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

Jezyboy

Are drugs not another area where lots of scientific literature suggests that the current government stance is slightly wrongheaded?

Dorset_Boy

rick_chasey 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.

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

Honetly! You show little understanding around those who work in and around the edges of large towns and cities. Not everyone works in the city centre.

You imply that those living just outside the ULEZ zone shouldn't be allowed to enter it (given than even compliant vehicles still pollute), yet many of those living just outside may work inside the zone, or their nearest shopping may be inside the zone, or their other family may live just inside etc etc.

By extending the scappage scheme to those just outside it will benefit those who live inside too.

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

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...

No, I'm saying that because it's absolutely fine for employers to pay for parking, it's also absolutely fine for them to pay ULEZ charges.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

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.

What is? ULEZ and Congestion Charge go into a TfL fund, which they are required to reinvest in their services and infrastructure. I suppose there's a conceivable scenario where a TfL employee has to use a non-compliant vehicle for work and can then claim the charge as an expense but it's pretty trivial.

rick_chasey

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey 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.

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

Honetly! You show little understanding around those who work in and around the edges of large towns and cities. Not everyone works in the city centre.

You imply that those living just outside the ULEZ zone shouldn't be allowed to enter it (given than even compliant vehicles still pollute), yet many of those living just outside may work inside the zone, or their nearest shopping may be inside the zone, or their other family may live just inside etc etc.

By extending the scappage scheme to those just outside it will benefit those who live inside too.

It's the same vibe here in Cambridge.

They don't want the cost of an urban house but they then want to use my road as a car park or a thoroughfare. They want it both ways. Tough sh!t.

Residents of the town get to decide how it's run, not the people who live outside of it.

Dorset_Boy

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey 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.

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

Honetly! You show little understanding around those who work in and around the edges of large towns and cities. Not everyone works in the city centre.

You imply that those living just outside the ULEZ zone shouldn't be allowed to enter it (given than even compliant vehicles still pollute), yet many of those living just outside may work inside the zone, or their nearest shopping may be inside the zone, or their other family may live just inside etc etc.

By extending the scappage scheme to those just outside it will benefit those who live inside too.

It's the same vibe here in Cambridge.

They don't want the cost of an urban house but they then want to use my road as a car park or a thoroughfare. They want it both ways. Tough sh!t.

Residents of the town get to decide how it's run, not the people who live outside of it.

What are you on about?
Do you not read what is posted?
It has nothing to do with the price of houses, and plenty of village houses are way more expensive than those in towns.
Is it suddenly all countryside at the edge of the ULEZ zone?
And you've spectacularly missed the point about those working in the suburbs rather than in the city centres.
Also sounds like you and your neighbours should be pushing for residents' parking in your street.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey 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.

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

Honetly! You show little understanding around those who work in and around the edges of large towns and cities. Not everyone works in the city centre.

You imply that those living just outside the ULEZ zone shouldn't be allowed to enter it (given than even compliant vehicles still pollute), yet many of those living just outside may work inside the zone, or their nearest shopping may be inside the zone, or their other family may live just inside etc etc.

By extending the scappage scheme to those just outside it will benefit those who live inside too.

It's the same vibe here in Cambridge.

They don't want the cost of an urban house but they then want to use my road as a car park or a thoroughfare. They want it both ways. Tough sh!t.

Residents of the town get to decide how it's run, not the people who live outside of it.

Are towns entirely self contained RC?

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey 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.

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

Honetly! You show little understanding around those who work in and around the edges of large towns and cities. Not everyone works in the city centre.

You imply that those living just outside the ULEZ zone shouldn't be allowed to enter it (given than even compliant vehicles still pollute), yet many of those living just outside may work inside the zone, or their nearest shopping may be inside the zone, or their other family may live just inside etc etc.

By extending the scappage scheme to those just outside it will benefit those who live inside too.

It's the same vibe here in Cambridge.

They don't want the cost of an urban house but they then want to use my road as a car park or a thoroughfare. They want it both ways. Tough sh!t.

Residents of the town get to decide how it's run, not the people who live outside of it.

They don't, entirely, and nor should they.

rick_chasey

Sure but for traffic they largely do.

