The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)
Comments
-
Very on brand for a Musk fan.focuszing723 said:
No, not when the transition is happening naturally anyway, some people just want their name/career attributed to it.super_davo said:Am I the only one that thinks its refreshing to have a politician that has made a policy based on the circumstances and evidence (what ever you think of that evidence) and sticks to their guns about it?
As opposed to come up with an idea, backlash in the papers, U-turn. Since Johnson I often think we might as well put the Daily Mail journos in charge of the country and cut out the middleman.
I suppose it helps that his competition for mayor next year is so weak he can take the knock, but it does make you pine for some actual leadership for the country.
What's the bets the policy makers and their entourage have swanked on a jet or a diesel cruise ship this year? "Ah yes, I was involved in the Ulez clean air scheme...".
Hmmmm1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
There are plenty of poor people in Greater London. They all get the bus, tube, or around Croydon, the tram. Not so much trains as they are more expensive, with the exception of the Overground.First.Aspect said:
?? Have I joined a young Tory Facebook group or something?rick_chasey said:Has FA not worked out yet that if you’re really that poor you probably don’t drive much anyway?
So it’s people who are poor enough to be smashed by £12.50 a day, but not so poor they don’t have a car, who happen to be driving a non compliant car but can’t afford to replace AND their regular travel can’t be covered by the extensive public transport system?
It’s about 4 people once you add it up.
Perhaps there are no "poor people" in London or the SE left any more. I don't know. But I was thinking about people who travel around day to day, like cleaners, care workers, shift workers, that kind of thing.
I suppose they are all on above average incomes and employers that give them a car allowance or extra time to get between appointments by public transport.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I cannot see how there are so many can afford a car in London, can't use public transport, but be so stung by the ULEZ with an old car that you can't afford to switch even with £2k scrappage help.First.Aspect said:
Yeah I went to London once. Must have been some time in the first 20 years of my life before I lost all ambition and moved away for university and work.rick_chasey said:
With the way the rent crisis is going in London the ULEZ is peanuts.First.Aspect said:
?? Have I joined a young Tory Facebook group or something?rick_chasey said:Has FA not worked out yet that if you’re really that poor you probably don’t drive much anyway?
So it’s people who are poor enough to be smashed by £12.50 a day, but not so poor they don’t have a car, who happen to be driving a non compliant car but can’t afford to replace AND their regular travel can’t be covered by the extensive public transport system?
It’s about 4 people once you add it up.
Perhaps there are no "poor people" in London or the SE left any more. I don't know. But I was thinking about people who travel around day to day, like cleaners, care workers, shift workers, that kind of thing.
I suppose they are all on above average incomes and employers that give them a car allowance or extra time to get between appointments by public transport.
And public transport is pretty comprehensive in London.
Have you ever been?!
I am finding the reality gap on here depressing. You've basically said firstly there are no poor people in London (or the South East, remember, who might go) and that they aren't poor because rents are so high, and that you think care workers and the like will be allowed time to get around by public transport.
This categorically confirms that you are a spoiled self entitled little person who has not ever had to engage with or acknowledge a whole section of society.
I'm just as privileged as you, but somehow it appears that I'm more observant.
How is this project getting on? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbirail
Might help things a bit.
It's such a narrow number of people. You need so many conditions to be correct in order for this to be a problem.
And genuinely, go look at the London rent crisis if you want to be upset about the poor in London. Several orders of magnitude more problematic.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/average-london-rental-costs-rise-city-hall-figures-b1098369.html0 -
Poor people use the bus.rjsterry said:
There are plenty of poor people in Greater London. They all get the bus, tube, or around Croydon, the tram. Not so much trains as they are more expensive, with the exception of the Overground.First.Aspect said:
?? Have I joined a young Tory Facebook group or something?rick_chasey said:Has FA not worked out yet that if you’re really that poor you probably don’t drive much anyway?
So it’s people who are poor enough to be smashed by £12.50 a day, but not so poor they don’t have a car, who happen to be driving a non compliant car but can’t afford to replace AND their regular travel can’t be covered by the extensive public transport system?
It’s about 4 people once you add it up.
