The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)
Comments
-
In my neck of the woods, there are lots of EVs and lots of chargers. No one seems to have a problem despite needing to park on the street. Therefore, I'd imagine people with drives would find it even easierfocuszing723 said:Get the charging network up to scratch first! What are they doing about that?
That said, owning an EV is not being car free.0 -
Thanks!kingstongraham said:
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.pblakeney said:
My point is that unless there is a sign the assumption might be that it is a speed camera and continue on.Pross said:
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.pblakeney said:
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.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...
Anyway, this affects so little cars, and certainly not me, it is a mountain range out of a molehill.
So why all the chat about signs? 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.0 -
Yeah, hot wiring a lap post or two will be fairly quick to implement. The national grid is made of bubble gum and string though. That's a bit more of an issue.TheBigBean said:
In my neck of the woods, there are lots of EVs and lots of chargers. No one seems to have a problem despite needing to park on the street. Therefore, I'd imagine people with drives would find it even easierfocuszing723 said:Get the charging network up to scratch first! What are they doing about that?
That said, owning an EV is not being car free.
Boris had thought it through though, when he suggested lots of little nuclear reactors. They can be replaced with fusion reactors in a couple of years.
I miss his vision.
0 -
That's what, 50 people?Stevo_666 said:
Nothing to see here, no controversy whatsoever, move along please folks and leave Ricktopia quickly and quietly...kingstongraham said:
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/ultra-low-emission-zone-ulez-extensiopn-sadiq-khan-london-air-quality-b1103468.htmlStevo_666 said:
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.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.
Etc Etc0 -
I'm guessing that as London doesn't meet legal air quality standards they can demonstrate they are taking action to resolve the situation. Whether that action is the thing that brings them into compliance with those targets or it would have happened anyway is almost a moot pointFirst.Aspect said:
So why do it?pblakeney said:
My point is that unless there is a sign the assumption might be that it is a speed camera and continue on.Pross said:
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.pblakeney said:
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.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...
Anyway, this affects so little cars, and certainly not me, it is a mountain range out of a molehill.
0 -
To get to the point where all vehicles are compliant?First.Aspect said:
So why do it?pblakeney said:
My point is that unless there is a sign the assumption might be that it is a speed camera and continue on.Pross said:
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.pblakeney said:
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.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...
Anyway, this affects so little cars, and certainly not me, it is a mountain range out of a molehill.
If they change the rules at that point then it is simply a tax.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.0 -
It's a tax, because almost all vehicles are compliant now. The boundaries will change in line with revenues, I assure you.pblakeney said:
To get to the point where all vehicles are compliant?First.Aspect said:
So why do it?pblakeney said:
My point is that unless there is a sign the assumption might be that it is a speed camera and continue on.Pross said:
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.pblakeney said:
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.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...
Anyway, this affects so little cars, and certainly not me, it is a mountain range out of a molehill.
If they change the rules at that point then it is simply a tax.
But it will be for the children. Think of the children.
1 -
Electric cars replacing petrol and diesel for journeys in cities just means traffic jams full of quiet, lower pollution cars.TheBigBean said:
In my neck of the woods, there are lots of EVs and lots of chargers. No one seems to have a problem despite needing to park on the street. Therefore, I'd imagine people with drives would find it even easierfocuszing723 said:Get the charging network up to scratch first! What are they doing about that?
That said, owning an EV is not being car free.0 -
Not sure you really understand the premise of my argument in the thread.focuszing723 said:
Then why throw stones when you're in a glass house?rick_chasey said:
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.TheBigBean said:
I think this thread has shown that you haven't tried that hard.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.
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.
You're not gonna achieve a more sustainable way of travel without re-dressing the transport system away from a car orientated system (outside of London, anyway), to one that is public transport and (e)bike orientated. The whole point is, is that it *should* be more convenient for me to go carless. But the system is set up for cars, so having a car is the sensible thing to do within the system. That change away from a car orientated system won't happen overnight however.
In its current form, it's not practical for quite a few people to go carless, especially outside of London.0 -
Bit like putting a bike la e under parked cars, to meet active travel targets, ypu mean?super_davo said:
I'm guessing that as London doesn't meet legal air quality standards they can demonstrate they are taking action to resolve the situation. Whether that action is the thing that brings them into compliance with those targets or it would have happened anyway is almost a moot pointFirst.Aspect said:
So why do it?pblakeney said:
My point is that unless there is a sign the assumption might be that it is a speed camera and continue on.Pross said:
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.pblakeney said:
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.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...
