The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)
Comments
-
Strange how concern for the interests of poor goes out the window when a matter deemed by some to be in pursuit of a worthy cause. I want to be on the committee that decides what's worthy.surrey_commuter said:
It is strange that this does not get discussed more.Stevo_666 said:
Terrible isn't it. But interesting that those who usually claim to be compassionate about those less fortunate seem to be silent on this one because its a 'green' cause or their hobby horse.Pross said:
Typical bleeding heart liberal!Stevo_666 said:
Whatever the deal was I'm not that fussed. However as several councils have pointed out, it disproportionately hits the those least able to afford it.rjsterry said:
It's a problem that is being eliminated just as '50s smog was. And one more time: it was a mandatory part of the deal between TfL and central government to bail it out from Covid losses. It's as much Shapps's ULEZ as Khan's.Stevo_666 said:
This is the problem with cities you see. However it will be sorted once EVs are the only option. This looks like more of an opportunity for Sadiq to fill his coffers in the meantime. But not with my money.rjsterry said:
Good to hear. When we last changed our car we went for petrol as we could see the way the rules were heading and with two asthmatics in the family, a diesel was just a bad idea. Everyone was still trying to sell us a diesel - presumably as they were trying to clear stock that would soon be worth less than they paid for it. That was about 5 or 6 years ago, so not sure people have much to complain about. I'm sure there were some coal merchants that complained about the Clean Air Acts in the 1950s, too.Stevo_666 said:
The ULEZ extension in 2021 was from the original boundaries in central London to the current North and South Circular boundaries. This latest extension to cover the whole of Greater London is new and pretty major, which may explain the resistance it is encountering.rjsterry said:
I didn't say you couldn't have an opinion; just wondering why you are so against a restriction on certain, mostly pretty old, vehicles. I have an opinion because the pollution directly affects me and my family - I think that's a fairly obvious reason to support it. We do have a car, but one that meets the emissions requirements (which aren't even that onerous) and isn't a diesel.Stevo_666 said:
Just because it doesn't really affect me doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. You don't drive but you have an opinion on cars.rjsterry said:
Still can't understand why you are so bothered about this when it has no effect on you.Stevo_666 said:
May depend what they said in their manifesto etc. People like Hidalgo and sadiq will soon be reminded that motorists have votes and there are a lot of them.Pross said:
Sometimes that is exactly what is needed. One of the biggest problems in the UK is we elect people but then expect to have a say in all decision making. It’s why it takes decades for any meaningful project to get anyway and when it comes to things like climate and pollution that’s too long.Stevo_666 said:And Hidalgo isn't exactly popular with the French. I wonder why?
https://statista.com/statistics/1086154/anne-hidalgo-populairty-france/
Although being a socialist she'll probably just plough on with her agenda anyway.
As regards manifestos, the extension of the ULEZ was in Khan's last manifesto:A GREEN NEW DEAL
A Green New Deal for the city, with cleaner air, improved open
spaces, green jobs and tackling climate change at its heart, including
extending the ULEZ in October 2021.
Not sure what's unclear about that. There's even been an extra 18 months for people to take advantage of the scrappage scheme.
Ironically I had a diesel runabout which I sold in advance of that last expansion as it was not ULEZ compliant and quite a few of my journeys at the time would have taken me into the zone. I bought a petrol car to replace it which does at best half the mpg and is three times more powerful. But its ULEZ compliant so I clearly did the right thing
Ken's original congestion charge priced poor people out of London and emptied he roads for the toof in his chauffeur driven Rolls.
