The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)
Comments
-
I recommend you stop worrying about it.First.Aspect said:
What is it that you disagree with? David Spiegelhalter makes the same point very often.rjsterry said:Blinding. Can you put it on a nice background and post it on Instagram.
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.1 -
Hmmmm, how do you know what are the most important things to worry about?kingstongraham said:
I recommend you stop worrying about it.First.Aspect said:
What is it that you disagree with? David Spiegelhalter makes the same point very often.rjsterry said:Blinding. Can you put it on a nice background and post it on Instagram.
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.1 -
Chemicals in food/drink production/packaging are probably worth worrying about.
0 -
I didn't suggest it was incorrect, just a little trite. I've got a reasonable layman's understanding of the health impacts of poor air quality having had the symptoms assessed and noting their reduction after reducing my exposure. So it's less theoretical for me. I'm less bothered about whether it's 'fair' or provides sufficient benefit to satisfy some guy on the internet. Personally I'd be happy with a stricter implementation, which would presumably answer your concerns.First.Aspect said:
What is it that you disagree with? David Spiegelhalter makes the same point very often.rjsterry said:Blinding. Can you put it on a nice background and post it on Instagram.
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.
Any luck on that demographic data?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry said:
Any luck on that demographic data?
If @First.Aspect is like some scientists I know, he'll insist on you asking "...those demographic data". Me, I don't care. I have less concerns about such things.0 -
Huge and yes, I know it like the back of my hand. Its a complex thing for it's age. Most restos I have done have been a lot simpler - 2.5 Mini's, a W123 Merc, a '74 Bay, an XR2 Mk 2 and helping others; Ford Angliru with a 1700 x flow, Mk 2 Harrier Escort, Mk 1 Golf. All straight forward. The Porker has torsion bars, rear trans axle, Bosch K Jetronic fuel injection system...focuszing723 said:
Sounds good Pinno. There must be a lot of satisfaction in that, also you know how to keep it going.pinno said:
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.focuszing723 said:
They'd be good as a second pottering car though for trips a walk/ride can't cover.pinno 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.
[I have had to promise them anyway].
[Just hoping my handy work is up to scratch
] seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
-
Which ones, the ones that say its not effective or some other ones you've not found yet?rick_chasey said:4 studies pointing to various effectiveness of ULEZ on pollution and FA claims no evidence lol.
0 -
Do they even exist, these data?briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
Any luck on that demographic data?
If @First.Aspect is like some scientists I know, he'll insist on you asking "...those demographic data". Me, I don't care. I have less concerns about such things.0 -
I think the OED has finally given up on this, and given data the same status as deer or sheep.briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
Any luck on that demographic data?
If @First.Aspect is like some scientists I know, he'll insist on you asking "...those demographic data". Me, I don't care. I have less concerns about such things.
I do not approve.0 -
Will your health have improved if you didn't change whatever you changed, but just waited until last week for ULEZ to kick in?rjsterry said:
I didn't suggest it was incorrect, just a little trite. I've got a reasonable layman's understanding of the health impacts of poor air quality having had the symptoms assessed and noting their reduction after reducing my exposure. So it's less theoretical for me. I'm less bothered about whether it's 'fair' or provides sufficient benefit to satisfy some guy on the internet. Personally I'd be happy with a stricter implementation, which would presumably answer your concerns.First.Aspect said:
What is it that you disagree with? David Spiegelhalter makes the same point very often.rjsterry said:Blinding. Can you put it on a nice background and post it on Instagram.
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.
Any luck on that demographic data?
Because I've never claimed thst air pollution doesn't cause health problems. But that's not the same as saying ULEZ will significantly improve air pollution is it? Its pretty much confirming how bad we are at assessing risk.
No one is forcing you to engage with anyone on the Internet, btw.0 -
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/the-truth-about-londons-ultra-low-emission-zone/First.Aspect said:
Which ones, the ones that say its not effective or some other ones you've not found yet?rick_chasey said:4 studies pointing to various effectiveness of ULEZ on pollution and FA claims no evidence lol.