The border of the ULEZ has to be somewhere.

rjsterry

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey 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.

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

Honetly! You show little understanding around those who work in and around the edges of large towns and cities. Not everyone works in the city centre.

You imply that those living just outside the ULEZ zone shouldn't be allowed to enter it (given than even compliant vehicles still pollute), yet many of those living just outside may work inside the zone, or their nearest shopping may be inside the zone, or their other family may live just inside etc etc.

By extending the scappage scheme to those just outside it will benefit those who live inside too.

It's the same vibe here in Cambridge.

They don't want the cost of an urban house but they then want to use my road as a car park or a thoroughfare. They want it both ways. Tough sh!t.

Residents of the town get to decide how it's run, not the people who live outside of it.

What are you on about?
Do you not read what is posted?
It has nothing to do with the price of houses, and plenty of village houses are way more expensive than those in towns.
Is it suddenly all countryside at the edge of the ULEZ zone?
And you've spectacularly missed the point about those working in the suburbs rather than in the city centres.
Also sounds like you and your neighbours should be pushing for residents' parking in your street.

The Greater London boundary is of course fairly arbitrary although the surrounding Green Belt designations do mean that in places it does stop fairly abruptly with a gap before you get to places like Redhill, Weybridge, Slough and Watford.

Dorset_Boy

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey 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.

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

Honetly! You show little understanding around those who work in and around the edges of large towns and cities. Not everyone works in the city centre.

You imply that those living just outside the ULEZ zone shouldn't be allowed to enter it (given than even compliant vehicles still pollute), yet many of those living just outside may work inside the zone, or their nearest shopping may be inside the zone, or their other family may live just inside etc etc.

By extending the scappage scheme to those just outside it will benefit those who live inside too.

It's the same vibe here in Cambridge.

They don't want the cost of an urban house but they then want to use my road as a car park or a thoroughfare. They want it both ways. Tough sh!t.

Residents of the town get to decide how it's run, not the people who live outside of it.

Are towns entirely self contained RC?

Remember, in Ricktopia there is no such thing as countryside.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

Sure but for traffic they largely do.

The border of the ULEZ has to be somewhere.

Kind of doesn't.

focuszing723

Dorset_Boy said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey 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.

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

Honetly! You show little understanding around those who work in and around the edges of large towns and cities. Not everyone works in the city centre.

You imply that those living just outside the ULEZ zone shouldn't be allowed to enter it (given than even compliant vehicles still pollute), yet many of those living just outside may work inside the zone, or their nearest shopping may be inside the zone, or their other family may live just inside etc etc.

By extending the scappage scheme to those just outside it will benefit those who live inside too.

It's the same vibe here in Cambridge.

They don't want the cost of an urban house but they then want to use my road as a car park or a thoroughfare. They want it both ways. Tough sh!t.

Residents of the town get to decide how it's run, not the people who live outside of it.

Are towns entirely self contained RC?

Remember, in Ricktopia there is no such thing as countryside.

There would have to be some to farm all the horses and grow the pot they all would live off.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey 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.

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

Honetly! You show little understanding around those who work in and around the edges of large towns and cities. Not everyone works in the city centre.

You imply that those living just outside the ULEZ zone shouldn't be allowed to enter it (given than even compliant vehicles still pollute), yet many of those living just outside may work inside the zone, or their nearest shopping may be inside the zone, or their other family may live just inside etc etc.

By extending the scappage scheme to those just outside it will benefit those who live inside too.

It's the same vibe here in Cambridge.

They don't want the cost of an urban house but they then want to use my road as a car park or a thoroughfare. They want it both ways. Tough sh!t.

Residents of the town get to decide how it's run, not the people who live outside of it.

They don't, entirely, and nor should they.

I mean, we can see where that Nimby line of thinking ends very clearly.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey 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.

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

Honetly! You show little understanding around those who work in and around the edges of large towns and cities. Not everyone works in the city centre.

You imply that those living just outside the ULEZ zone shouldn't be allowed to enter it (given than even compliant vehicles still pollute), yet many of those living just outside may work inside the zone, or their nearest shopping may be inside the zone, or their other family may live just inside etc etc.