Anyway, this affects so little cars, and certainly not me, it is a mountain range out of a molehill.0 -
-
Small group of loons in protest and vandalism - better stop anything like that thenStevo_666 said:
Nothing to see here, no controversy whatsoever, move along please folks and leave Ricktopia quickly and quietly...kingstongraham said:
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/ultra-low-emission-zone-ulez-extensiopn-sadiq-khan-london-air-quality-b1103468.htmlStevo_666 said:
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.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.
Etc Etc
0 -
Yes, hence my second paragraph.kingstongraham said:
Electric cars replacing petrol and diesel for journeys in cities just means traffic jams full of quiet, lower pollution cars.TheBigBean said:
In my neck of the woods, there are lots of EVs and lots of chargers. No one seems to have a problem despite needing to park on the street. Therefore, I'd imagine people with drives would find it even easierfocuszing723 said:Get the charging network up to scratch first! What are they doing about that?
That said, owning an EV is not being car free.0 -
Is this the doesn't affect you so shut up part of the thread?rick_chasey said:TBH, how many of you are actually writing this from inside the ULEZ?
If so, see above. City councils will be monkey see monkey do on this, so will affect almost everyone in a year or two.
Edinburgh and Glasgow have just taken the first step. The sizes of the zones will get bigger, for sure.1 -
If they are overnight chargers, then the cars can use electricity when there is less demand, so not necessarily a strain on the grid.First.Aspect said:
Yeah, hot wiring a lap post or two will be fairly quick to implement. The national grid is made of bubble gum and string though. That's a bit more of an issue.TheBigBean said:
In my neck of the woods, there are lots of EVs and lots of chargers. No one seems to have a problem despite needing to park on the street. Therefore, I'd imagine people with drives would find it even easierfocuszing723 said:Get the charging network up to scratch first! What are they doing about that?
That said, owning an EV is not being car free.
Boris had thought it through though, when he suggested lots of little nuclear reactors. They can be replaced with fusion reactors in a couple of years.
I miss his vision.0 -
A few optimistic people are hoping there'll be a whole raft of successful appeals and the 'leftie' policy will be dropped.pblakeney said:
Thanks!kingstongraham said:
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.pblakeney said:
My point is that unless there is a sign the assumption might be that it is a speed camera and continue on.Pross said:
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.pblakeney said:
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.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...
Anyway, this affects so little cars, and certainly not me, it is a mountain range out of a molehill.
So why all the chat about signs? Mountain range out of a molehill.
I'm hoping to see a few people who believe the hype challenge the decision and then their 'compo face' pictures in the Express when they lose.1 -
easier to get a sense of how disruptive it is or not when you're in it.First.Aspect said:
Is this the doesn't affect you so shut up part of the thread?rick_chasey said:TBH, how many of you are actually writing this from inside the ULEZ?
If so, see above. City councils will be monkey see monkey do on this, so will affect almost everyone in a year or two.
Edinburgh and Glasgow have just taken the first step. The sizes of the zones will get bigger, for sure.0 -
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.0 -
I can never tell if you work in this area in some way. I thought there was a legitimate concern that peak demand would need to increase to cope with, for example, peak fast charging demands. And also that the nation coming home after work and plugging the car in would itself compound the early evening put the kettle on demands seen now?TheBigBean said:
If they are overnight chargers, then the cars can use electricity when there is less demand, so not necessarily a strain on the grid.First.Aspect said:
Yeah, hot wiring a lap post or two will be fairly quick to implement. The national grid is made of bubble gum and string though. That's a bit more of an issue.TheBigBean said:
In my neck of the woods, there are lots of EVs and lots of chargers. No one seems to have a problem despite needing to park on the street. Therefore, I'd imagine people with drives would find it even easierfocuszing723 said:Get the charging network up to scratch first! What are they doing about that?
That said, owning an EV is not being car free.
Boris had thought it through though, when he suggested lots of little nuclear reactors. They can be replaced with fusion reactors in a couple of years.