4 studies referenced there with conclusions and links etc.0 -
Yep, great stuff. Keep things/products going.pinno said:
Huge and yes, I know it like the back of my hand. Its a complex thing for it's age. Most restos I have done have been a lot simpler - 2.5 Mini's, a W123 Merc, a '74 Bay, an XR2 Mk 2 and helping others; Ford Angliru with a 1700 x flow, Mk 2 Harrier Escort, Mk 1 Golf. All straight forward. The Porker has torsion bars, rear trans axle, Bosch K Jetronic fuel injection system...focuszing723 said:
Sounds good Pinno. There must be a lot of satisfaction in that, also you know how to keep it going.pinno said:
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.focuszing723 said:
They'd be good as a second pottering car though for trips a walk/ride can't cover.pinno 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.
[I have had to promise them anyway].
[Just hoping my handy work is up to scratch ]
I'm sure it will be because it's yours and you care about it. It will be so satisfying when it becomes exempt.0 -
@rjsterryrick_chasey said:
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/the-truth-about-londons-ultra-low-emission-zone/First.Aspect said:
Which ones, the ones that say its not effective or some other ones you've not found yet?rick_chasey said:4 studies pointing to various effectiveness of ULEZ on pollution and FA claims no evidence lol.
4 studies referenced there with conclusions and links etc."A report commissioned by the Mayor of London and published in October 2021 concluded that in 2019, “communities which have higher levels of deprivation, or a higher proportion of people from a non-white ethnic background, were still more likely to be exposed to higher levels of air pollution”".0 -
Here's a real life result from the Glasgow ULEZ:rick_chasey said:4 studies pointing to various effectiveness of ULEZ on pollution and FA claims no evidence lol.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/03/glasgow-lez-low-emission-zone-nitrogen-dioxide-pollution/
It increased air pollution by 10%. Council officials were blamimg the result on the weather
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Isn't this just what we already went over? Measurements at specific sites vs changes in average personal exposure?rick_chasey said:
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/the-truth-about-londons-ultra-low-emission-zone/First.Aspect said:
Which ones, the ones that say its not effective or some other ones you've not found yet?rick_chasey said:4 studies pointing to various effectiveness of ULEZ on pollution and FA claims no evidence lol.
4 studies referenced there with conclusions and links etc.
These are two different things, and the reports don't even dispute this.0 -
Or alternatively covid.Stevo_666 said:
Here's a real life result from the Glasgow ULEZ:rick_chasey said:4 studies pointing to various effectiveness of ULEZ on pollution and FA claims no evidence lol.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/03/glasgow-lez-low-emission-zone-nitrogen-dioxide-pollution/
It increased air pollution by 10%. Council officials were blamimg the result on the weather
I bang on about shoddy journalism and poor interpretation of information and that article is a cracker.0 -
The two pollutants of principal concern in London are particulate matter (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). London is now compliant with PM limit values owing to the Low Emission Zone, taxi and private hire vehicle age limits, bus retrofit schemes and the natural turnover of vehicles. However, London is not forecast to meet the legal limits for NO2 until after 2030 – alongside Birmingham and Leeds – unless targeted action is taken. Since the Mayor was elected, the number of people living in areas exceeding NO2 limits has halved but there is a clear need to take further action.https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/the-truth-about-londons-ultra-low-emission-zone/#:~:text=A report commissioned by the,higher levels of air pollution”.