Perhaps there are no "poor people" in London or the SE left any more. I don't know. But I was thinking about people who travel around day to day, like cleaners, care workers, shift workers, that kind of thing.
I suppose they are all on above average incomes and employers that give them a car allowance or extra time to get between appointments by public transport.
Tick.0 -
Yeah in London, rich people use public transport too. Everyone does. Best way to get around.First.Aspect said:
Poor people use the bus.rjsterry said:
There are plenty of poor people in Greater London. They all get the bus, tube, or around Croydon, the tram. Not so much trains as they are more expensive, with the exception of the Overground.First.Aspect said:
?? Have I joined a young Tory Facebook group or something?rick_chasey said:Has FA not worked out yet that if you’re really that poor you probably don’t drive much anyway?
So it’s people who are poor enough to be smashed by £12.50 a day, but not so poor they don’t have a car, who happen to be driving a non compliant car but can’t afford to replace AND their regular travel can’t be covered by the extensive public transport system?
It’s about 4 people once you add it up.
Perhaps there are no "poor people" in London or the SE left any more. I don't know. But I was thinking about people who travel around day to day, like cleaners, care workers, shift workers, that kind of thing.
I suppose they are all on above average incomes and employers that give them a car allowance or extra time to get between appointments by public transport.
Tick.
Taking taxis/going by car stopped being faster in about 2013, if not a lot earlier.0 -
It's not many people. So who cares.rick_chasey said:
I cannot see how there are so many can afford a car in London, can't use public transport, but be so stung by the ULEZ with an old car that you can't afford to switch even with £2k scrappage help.First.Aspect said:
Yeah I went to London once. Must have been some time in the first 20 years of my life before I lost all ambition and moved away for university and work.rick_chasey said:
With the way the rent crisis is going in London the ULEZ is peanuts.First.Aspect said:
?? Have I joined a young Tory Facebook group or something?rick_chasey said:Has FA not worked out yet that if you’re really that poor you probably don’t drive much anyway?
So it’s people who are poor enough to be smashed by £12.50 a day, but not so poor they don’t have a car, who happen to be driving a non compliant car but can’t afford to replace AND their regular travel can’t be covered by the extensive public transport system?
It’s about 4 people once you add it up.
Perhaps there are no "poor people" in London or the SE left any more. I don't know. But I was thinking about people who travel around day to day, like cleaners, care workers, shift workers, that kind of thing.
I suppose they are all on above average incomes and employers that give them a car allowance or extra time to get between appointments by public transport.
And public transport is pretty comprehensive in London.
Have you ever been?!
I am finding the reality gap on here depressing. You've basically said firstly there are no poor people in London (or the South East, remember, who might go) and that they aren't poor because rents are so high, and that you think care workers and the like will be allowed time to get around by public transport.
This categorically confirms that you are a spoiled self entitled little person who has not ever had to engage with or acknowledge a whole section of society.
I'm just as privileged as you, but somehow it appears that I'm more observant.
How is this project getting on? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbirail
Might help things a bit.
It's such a narrow number of people. You need so many conditions to be correct in order for this to be a problem.
And genuinely, go look at the London rent crisis if you want to be upset about the poor in London. Several orders of magnitude more problematic.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/average-london-rental-costs-rise-city-hall-figures-b1098369.html
Tick.0 -
This is basically a diesel problem, the petrol cut off is so far in the past as to not really be a concern. Diesels have always been more expensive to buy and service than petrol with savings coming from better MPG (and that only kicks in on longer journeys when the engine is warm, the in town MPG is usually worse).First.Aspect said:
Yeah I went to London once. Must have been some time in the first 20 years of my life before I lost all ambition and moved away for university and work.rick_chasey said:
With the way the rent crisis is going in London the ULEZ is peanuts.First.Aspect said:
?? Have I joined a young Tory Facebook group or something?rick_chasey said:Has FA not worked out yet that if you’re really that poor you probably don’t drive much anyway?
So it’s people who are poor enough to be smashed by £12.50 a day, but not so poor they don’t have a car, who happen to be driving a non compliant car but can’t afford to replace AND their regular travel can’t be covered by the extensive public transport system?