Blair/Brown loved the fuel duty escalator which again was pricing poor people off the road"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Why should concern for their ability to drive around trump concern for their respiratory systems? When did your committee do the ranking? Can we get a full list?Stevo_666 said:
Strange how concern for the interests of poor goes out the window when a matter deemed by some to be in pursuit of a worthy cause. I want to be on the committee that decides what's worthy.surrey_commuter said:
It is strange that this does not get discussed more.Stevo_666 said:
Terrible isn't it. But interesting that those who usually claim to be compassionate about those less fortunate seem to be silent on this one because its a 'green' cause or their hobby horse.Pross said:
Typical bleeding heart liberal!Stevo_666 said:
Whatever the deal was I'm not that fussed. However as several councils have pointed out, it disproportionately hits the those least able to afford it.rjsterry said:
It's a problem that is being eliminated just as '50s smog was. And one more time: it was a mandatory part of the deal between TfL and central government to bail it out from Covid losses. It's as much Shapps's ULEZ as Khan's.Stevo_666 said:
This is the problem with cities you see. However it will be sorted once EVs are the only option. This looks like more of an opportunity for Sadiq to fill his coffers in the meantime. But not with my money.rjsterry said:
Good to hear. When we last changed our car we went for petrol as we could see the way the rules were heading and with two asthmatics in the family, a diesel was just a bad idea. Everyone was still trying to sell us a diesel - presumably as they were trying to clear stock that would soon be worth less than they paid for it. That was about 5 or 6 years ago, so not sure people have much to complain about. I'm sure there were some coal merchants that complained about the Clean Air Acts in the 1950s, too.Stevo_666 said:
The ULEZ extension in 2021 was from the original boundaries in central London to the current North and South Circular boundaries. This latest extension to cover the whole of Greater London is new and pretty major, which may explain the resistance it is encountering.rjsterry said:
I didn't say you couldn't have an opinion; just wondering why you are so against a restriction on certain, mostly pretty old, vehicles. I have an opinion because the pollution directly affects me and my family - I think that's a fairly obvious reason to support it. We do have a car, but one that meets the emissions requirements (which aren't even that onerous) and isn't a diesel.Stevo_666 said:
Just because it doesn't really affect me doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. You don't drive but you have an opinion on cars.rjsterry said:
Still can't understand why you are so bothered about this when it has no effect on you.Stevo_666 said:
May depend what they said in their manifesto etc. People like Hidalgo and sadiq will soon be reminded that motorists have votes and there are a lot of them.Pross said:
Sometimes that is exactly what is needed. One of the biggest problems in the UK is we elect people but then expect to have a say in all decision making. It’s why it takes decades for any meaningful project to get anyway and when it comes to things like climate and pollution that’s too long.Stevo_666 said:And Hidalgo isn't exactly popular with the French. I wonder why?
https://statista.com/statistics/1086154/anne-hidalgo-populairty-france/
Although being a socialist she'll probably just plough on with her agenda anyway.
As regards manifestos, the extension of the ULEZ was in Khan's last manifesto:A GREEN NEW DEAL
A Green New Deal for the city, with cleaner air, improved open
spaces, green jobs and tackling climate change at its heart, including
extending the ULEZ in October 2021.
Not sure what's unclear about that. There's even been an extra 18 months for people to take advantage of the scrappage scheme.
Ironically I had a diesel runabout which I sold in advance of that last expansion as it was not ULEZ compliant and quite a few of my journeys at the time would have taken me into the zone. I bought a petrol car to replace it which does at best half the mpg and is three times more powerful. But its ULEZ compliant so I clearly did the right thing
Ken's original congestion charge priced poor people out of London and emptied he roads for the toof in his chauffeur driven Rolls.
Blair/Brown loved the fuel duty escalator which again was pricing poor people off the road- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Why can't everyone affordsurrey_commuter said:
It is strange that this does not get discussed more.Stevo_666 said:
Terrible isn't it. But interesting that those who usually claim to be compassionate about those less fortunate seem to be silent on this one because its a 'green' cause or their hobby horse.Pross said:
Typical bleeding heart liberal!Stevo_666 said:
Whatever the deal was I'm not that fussed. However as several councils have pointed out, it disproportionately hits the those least able to afford it.rjsterry said:
It's a problem that is being eliminated just as '50s smog was. And one more time: it was a mandatory part of the deal between TfL and central government to bail it out from Covid losses. It's as much Shapps's ULEZ as Khan's.Stevo_666 said:
This is the problem with cities you see. However it will be sorted once EVs are the only option. This looks like more of an opportunity for Sadiq to fill his coffers in the meantime. But not with my money.rjsterry said:
Good to hear. When we last changed our car we went for petrol as we could see the way the rules were heading and with two asthmatics in the family, a diesel was just a bad idea. Everyone was still trying to sell us a diesel - presumably as they were trying to clear stock that would soon be worth less than they paid for it. That was about 5 or 6 years ago, so not sure people have much to complain about. I'm sure there were some coal merchants that complained about the Clean Air Acts in the 1950s, too.Stevo_666 said:
The ULEZ extension in 2021 was from the original boundaries in central London to the current North and South Circular boundaries. This latest extension to cover the whole of Greater London is new and pretty major, which may explain the resistance it is encountering.rjsterry said:
I didn't say you couldn't have an opinion; just wondering why you are so against a restriction on certain, mostly pretty old, vehicles. I have an opinion because the pollution directly affects me and my family - I think that's a fairly obvious reason to support it. We do have a car, but one that meets the emissions requirements (which aren't even that onerous) and isn't a diesel.Stevo_666 said:
Just because it doesn't really affect me doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. You don't drive but you have an opinion on cars.rjsterry said:
Still can't understand why you are so bothered about this when it has no effect on you.Stevo_666 said:
May depend what they said in their manifesto etc. People like Hidalgo and sadiq will soon be reminded that motorists have votes and there are a lot of them.Pross said:
Sometimes that is exactly what is needed. One of the biggest problems in the UK is we elect people but then expect to have a say in all decision making. It’s why it takes decades for any meaningful project to get anyway and when it comes to things like climate and pollution that’s too long.Stevo_666 said:And Hidalgo isn't exactly popular with the French. I wonder why?
https://statista.com/statistics/1086154/anne-hidalgo-populairty-france/
Although being a socialist she'll probably just plough on with her agenda anyway.