By extending the scappage scheme to those just outside it will benefit those who live inside too.

It's the same vibe here in Cambridge.

They don't want the cost of an urban house but they then want to use my road as a car park or a thoroughfare. They want it both ways. Tough sh!t.

Residents of the town get to decide how it's run, not the people who live outside of it.

They don't, entirely, and nor should they.

I mean, we can see where that Nimby line of thinking ends very clearly.

Fair. Always thought NIMBY referred to building stuff rather than traffic enforcement.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey 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.

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

Honetly! You show little understanding around those who work in and around the edges of large towns and cities. Not everyone works in the city centre.

You imply that those living just outside the ULEZ zone shouldn't be allowed to enter it (given than even compliant vehicles still pollute), yet many of those living just outside may work inside the zone, or their nearest shopping may be inside the zone, or their other family may live just inside etc etc.

By extending the scappage scheme to those just outside it will benefit those who live inside too.

Residents of the town get to decide how it's run, not the people who live outside of it.

Swap out 'town' for 'country' and that sounds a lot like a rationale for Brexit.

First.Aspect

Jezyboy said:

Are drugs not another area where lots of scientific literature suggests that the current government stance is slightly wrongheaded?

Probably one for another thread.

rick_chasey

Sure. I think those who drive in from outside are much less exposed to the cost of the pollution, but are contributors, so they don't have 'skin in the game' in this.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

Sure. I think those who drive in from outside are much less exposed to the cost of the pollution, but are contributors, so they don't have 'skin in the game' in this.

I'm just loving the slant this thread is taking.

It's like taking off a mask.

Stevo_666

Royston Chasey?

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Sure but for traffic they largely do.

The border of the ULEZ has to be somewhere.

Not if they scrap it.

pinno

focuszing723 said:

pinno said:

focuszing723 said:

pinno said:

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.

Alas, I still have 6 years to go before my classic is tax and MOT exempt.

Classic exempt 911, vehicle bliss.

I could have kept you thinking that but no, it's a 944.
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.

They'd be good as a second pottering car though for trips a walk/ride can't cover.

I am 1" away from completing the 944 restoration and I will take the girls to school in it. Especially on a day like today where I can remove the sunroof.
[I have had to promise them anyway].

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure. I think those who drive in from outside are much less exposed to the cost of the pollution, but are contributors, so they don't have 'skin in the game' in this.

I'm just loving the slant this thread is taking.

It's like taking off a mask.

Is 'Econimby' a thing yet?

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

Sure. I think those who drive in from outside are much less exposed to the cost of the pollution, but are contributors, so they don't have 'skin in the game' in this.

If they are in the city, on the road, they're probably exposed to the pollution more than plenty of people who live inside the zone.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Sure but for traffic they largely do.

The border of the ULEZ has to be somewhere.

Not if they scrap it.

I think the Conservatives would need to field a serious candidate for that to happen.

davebradswmb

Surely the words "Conservative" and "serious candidate" are no longer compatible?

focuszing723

pinno said:

focuszing723 said:

pinno said:

focuszing723 said:

pinno said:

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.

Alas, I still have 6 years to go before my classic is tax and MOT exempt.

Classic exempt 911, vehicle bliss.

I could have kept you thinking that but no, it's a 944.
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.

They'd be good as a second pottering car though for trips a walk/ride can't cover.

I am 1" away from completing the 944 restoration and I will take the girls to school in it. Especially on a day like today where I can remove the sunroof.
[I have had to promise them anyway].

Sounds good Pinno. There must be a lot of satisfaction in that, also you know how to keep it going.

First.Aspect

"Humans are really terrible at assessing risk."

From a recent More or Less. (In the context of mass hysteria surrounding Fukashima water releases.that are smaller by several orders of magnitude than those from Sellafield, which are themselves safe.)

Couldn't agree more.

rjsterry

Blinding. Can you put it on a nice background and post it on Instagram.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

Blinding. Can you put it on a nice background and post it on Instagram.

What is it that you disagree with? David Spiegelhalter makes the same point very often.

Other interesting thing is that the health risks from worrying about Fukashima outweigh the health risks from any actual radiation.

This is actually by far the most convincing line of argument for ULEZ.