It’s about 4 people once you add it up.
Perhaps there are no "poor people" in London or the SE left any more. I don't know. But I was thinking about people who travel around day to day, like cleaners, care workers, shift workers, that kind of thing.
I suppose they are all on above average incomes and employers that give them a car allowance or extra time to get between appointments by public transport.
And public transport is pretty comprehensive in London.
Have you ever been?!
I am finding the reality gap on here depressing. You've basically said firstly there are no poor people in London (or the South East, remember, who might go) and that they aren't poor because rents are so high, and that you think care workers and the like will be allowed time to get around by public transport.
This categorically confirms that you are a spoiled self entitled little person who has not ever had to engage with or acknowledge a whole section of society.
I'm just as privileged as you, but somehow it appears that I'm more observant.
How is this project getting on? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbirail
Might help things a bit.
They would have been a terrible choice for anyone doing lots of house visits (like a care worker) long before ULEZ.
I don't know who these mythical "just poor enough" people driving 2015 A class Mercedes diesels are supposed to be. There has also been a lot of time / publicity to change vehicle if you did genuinely need to use your non compliant car for work.
I appreciate that it's a different story for vans and tradesmen, but there is the scrappage scheme and it can be offset for tax as a business expense.0 -
It's only 120 premature deaths- a year saved.First.Aspect said:
It's not many people. So who cares.rick_chasey said:
I cannot see how there are so many can afford a car in London, can't use public transport, but be so stung by the ULEZ with an old car that you can't afford to switch even with £2k scrappage help.First.Aspect said:
Yeah I went to London once. Must have been some time in the first 20 years of my life before I lost all ambition and moved away for university and work.rick_chasey said:
With the way the rent crisis is going in London the ULEZ is peanuts.First.Aspect said:
?? Have I joined a young Tory Facebook group or something?rick_chasey said:Has FA not worked out yet that if you’re really that poor you probably don’t drive much anyway?
So it’s people who are poor enough to be smashed by £12.50 a day, but not so poor they don’t have a car, who happen to be driving a non compliant car but can’t afford to replace AND their regular travel can’t be covered by the extensive public transport system?
It’s about 4 people once you add it up.
Perhaps there are no "poor people" in London or the SE left any more. I don't know. But I was thinking about people who travel around day to day, like cleaners, care workers, shift workers, that kind of thing.
I suppose they are all on above average incomes and employers that give them a car allowance or extra time to get between appointments by public transport.
And public transport is pretty comprehensive in London.
Have you ever been?!
I am finding the reality gap on here depressing. You've basically said firstly there are no poor people in London (or the South East, remember, who might go) and that they aren't poor because rents are so high, and that you think care workers and the like will be allowed time to get around by public transport.
This categorically confirms that you are a spoiled self entitled little person who has not ever had to engage with or acknowledge a whole section of society.
I'm just as privileged as you, but somehow it appears that I'm more observant.
How is this project getting on? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbirail
Might help things a bit.
It's such a narrow number of people. You need so many conditions to be correct in order for this to be a problem.
And genuinely, go look at the London rent crisis if you want to be upset about the poor in London. Several orders of magnitude more problematic.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/average-london-rental-costs-rise-city-hall-figures-b1098369.html
Tick.
Who cares.
Tick.0 -
Ticksuper_davo said:
This is basically a diesel problem, the petrol cut off is so far in the past as to not really be a concern. Diesels have always been more expensive to buy and service than petrol with savings coming from better MPG (and that only kicks in on longer journeys when the engine is warm, the in town MPG is usually worse).First.Aspect said:
Yeah I went to London once. Must have been some time in the first 20 years of my life before I lost all ambition and moved away for university and work.rick_chasey said:
With the way the rent crisis is going in London the ULEZ is peanuts.First.Aspect said:
?? Have I joined a young Tory Facebook group or something?rick_chasey said:Has FA not worked out yet that if you’re really that poor you probably don’t drive much anyway?
So it’s people who are poor enough to be smashed by £12.50 a day, but not so poor they don’t have a car, who happen to be driving a non compliant car but can’t afford to replace AND their regular travel can’t be covered by the extensive public transport system?