As regards manifestos, the extension of the ULEZ was in Khan's last manifesto:A GREEN NEW DEAL
A Green New Deal for the city, with cleaner air, improved open
spaces, green jobs and tackling climate change at its heart, including
extending the ULEZ in October 2021.
Not sure what's unclear about that. There's even been an extra 18 months for people to take advantage of the scrappage scheme.
Ironically I had a diesel runabout which I sold in advance of that last expansion as it was not ULEZ compliant and quite a few of my journeys at the time would have taken me into the zone. I bought a petrol car to replace it which does at best half the mpg and is three times more powerful. But its ULEZ compliant so I clearly did the right thing
Ken's original congestion charge priced poor people out of London and emptied he roads for the toof in his chauffeur driven Rolls.
Blair/Brown loved the fuel duty escalator which again was pricing poor people off the road
Poor people weren't driving in the CZ in the first place. They catch the bus.. I know it's really difficult for some to grasp, but roughly half of the Greater London population don't have access to a car.Stevo_666 said:
Strange how concern for the interests of poor goes out the window when a matter deemed by some to be in pursuit of a worthy cause. I want to be on the committee that decides what's worthy.surrey_commuter said:
It is strange that this does not get discussed more.Stevo_666 said:
Terrible isn't it. But interesting that those who usually claim to be compassionate about those less fortunate seem to be silent on this one because its a 'green' cause or their hobby horse.Pross said:
Typical bleeding heart liberal!Stevo_666 said:
Whatever the deal was I'm not that fussed. However as several councils have pointed out, it disproportionately hits the those least able to afford it.rjsterry said:
It's a problem that is being eliminated just as '50s smog was. And one more time: it was a mandatory part of the deal between TfL and central government to bail it out from Covid losses. It's as much Shapps's ULEZ as Khan's.Stevo_666 said:
This is the problem with cities you see. However it will be sorted once EVs are the only option. This looks like more of an opportunity for Sadiq to fill his coffers in the meantime. But not with my money.rjsterry said:
Good to hear. When we last changed our car we went for petrol as we could see the way the rules were heading and with two asthmatics in the family, a diesel was just a bad idea. Everyone was still trying to sell us a diesel - presumably as they were trying to clear stock that would soon be worth less than they paid for it. That was about 5 or 6 years ago, so not sure people have much to complain about. I'm sure there were some coal merchants that complained about the Clean Air Acts in the 1950s, too.Stevo_666 said:
The ULEZ extension in 2021 was from the original boundaries in central London to the current North and South Circular boundaries. This latest extension to cover the whole of Greater London is new and pretty major, which may explain the resistance it is encountering.rjsterry said:
I didn't say you couldn't have an opinion; just wondering why you are so against a restriction on certain, mostly pretty old, vehicles. I have an opinion because the pollution directly affects me and my family - I think that's a fairly obvious reason to support it. We do have a car, but one that meets the emissions requirements (which aren't even that onerous) and isn't a diesel.Stevo_666 said:
Just because it doesn't really affect me doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. You don't drive but you have an opinion on cars.rjsterry said:
Still can't understand why you are so bothered about this when it has no effect on you.Stevo_666 said:
May depend what they said in their manifesto etc. People like Hidalgo and sadiq will soon be reminded that motorists have votes and there are a lot of them.Pross said:
Sometimes that is exactly what is needed. One of the biggest problems in the UK is we elect people but then expect to have a say in all decision making. It’s why it takes decades for any meaningful project to get anyway and when it comes to things like climate and pollution that’s too long.Stevo_666 said:And Hidalgo isn't exactly popular with the French. I wonder why?
https://statista.com/statistics/1086154/anne-hidalgo-populairty-france/
Although being a socialist she'll probably just plough on with her agenda anyway.
As regards manifestos, the extension of the ULEZ was in Khan's last manifesto:A GREEN NEW DEAL
A Green New Deal for the city, with cleaner air, improved open
spaces, green jobs and tackling climate change at its heart, including
extending the ULEZ in October 2021.
Not sure what's unclear about that. There's even been an extra 18 months for people to take advantage of the scrappage scheme.