I miss his vision.0 -
There are a whole bunch of politicians jumping on it as a populist issue because it is believed to be the reason for the Tories "success" in Uxbridge (success in this case is measured as majority reducing from over 7000 to less than 600 and a drop of the vote share of 7.4%) and that was in an area that was directly affected. I wonder how many voters regularly travel from Herts into London driving non-compliant vehicles? It doesn't feel like a major vote winner to me or certainly not one that is going to swing many votes.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.0 -
That must be out of date as Bristol has been in place for around a year (and to me is a worse example as it catches people on a very short section of road who are bypassing the city centre to get to the airport - it actually feels more like an intentional trap and could have easily been amended). It also exclue most residential areas.pblakeney said:0 -
Well for me not at all. Like I said, I'll be lowering emissions by driving to the office.rick_chasey said:
easier to get a sense of how disruptive it is or not when you're in it.First.Aspect said:
Is this the doesn't affect you so shut up part of the thread?rick_chasey said:TBH, how many of you are actually writing this from inside the ULEZ?
If so, see above. City councils will be monkey see monkey do on this, so will affect almost everyone in a year or two.
Edinburgh and Glasgow have just taken the first step. The sizes of the zones will get bigger, for sure.
But i recognise that my own personal bubble isn't the only thing that counts. I'm nice like that, you see.
0 -
The other ones don't count because they aren't in London. You should know this by now.Pross said:
That must be out of date as Bristol has been in place for around a year (and to me is a worse example as it catches people on a very short section of road who are bypassing the city centre to get to the airport - it actually feels more like an intentional trap and could have easily been amended). It also exclue most residential areas.pblakeney said:0 -
I'm broadly in favour of ULEZ, there are some elements that seem wrong, midnight cut offs are one rather than a rolling 24 hour period and the compliance of old polluting cars seems at odds with the general idea.
I've seen some comment online today that the front news page splashes of up 75 protestors seems to have created a higher profile that you might expect? Social media seems to buzz with angry men across the country who want Khan out .... I'm not suggesting they are fired by another agenda here but it looks strange. That Fox chap seems to beleive he has a majority of support for his campaign, which is a shame given the pitiful backing he got in the actual majoral election ...2020/2021/2022 Metric Century Challenge Winner0 -
Not every reply is an argument.TheBigBean said:
Yes, hence my second paragraph.kingstongraham said:
Electric cars replacing petrol and diesel for journeys in cities just means traffic jams full of quiet, lower pollution cars.TheBigBean said:
In my neck of the woods, there are lots of EVs and lots of chargers. No one seems to have a problem despite needing to park on the street. Therefore, I'd imagine people with drives would find it even easierfocuszing723 said:Get the charging network up to scratch first! What are they doing about that?
That said, owning an EV is not being car free.0 -
Most probably.Pross said:
That must be out of date as Bristol has been in place for around a year (and to me is a worse example as it catches people on a very short section of road who are bypassing the city centre to get to the airport - it actually feels more like an intentional trap and could have easily been amended). It also exclue most residential areas.pblakeney said:
I was just highlighting that there is life outside of Greater London.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.0 -
TBF, I have offered a running commentary on the Cambridge proposal which is significantly more onerous but no-one is interested0
-
Well given your wholehearted support od the London one, I'd love to hear why the Cambridge one isn't just tough sh1t.rick_chasey said:TBF, I have offered a running commentary on the Cambridge proposal which is significantly more onerous but no-one is interested
1 -
True, there is also getting to and from London.pblakeney said:
Most probably.Pross said:
That must be out of date as Bristol has been in place for around a year (and to me is a worse example as it catches people on a very short section of road who are bypassing the city centre to get to the airport - it actually feels more like an intentional trap and could have easily been amended). It also exclue most residential areas.pblakeney said:
I was just highlighting that there is life outside of Greater London.0 -
Yes it is.kingstongraham said:
Not every reply is an argument.TheBigBean said:
Yes, hence my second paragraph.kingstongraham said:
Electric cars replacing petrol and diesel for journeys in cities just means traffic jams full of quiet, lower pollution cars.TheBigBean said:
In my neck of the woods, there are lots of EVs and lots of chargers. No one seems to have a problem despite needing to park on the street. Therefore, I'd imagine people with drives would find it even easierfocuszing723 said:Get the charging network up to scratch first! What are they doing about that?
That said, owning an EV is not being car free.1
