyone choosing to drive into the zone has decided it's necessary though.

    My point is that unless there is a sign the assumption might be that it is a speed camera and continue on.
    Anyway, this affects so little cars, and certainly not me, it is a mountain range out of a molehill.
    So why do it?
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 8,137
    First.Aspect said:

    pblakeney said:

    Pross said:

    pblakeney said:

    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.
    Well according to KG's post at the end of page 110 that's exactly what you get. As long as you don't pass the first camera then u turning is an option. Presumably anyone choosing to drive into the zone has decided it's necessary though.

    My point is that unless there is a sign the assumption might be that it is a speed camera and continue on.
    Anyway, this affects so little cars, and certainly not me, it is a mountain range out of a molehill.
    So why do it?
    Yep, it's going to happen naturally anyway. Why kick people in the b0ll0cks who were enticed into diesels in the first place?
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,137
    rick_chasey said:

    Given it's an expansion, it's a non-issue.

    It's just with the LTNs, and the fact that the Tories are desperate to get a foothold in any urban area and that they're now being run by a bunch of reactionary right-wing lot that it's an issue.

    It doesn't affect many people, and in London, £12.50 isn't really very much.

    12.5 x 5 x 47 = 2937.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    First.Aspect said:

    pblakeney said:

    Pross said:

    pblakeney said:

    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.
    Well according to KG's post at the end of page 110 that's exactly what you get. As long as you don't pass the first camera then u turning is an option. Presumably anyone choosing to drive into the zone has decided it's necessary though.

    My point is that unless there is a sign the assumption might be that it is a speed camera and continue on.
    Anyway, this affects so little cars, and certainly not me, it is a mountain range out of a molehill.
    So why do it?
    As you quoted the research yourself , they "can be very effective when combined with other measures" .
    _
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,887
    Stevo_666 said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Anyone seen the light and gone car free yet?

    Is that directed at anyone in particular? :)
    No. Even those with blinkers may be able to see the light one day.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    edited August 2023
    I'd like to go car free but currently it's not practical. Not enough infrastructure, and cheaper to run a car.
    _
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,354
    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Given it's an expansion, it's a non-issue.

    It's just with the LTNs, and the fact that the Tories are desperate to get a foothold in any urban area and that they're now being run by a bunch of reactionary right-wing lot that it's an issue.

    It doesn't affect many people, and in London, £12.50 isn't really very much.

    Do you inhabit some weird parallel universe where nobody sees this as an issue? Just look at the news and its not just the Torygraph/DM.
    https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/ultra-low-emission-zone-ulez-extensiopn-sadiq-khan-london-air-quality-b1103468.html
    Nothing to see here, no controversy whatsoever, move along please folks and leave Ricktopia quickly and quietly...




    Etc Etc
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,137
    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    pblakeney said:

    Pross said:

    pblakeney said:

    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.
    Well according to KG's post at the end of page 110 that's exactly what you get. As long as you don't pass the first camera then u turning is an option. Presumably anyone choosing to drive into the zone has decided it's necessary though.

    My point is that unless there is a sign the assumption might be that it is a speed camera and continue on.
    Anyway, this affects so little cars, and certainly not me, it is a mountain range out of a molehill.
    So why do it?
    As you quoted the research yourself , they "can be very effective when combined with other measures" .
    Meaning ineffective on their own. Nice selective quoting though.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,137
    focuszing723 said:

    First.Aspect said:

    pblakeney said:

    Pross said:

    pblakeney said:

    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.
    Well according to KG's post at the end of page 110 that's exactly what you get. As long as you don't pass the first camera then u turning is an option. Presumably anyone choosing to drive into the zone has decided it's necessary though.

    My point is that unless there is a sign the assumption might be that it is a speed camera and continue on.
    Anyway, this affects so little cars, and certainly not me, it is a mountain range out of a molehill.
    So why do it?
    Yep, it's going to happen naturally anyway. Why kick people in the b0ll0cks who were enticed into diesels in the first place?
    Precidely. Instead we should firstly force everyone into EVs and then, some considerable time later, put some thought into how to charge them and generate enough electricity to run them.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,887
    rick_chasey said:

    I'd like to go car free but currently it's not practical. Not enough infrastructure, and cheaper to run a car.

    I think this thread has shown that you haven't tried that hard.
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 8,137
    Get the charging network up to scratch first! What are they doing about that?
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,137
    focuszing723 said:

    Get the charging network up to scratch first! What are they doing about that?

    There's no need until everyone has an EV.
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 8,137
    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I'd like to go car free but currently it's not practical. Not enough infrastructure, and cheaper to run a car.

    I think this thread has shown that you haven't tried that hard.
    Lol
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I'd like to go car free but currently it's not practical. Not enough infrastructure, and cheaper to run a car.

    I think this thread has shown that you haven't tried that hard.
    I think the "trivial things that annoy you" thread show how much a) public transport I already use and b) what I think of the current state of it.

    But yeah, I can't get the family to where they need to be often enough in a time and money efficient way without a car to justify going without one.
    _
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 8,137
    rick_chasey said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rick_chasey said:

    I'd like to go car free but currently it's not practical. Not enough infrastructure, and cheaper to run a car.

    I think this thread has shown that you haven't tried that hard.
    I think the "trivial things that annoy you" thread show how much a) public transport I already use and b) what I think of the current state of it.

    But yeah, I can't get the family to where they need to be often enough in a time and money efficient way without a car to justify going without one.
    Then why throw stones when you're in a glass house?

Categories