It’s about 4 people once you add it up.
Perhaps there are no "poor people" in London or the SE left any more. I don't know. But I was thinking about people who travel around day to day, like cleaners, care workers, shift workers, that kind of thing.
I suppose they are all on above average incomes and employers that give them a car allowance or extra time to get between appointments by public transport.
And public transport is pretty comprehensive in London.
Have you ever been?!
I am finding the reality gap on here depressing. You've basically said firstly there are no poor people in London (or the South East, remember, who might go) and that they aren't poor because rents are so high, and that you think care workers and the like will be allowed time to get around by public transport.
This categorically confirms that you are a spoiled self entitled little person who has not ever had to engage with or acknowledge a whole section of society.
I'm just as privileged as you, but somehow it appears that I'm more observant.
How is this project getting on? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbirail
Might help things a bit.
They would have been a terrible choice for anyone doing lots of house visits (like a care worker) long before ULEZ.
I don't know who these mythical "just poor enough" people driving 2015 A class Mercedes diesels are supposed to be. There has also been a lot of time / publicity to change vehicle if you did genuinely need to use your non compliant car for work.
I appreciate that it's a different story for vans and tradesmen, but there is the scrappage scheme and it can be offset for tax as a business expense.
1 -
FA is more worried about some people's personal finances which are so narrow they may not even exist, but isn't worried about deaths caused by pollution.0
-
If only it made the slightest difference to the latter.rick_chasey said:FA is more worried about some people's personal finances which are so narrow they may not even exist, but isn't worried about deaths caused by pollution.
Hey, if you keep asserting it, it will become true.0 -
If you assert it doesn't, doesn't mean it won't
I think that's the basis of the disagreement. The levels of particulates needed are so low that even the tiniest reduction impacts health materially. You disagree.
The rest is just a chip on your shoulder about how London works.0 -
I don't give a rats arse about London to be honest. It doesn't offer me anything that I want and never has. All the cities I've enjoyed living in or near have had landscape and nature close by in common - Oxford, Vancouver, Edinburgh. All the ones I can enjoy visiting but cant imagine spending much time, don't. London, Glasgow, Toronto, New York.rick_chasey said:If you assert it doesn't, doesn't mean it won't
I think that's the basis of the disagreement. The levels of particulates needed are so low that even the tiniest reduction impacts health materially. You disagree.
The rest is just a chip on your shoulder about how London works.
Anyway, the thing in bold. You think tiny changes make a big difference. Why do you think that?
I think you are confusing seemingly low thresholds (ppm, ppb) and small changes in values measured in those units.
0 -
From the Imperial research you quoted above.First.Aspect said:
I don't give a rats censored about London to be honest. It doesn't offer me anything that I want and never has. All the cities I've enjoyed living in or near have had landscape and nature close by in common - Oxford, Vancouver, Edinburgh. All the ones I can enjoy visiting but cant imagine spending much time, don't. London, Glasgow, Toronto, New York.rick_chasey said:If you assert it doesn't, doesn't mean it won't
I think that's the basis of the disagreement. The levels of particulates needed are so low that even the tiniest reduction impacts health materially. You disagree.
The rest is just a chip on your shoulder about how London works.
Anyway, the thing in bold. You think tiny changes make a big difference. Why do you think that?
I think you are confusing seemingly low thresholds (ppm, ppb) and small changes in values measured in those units.searchers at Imperial College London have estimated the health impacts of air pollution in London. They concluded: “In 2019, in Greater London, the equivalent of between 3,600 to 4,100 deaths (61,800 to 70,200 life years lost) were estimated to be attributable to human-made PM2.5 and NO2, considering that health effects exist even at very low levels. This calculation is for deaths from all causes including respiratory, lung cancer and cardiovascular deaths.”
This is a good summary of it all tbh
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/the-truth-about-londons-ultra-low-emission-zone/A study by researchers at Imperial College London published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in November 2021 assessed the impact of the ULEZ in the first five to eight weeks after it was introduced in April 2019. This analysis showed widespread, but relatively small, reductions, and some increases, in air pollution concentrations across the ULEZ zone. Overall, the authors found an average reduction of less than 3% in nitrogen dioxide levels, and insignificant changes in PM2.5 concentrations.
