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

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

You're just arguing for fair pay here, not the right to pollute without incurring a cost.

No I'm not, I'm arguing for fair taxation and less smugness.

it just gets passed on in higher costs; that's why I say being green can be inflationary in the short term.

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.

Good job that isn't the argument that's being made then isn't it, and that I'm arguing that the excluded vehicles are making a significant contribution to pollution.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

I think that people should be able to claim for expenses incurred during the performance of their job.

Yes, yes KG, we should charge them and then give it back. Excellent plan.

Someone could be employed to do that. It is a win-win.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

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.

?? Have I joined a young Tory Facebook group or something?

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.

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.

Poor people use the bus.

Tick.

Feel free to post something other than snark to back up your case.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

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.

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.

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.

Aah, I see.

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

I think that people should be able to claim for expenses incurred during the performance of their job.

Yes, yes KG, we should charge them and then give it back. Excellent plan.

Someone could be employed to do that. It is a win-win.

They could call it "expenses".

I mean if you don't want to do anything for these unfortunate people who don't have a choice, fair enough.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

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.

?? Have I joined a young Tory Facebook group or something?

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.

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.

Poor people use the bus.

Tick.

Feel free to post something other than snark to back up your case.

You are making it hard.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

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.

?? Have I joined a young Tory Facebook group or something?

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.

With the way the rent crisis is going in London the ULEZ is peanuts.

And public transport is pretty comprehensive in London.

Have you ever been?!

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.

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.

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.

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

It's not many people. So who cares.

Tick.

It's only 120 premature deaths- a year saved.

Who cares.

Tick.

But it isn't. That's the point. It's probably going to be somewhere much closer to zero.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

But it isn't. That's the point. It's probably going to be somewhere much closer to zero.

Loads of research linked says so.

FA disagrees. They're qualified to decide, he isn't. Oh no. What are we gonna do?

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

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.

?? Have I joined a young Tory Facebook group or something?

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.

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.

Poor people use the bus.

Tick.

Feel free to post something other than snark to back up your case.

You are making it hard.

You can add the snark as well if you like.

kingstongraham

Of course, if these people COULD use public transport for several journeys each day, that doesn't come for free either.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

I think that people should be able to claim for expenses incurred during the performance of their job.

Yes, yes KG, we should charge them and then give it back. Excellent plan.

Someone could be employed to do that. It is a win-win.

They could call it "expenses".

I mean if you don't want to do anything for these unfortunate people who don't have a choice, fair enough.

I was thinking more along the lines of not charging it in the first place. Radical, I know.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

But it isn't. That's the point. It's probably going to be somewhere much closer to zero.

Loads of research linked says so.

FA disagrees. They're qualified to decide, he isn't. Oh no. What are we gonna do?

Which research is that?

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

I think that people should be able to claim for expenses incurred during the performance of their job.

Yes, yes KG, we should charge them and then give it back. Excellent plan.

Someone could be employed to do that. It is a win-win.

They could call it "expenses".

I mean if you don't want to do anything for these unfortunate people who don't have a choice, fair enough.

I was thinking more along the lines of not charging it in the first place. Radical, I know.

That then doesn't do anything to reduce the use of the worst polluting* cars.

(*Except the "classic" cars.)

I know you disagree with the policy because you think polluting cars aren't a problem that needs any intervention to deal with.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

But it isn't. That's the point. It's probably going to be somewhere much closer to zero.

Loads of research linked says so.

FA disagrees. They're qualified to decide, he isn't. Oh no. What are we gonna do?

Which research is that?

Talking of research, any news?

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

I think that people should be able to claim for expenses incurred during the performance of their job.

Yes, yes KG, we should charge them and then give it back. Excellent plan.

Someone could be employed to do that. It is a win-win.

They could call it "expenses".

I mean if you don't want to do anything for these unfortunate people who don't have a choice, fair enough.

I was thinking more along the lines of not charging it in the first place. Radical, I know.

That then doesn't do anything to reduce the use of the worst polluting* cars.

(*Except the "classic" cars.)

I know you disagree with the policy because you think polluting cars aren't a problem that needs any intervention to deal with.

Well I still haven't seen anything about the benefits of ULEZ that it's nor possible to drive a ULEZ compliant coach and horses through.

Stevo_666

super_davo said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

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.

?? Have I joined a young Tory Facebook group or something?

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.

With the way the rent crisis is going in London the ULEZ is peanuts.

And public transport is pretty comprehensive in London.

Have you ever been?!

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.

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!

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!

Plenty of times when I lived there until quite recently. The last time I tried using public transport to get from A to B in that situation, a trip that would have been an hour max by car took 2 hrs 45 mins on public transport.

Dorset_Boy

If you live just outside the ULEZ, can you benefit from the scrappage scheme, or is only available to those living within the ULEZ area?

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

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.

You're just arguing for fair pay here, not the right to pollute without incurring a cost.

No I'm not, I'm arguing for fair taxation and less smugness.

You should also be arguing for more self awareness from some.

kingstongraham

Dorset_Boy said:

If you live just outside the ULEZ, can you benefit from the scrappage scheme, or is only available to those living within the ULEZ area?

Only those living within.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

I think that people should be able to claim for expenses incurred during the performance of their job.

Yes, yes KG, we should charge them and then give it back. Excellent plan.

Someone could be employed to do that. It is a win-win.