So basically they're are trying to rush something which is going to happen naturally anyway. What annoys me is it was Government policy in the first place which pushed people into high polluting diesels.0 -
I thought the pollution was going to go down whatever anyone did.First.Aspect said:
Or alternatively covid.Stevo_666 said:
Here's a real life result from the Glasgow ULEZ:rick_chasey said:4 studies pointing to various effectiveness of ULEZ on pollution and FA claims no evidence lol.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/03/glasgow-lez-low-emission-zone-nitrogen-dioxide-pollution/
It increased air pollution by 10%. Council officials were blamimg the result on the weather
I bang on about shoddy journalism and poor interpretation of information and that article is a cracker.0 -
Lazy and silly.kingstongraham said:
I thought the pollution was going to go down whatever anyone did.First.Aspect said:
Or alternatively covid.Stevo_666 said:
Here's a real life result from the Glasgow ULEZ:rick_chasey said:4 studies pointing to various effectiveness of ULEZ on pollution and FA claims no evidence lol.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/03/glasgow-lez-low-emission-zone-nitrogen-dioxide-pollution/
It increased air pollution by 10%. Council officials were blamimg the result on the weather
I bang on about shoddy journalism and poor interpretation of information and that article is a cracker.
0 -
Aren't you lot bored yet?3
-
I just don't quite understand why the people who study this, both in detail and in aggregate, are coming to different conclusions to you?First.Aspect said:
Isn't this just what we already went over? Measurements at specific sites vs changes in average personal exposure?rick_chasey said:
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/the-truth-about-londons-ultra-low-emission-zone/First.Aspect said:
Which ones, the ones that say its not effective or some other ones you've not found yet?rick_chasey said:4 studies pointing to various effectiveness of ULEZ on pollution and FA claims no evidence lol.
4 studies referenced there with conclusions and links etc.
These are two different things, and the reports don't even dispute this.
Well, I do, but I'm not sure you do.0 -
Air pollution levels have showed a pretty constant downward trend over time.
The big drops predate any ULEZ.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
First.Aspect said:
I think the OED has finally given up on this, and given data the same status as deer or sheep.briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
Any luck on that demographic data?
If @First.Aspect is like some scientists I know, he'll insist on you asking "...those demographic data". Me, I don't care. I have less concerns about such things.
I do not approve.
Get wid da programme, bruv (or summat).
I thoroughly enjoy using the OED to wind up pedants who want to try to fix the language, and they usually give me ample opportunity, mostly because most of our modern language would have met with disapproval from previous ages.0 -
TheBigBean said:
Aren't you lot bored yet?
On the plus side, it's in the right thread.0 -
Well the Clean Air Act was 1993 and things like coal fires started disappearing in the 1970s so they obviously helped significantly but it doesn't mean you should look for further improvements. The dropoff was slowing until the mid 2010s was increased again.0
-
They don't come to different conclusions to me.rick_chasey said:
I just don't quite understand why the people who study this, both in detail and in aggregate, are coming to different conclusions to you?First.Aspect said:
Isn't this just what we already went over? Measurements at specific sites vs changes in average personal exposure?rick_chasey said:
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/the-truth-about-londons-ultra-low-emission-zone/First.Aspect said:
Which ones, the ones that say its not effective or some other ones you've not found yet?rick_chasey said:4 studies pointing to various effectiveness of ULEZ on pollution and FA claims no evidence lol.
4 studies referenced there with conclusions and links etc.
These are two different things, and the reports don't even dispute this.
Well, I do, but I'm not sure you do.0 -
Nope. I never get bored with this sort of thing I'm afraid.TheBigBean said:Aren't you lot bored yet?
0 -
Do you actually read this stuff?A misinformation campaign about London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone is being led by a small but noisy group whose unscientific and unrepresentative views are being amplified by parts of the media. They are attempting to mislead the public by misrepresenting the threat from air pollution in London and the effectiveness of the ULEZ in combating this problem. Many of the proponents of this misinformation also have a track record of inaccurate claims about climate change.
The published evidence shows clearly that concentrations of air pollution have declined across London due to the ULEZ, but remain above the safe limits set by the World Health Organization.0 -
I'm sure that all happened without intervention from government busybodies.Stevo_666 said:Air pollution levels have showed a pretty constant downward trend over time.
The big drops predate any ULEZ.0