A further study, published in the Journal of Environmental Health in July 2022, found statistically significant reductions in nitrogen dioxide levels in the first 90 days after the introduction of the ULEZ at 16 sites across London, compared with the same period in 2018.
Another study, published in the journal Atmospheric Pollution Research in August 2022, examined the impact of ULEZ in its first year, finding a cut in nitrogen dioxide concentrations of about 12% inside the zone compared with the year before its implementation.
The Mayor of London published in February 2023 an assessment of the first year of the ULEZ after its expansion to the North Circular and South Circular Roads in October 2021. Among its findings were that the number of non-compliant vehicles recorded fell by almost 60%. It also estimated the impact of concentrations of air pollutants that could be attributed to the ULEZ by comparing trends within the zone with trends outside it. This analysis measured the effect on air pollution that occurred from 2017, when Sadiq Khan confirmed that he would be implementing the ULEZ . By the third quarter of 2022 (July to September), nitrogen dioxide levels were 49% lower in central London than would have been the case without the ULEZ, and concentrations across the expanded ULEZ zone were down 22%.
A review of studies published in July 2023 in The Lancet Public Health on low emission zones around the world (not including London’s ULEZ) found positive air pollution-related health outcomes, with the most consistent effect being on cardiovascular disease.0 -
So when you say there is no evidence, I just don't think that's right.
It may be that your scientific training leads you to think that the only acceptable evidence is evidence without noise, but you cannot do that for public policy research.0 -
Pretty good. It's basically the Overground.First.Aspect said:
How is this project getting on? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbirail
Might help things a bit.
https://tfl.gov.uk/maps/track/overground
0 -
It says that in the link provided by First.Aspect.kingstongraham said:
Pretty good. It's basically the Overground.First.Aspect said:
How is this project getting on? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbirail
Might help things a bit.
https://tfl.gov.uk/maps/track/overgroundStatus
Although Orbirail had no official status as a planned project, the completion of Transport for London's London Overground on 9 December 2012 achieved substantially the same objective.1 -
Given London sucks up vast amounts of money for infrastructure projects that the north can only dream of, arguing that London doesn’t deliver public transport projects is a little weird.
The Elizabeth line is already one of the most used lines in London, to take the most recent example.0 -
I love how you totally make my point for me. Low levels is not the sam as small changes in low levels.rick_chasey said:So when you say there is no evidence, I just don't think that's right.
It may be that your scientific training leads you to think that the only acceptable evidence is evidence without noise, but you cannot do that for public policy research.0 -
TheBigBean said:
It says that in the link provided by First.Aspect.kingstongraham said:
Pretty good. It's basically the Overground.First.Aspect said:
How is this project getting on? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbirail
Might help things a bit.
https://tfl.gov.uk/maps/track/overgroundStatus
Although Orbirail had no official status as a planned project, the completion of Transport for London's London Overground on 9 December 2012 achieved substantially the same objective.TheBigBean said:
It says that in the link provided by First.Aspect.kingstongraham said:
Pretty good. It's basically the Overground.First.Aspect said:
How is this project getting on? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbirail
Might help things a bit.
https://tfl.gov.uk/maps/track/overgroundStatus
Although Orbirail had no official status as a planned project, the completion of Transport for London's London Overground on 9 December 2012 achieved substantially the same objective.
Great, where's the expansion going to be, to cover the rest of the ULEZ zone.TheBigBean said:
It says that in the link provided by First.Aspect.kingstongraham said:
Pretty good. It's basically the Overground.First.Aspect said:
How is this project getting on? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbirail
Might help things a bit.
https://tfl.gov.uk/maps/track/overgroundStatus
Although Orbirail had no official status as a planned project, the completion of Transport for London's London Overground on 9 December 2012 achieved substantially the same objective.