Think you've misunderstood. Employees claim expenses from their employer. Same as if we send someone to a site, we reimburse their tube fare.

Dorset_Boy

kingstongraham said:

Dorset_Boy said:

If you live just outside the ULEZ, can you benefit from the scrappage scheme, or is only available to those living within the ULEZ area?

Only those living within.

Thanks. Seems a flaw as no doubt there are quite a few who live just outside the ULEZ who would need to enter the ULEZ on a reugar basis, so extending the scheme to those in the neighbouring areas would make sense.

rick_chasey

Dorset_Boy said:

kingstongraham said:

Dorset_Boy said:

If you live just outside the ULEZ, can you benefit from the scrappage scheme, or is only available to those living within the ULEZ area?

Only those living within.

Thanks. Seems a flaw as no doubt there are quite a few who live just outside the ULEZ who would need to enter the ULEZ on a reugar basis, so extending the scheme to those in the neighbouring areas would make sense.

So they can come in to pollute but don't have to live with it?

rjsterry

Dorset_Boy said:

kingstongraham said:

Dorset_Boy said:

If you live just outside the ULEZ, can you benefit from the scrappage scheme, or is only available to those living within the ULEZ area?

Only those living within.

Thanks. Seems a flaw as no doubt there are quite a few who live just outside the ULEZ who would need to enter the ULEZ on a reugar basis, so extending the scheme to those in the neighbouring areas would make sense.

Yes, I think there are definitely improvements that could be made to the scrappage scheme. It does add another level of complexity in dealing with local authorities not under the GLA umbrella, but would have thought it was doable.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

kingstongraham said:

Dorset_Boy said:

If you live just outside the ULEZ, can you benefit from the scrappage scheme, or is only available to those living within the ULEZ area?

Only those living within.

Thanks. Seems a flaw as no doubt there are quite a few who live just outside the ULEZ who would need to enter the ULEZ on a reugar basis, so extending the scheme to those in the neighbouring areas would make sense.

Yes, I think there are definitely improvements that could be made to the scrappage scheme. It does add another level of complexity in dealing with local authorities not under the GLA umbrella, but would have thought it was doable.

Is tricky when they don't receive any of the ULEZ money.

Anyway, as said before, if it's material enough to be a problem they'll have commercial park & ride options, and if it isn't, they won't be economical.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

I think that people should be able to claim for expenses incurred during the performance of their job.

Yes, yes KG, we should charge them and then give it back. Excellent plan.

Someone could be employed to do that. It is a win-win.

Think you've misunderstood. Employees claim expenses from their employer. Same as if we send someone to a site, we reimburse their tube fare.

If the employer is the government or local authority, its a bit cyclic isn't it.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

Dorset_Boy said:

If you live just outside the ULEZ, can you benefit from the scrappage scheme, or is only available to those living within the ULEZ area?

Only those living within.

Bummer. Poor people will need to move closer to London.

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

I think that people should be able to claim for expenses incurred during the performance of their job.

Yes, yes KG, we should charge them and then give it back. Excellent plan.

Someone could be employed to do that. It is a win-win.

Think you've misunderstood. Employees claim expenses from their employer. Same as if we send someone to a site, we reimburse their tube fare.

If the employer is the government or local authority, its a bit cyclic isn't it.

Like when someone has to claim for parking?

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

I think that people should be able to claim for expenses incurred during the performance of their job.

Yes, yes KG, we should charge them and then give it back. Excellent plan.

Someone could be employed to do that. It is a win-win.

Think you've misunderstood. Employees claim expenses from their employer. Same as if we send someone to a site, we reimburse their tube fare.

If the employer is the government or local authority, its a bit cyclic isn't it.

No, only if they're a TfL employee. The money goes directly to TfL; not to local government and definitely not to central government. I'd say it's quite likely that TfL doesn't ask staff to use their own cars for work (especially as they get free travel on public transport). TfL's fleet of maintenance vans are likely to be ULEZ compliant although I haven't checked.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

I think that people should be able to claim for expenses incurred during the performance of their job.

Yes, yes KG, we should charge them and then give it back. Excellent plan.

Someone could be employed to do that. It is a win-win.

Think you've misunderstood. Employees claim expenses from their employer. Same as if we send someone to a site, we reimburse their tube fare.

If the employer is the government or local authority, its a bit cyclic isn't it.

No, only if they're a TfL employee. The money goes directly to TfL; not to local government and definitely not to central government. I'd say it's quite likely that TfL doesn't ask staff to use their own cars for work (especially as they get free travel on public transport). TfL's fleet of maintenance vans are likely to be ULEZ compliant although I haven't checked.

Lucky for them.

This is a "it is a different pot of money" argument, that I don't much care for.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

I think that people should be able to claim for expenses incurred during the performance of their job.

Yes, yes KG, we should charge them and then give it back. Excellent plan.

Someone could be employed to do that. It is a win-win.

Think you've misunderstood. Employees claim expenses from their employer. Same as if we send someone to a site, we reimburse their tube fare.

If the employer is the government or local authority, its a bit cyclic isn't it.

Like when someone has to claim for parking?

Indeed, but one that is easier to solve.

I do love these arguments that because one thing isn't ideal, it justifies some other not ideal thing.

Similar to the let's legalise drug A because smoking and alcohol are legal.

M'Kay...