0 -
Where did I say that? Not the same as saying that it's possible to do without a car for a lot of journeys though, is it.rick_chasey said:Given London sucks up vast amounts of money for infrastructure projects that the north can only dream of, arguing that London doesn’t deliver public transport projects is a little weird.
The Elizabeth line is already one of the most used lines in London, to take the most recent example.0 -
I've had bothpinno said:
I could have kept you thinking that but no, it's a 944.focuszing723 said:
Classic exempt 911, vehicle bliss.pinno said:
Alas, I still have 6 years to go before my classic is tax and MOT exempt.focuszing723 said:I still find it amusing that if a car is forty or more years old "classic" you pay no road tax and don't have to get an MOT.
Future transport bliss is to find a cool classic of this age and get it up to scratch.
It would make a good thread.
My 911 (997) was a daily.
Anyway, from your list how many of those cars would you a) happily give the odd thrashing and b) would keep up with modern traffic?
2cv - too slow, no good on the motorway.
Mini - too slow, no good on the motorway
Fiat 500 - too slow, no good on the motorway
911 - too much money tied up in them to put the foot down
Beatle - too slow, no good on the motorway
That leaves the Golf and the 205gti.
Actually I've had two 205 gti's they were that good, and a Golf gti. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Which bit are you most concerned about?First.Aspect said:TheBigBean said:
It says that in the link provided by First.Aspect.kingstongraham said:
Pretty good. It's basically the Overground.First.Aspect said:
How is this project getting on? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbirail
Might help things a bit.
https://tfl.gov.uk/maps/track/overgroundStatus
Although Orbirail had no official status as a planned project, the completion of Transport for London's London Overground on 9 December 2012 achieved substantially the same objective.TheBigBean said:
It says that in the link provided by First.Aspect.kingstongraham said:
Pretty good. It's basically the Overground.First.Aspect said:
How is this project getting on? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbirail
Might help things a bit.
https://tfl.gov.uk/maps/track/overgroundStatus
Although Orbirail had no official status as a planned project, the completion of Transport for London's London Overground on 9 December 2012 achieved substantially the same objective.
Great, where's the expansion going to be, to cover the rest of the ULEZ zone.TheBigBean said:
It says that in the link provided by First.Aspect.kingstongraham said:
Pretty good. It's basically the Overground.First.Aspect said:
How is this project getting on? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbirail
Might help things a bit.
https://tfl.gov.uk/maps/track/overgroundStatus
Although Orbirail had no official status as a planned project, the completion of Transport for London's London Overground on 9 December 2012 achieved substantially the same objective.
0 -
How many times have you tried to get from A to B in outer London? Public transport is pretty comprehensive in central London but not in the 'burbs. Hence why a much higher percentage of people use cars to get around in outer London.rick_chasey said:
With the way the rent crisis is going in London the ULEZ is peanuts.First.Aspect said:
?? Have I joined a young Tory Facebook group or something?rick_chasey said:Has FA not worked out yet that if you’re really that poor you probably don’t drive much anyway?
So it’s people who are poor enough to be smashed by £12.50 a day, but not so poor they don’t have a car, who happen to be driving a non compliant car but can’t afford to replace AND their regular travel can’t be covered by the extensive public transport system?
It’s about 4 people once you add it up.
Perhaps there are no "poor people" in London or the SE left any more. I don't know. But I was thinking about people who travel around day to day, like cleaners, care workers, shift workers, that kind of thing.
I suppose they are all on above average incomes and employers that give them a car allowance or extra time to get between appointments by public transport.
And public transport is pretty comprehensive in London.
Have you ever been?!"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Are people genuinely of the belief that the sort of roles I've mentioned are conducive to using public transport only?
Mmm.
To put it into context, most social work jobs pay around £30k, and having g a car is a contractual requirement. There is no car allowance, only a mileage allowance to claim back, that most local authorities haven't raised in a long time.
Are these people in your view wealthy, and do you think those who have ULEZ non compliant cars, either now or in future when the banding changes, will find it financially easy?
Is what they do worthwhile? Do you think they should be exempt from ULEZ?
Or are we back to a gods and clods argument because a few smug people who are over valued by society deem it so?
And yes, almost everyone on here, me included, is over valued.1 -
You're just arguing for fair pay here, not the right to pollute without incurring a cost.First.Aspect said:Are people genuinely of the belief that the sort of roles I've mentioned are conducive to using public transport only?
Mmm.
To put it into context, most social work jobs pay around £30k, and having g a car is a contractual requirement. There is no car allowance, only a mileage allowance to claim back, that most local authorities haven't raised in a long time.
Are these people in your view wealthy, and do you think those who have ULEZ non compliant cars, either now or in future when the banding changes, will find it financially easy?
Is what they do worthwhile? Do you think they should be exempt from ULEZ?
Or are we back to a gods and clods argument because a few smug people who are over valued by society deem it so?
And yes, almost everyone on here, me included, is over valued.0 -
No I'm not, I'm arguing for fair taxation and less smugness.rick_chasey said:
You're just arguing for fair pay here, not the right to pollute without incurring a cost.First.Aspect said:Are people genuinely of the belief that the sort of roles I've mentioned are conducive to using public transport only?
Mmm.
To put it into context, most social work jobs pay around £30k, and having g a car is a contractual requirement. There is no car allowance, only a mileage allowance to claim back, that most local authorities haven't raised in a long time.
Are these people in your view wealthy, and do you think those who have ULEZ non compliant cars, either now or in future when the banding changes, will find it financially easy?
Is what they do worthwhile? Do you think they should be exempt from ULEZ?
Or are we back to a gods and clods argument because a few smug people who are over valued by society deem it so?
And yes, almost everyone on here, me included, is over valued.
2 -
I think that people should be able to claim for expenses incurred during the performance of their job.1
-
How many times have you tried to drive from A to B in outer London? And then park at the other end? Not exactly petrol head utopia!Stevo_666 said:
How many times have you tried to get from A to B in outer London? Public transport is pretty comprehensive in central London but not in the 'burbs. Hence why a much higher percentage of people use cars to get around in outer London.rick_chasey said:
With the way the rent crisis is going in London the ULEZ is peanuts.First.Aspect said:
?? Have I joined a young Tory Facebook group or something?rick_chasey said:Has FA not worked out yet that if you’re really that poor you probably don’t drive much anyway?
So it’s people who are poor enough to be smashed by £12.50 a day, but not so poor they don’t have a car, who happen to be driving a non compliant car but can’t afford to replace AND their regular travel can’t be covered by the extensive public transport system?
It’s about 4 people once you add it up.
Perhaps there are no "poor people" in London or the SE left any more. I don't know. But I was thinking about people who travel around day to day, like cleaners, care workers, shift workers, that kind of thing.
I suppose they are all on above average incomes and employers that give them a car allowance or extra time to get between appointments by public transport.
And public transport is pretty comprehensive in London.
Have you ever been?!
Cue response that tales of sub 10mph average speeds and £10+ parking are leftiebollox, where you are has no traffic whatsoever, you're able to drive around at 50mph and drop in to a free parking space at will; that's not my experience driving in and around London from Essex at all!
0 -
it just gets passed on in higher costs; that's why I say being green can be inflationary in the short term.First.Aspect said:
No I'm not, I'm arguing for fair taxation and less smugness.rick_chasey said:
You're just arguing for fair pay here, not the right to pollute without incurring a cost.First.Aspect said:Are people genuinely of the belief that the sort of roles I've mentioned are conducive to using public transport only?
Mmm.
To put it into context, most social work jobs pay around £30k, and having g a car is a contractual requirement. There is no car allowance, only a mileage allowance to claim back, that most local authorities haven't raised in a long time.
Are these people in your view wealthy, and do you think those who have ULEZ non compliant cars, either now or in future when the banding changes, will find it financially easy?
Is what they do worthwhile? Do you think they should be exempt from ULEZ?
Or are we back to a gods and clods argument because a few smug people who are over valued by society deem it so?
And yes, almost everyone on here, me included, is over valued.
In the long run we'll all be running more efficient vehicles/travelling more efficiently on public transport etc, so we all win.
I have absolutely no truck with "we pay public services people so little we have to let them pollute" argument. That's the weakest argument there is.0