Ironically I had a diesel runabout which I sold in advance of that last expansion as it was not ULEZ compliant and quite a few of my journeys at the time would have taken me into the zone. I bought a petrol car to replace it which does at best half the mpg and is three times more powerful. But its ULEZ compliant so I clearly did the right thing
Ken's original congestion charge priced poor people out of London and emptied he roads for the toof in his chauffeur driven Rolls.
Blair/Brown loved the fuel duty escalator which again was pricing poor people off the road1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I'm not on the committee. Seems like you think you should be.pangolin said:
Why should concern for their ability to drive around trump concern for their respiratory systems? When did your committee do the ranking? Can we get a full list?Stevo_666 said:
Strange how concern for the interests of poor goes out the window when a matter deemed by some to be in pursuit of a worthy cause. I want to be on the committee that decides what's worthy.surrey_commuter said:
It is strange that this does not get discussed more.Stevo_666 said:
Terrible isn't it. But interesting that those who usually claim to be compassionate about those less fortunate seem to be silent on this one because its a 'green' cause or their hobby horse.Pross said:
Typical bleeding heart liberal!Stevo_666 said:
Whatever the deal was I'm not that fussed. However as several councils have pointed out, it disproportionately hits the those least able to afford it.rjsterry said:
It's a problem that is being eliminated just as '50s smog was. And one more time: it was a mandatory part of the deal between TfL and central government to bail it out from Covid losses. It's as much Shapps's ULEZ as Khan's.Stevo_666 said:
This is the problem with cities you see. However it will be sorted once EVs are the only option. This looks like more of an opportunity for Sadiq to fill his coffers in the meantime. But not with my money.rjsterry said:
Good to hear. When we last changed our car we went for petrol as we could see the way the rules were heading and with two asthmatics in the family, a diesel was just a bad idea. Everyone was still trying to sell us a diesel - presumably as they were trying to clear stock that would soon be worth less than they paid for it. That was about 5 or 6 years ago, so not sure people have much to complain about. I'm sure there were some coal merchants that complained about the Clean Air Acts in the 1950s, too.Stevo_666 said:
The ULEZ extension in 2021 was from the original boundaries in central London to the current North and South Circular boundaries. This latest extension to cover the whole of Greater London is new and pretty major, which may explain the resistance it is encountering.rjsterry said:
I didn't say you couldn't have an opinion; just wondering why you are so against a restriction on certain, mostly pretty old, vehicles. I have an opinion because the pollution directly affects me and my family - I think that's a fairly obvious reason to support it. We do have a car, but one that meets the emissions requirements (which aren't even that onerous) and isn't a diesel.Stevo_666 said:
Just because it doesn't really affect me doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. You don't drive but you have an opinion on cars.rjsterry said:
Still can't understand why you are so bothered about this when it has no effect on you.Stevo_666 said:
May depend what they said in their manifesto etc. People like Hidalgo and sadiq will soon be reminded that motorists have votes and there are a lot of them.Pross said:
Sometimes that is exactly what is needed. One of the biggest problems in the UK is we elect people but then expect to have a say in all decision making. It’s why it takes decades for any meaningful project to get anyway and when it comes to things like climate and pollution that’s too long.Stevo_666 said:And Hidalgo isn't exactly popular with the French. I wonder why?
https://statista.com/statistics/1086154/anne-hidalgo-populairty-france/
Although being a socialist she'll probably just plough on with her agenda anyway.
As regards manifestos, the extension of the ULEZ was in Khan's last manifesto:A GREEN NEW DEAL
A Green New Deal for the city, with cleaner air, improved open
spaces, green jobs and tackling climate change at its heart, including
extending the ULEZ in October 2021.
Not sure what's unclear about that. There's even been an extra 18 months for people to take advantage of the scrappage scheme.
Ironically I had a diesel runabout which I sold in advance of that last expansion as it was not ULEZ compliant and quite a few of my journeys at the time would have taken me into the zone. I bought a petrol car to replace it which does at best half the mpg and is three times more powerful. But its ULEZ compliant so I clearly did the right thing
Ken's original congestion charge priced poor people out of London and emptied he roads for the toof in his chauffeur driven Rolls.
Blair/Brown loved the fuel duty escalator which again was pricing poor people off the road"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
All of them? Don't think so.rjsterry said:
Why can't everyone affordsurrey_commuter said:
It is strange that this does not get discussed more.Stevo_666 said:
Terrible isn't it. But interesting that those who usually claim to be compassionate about those less fortunate seem to be silent on this one because its a 'green' cause or their hobby horse.Pross said:
Typical bleeding heart liberal!Stevo_666 said:
Whatever the deal was I'm not that fussed. However as several councils have pointed out, it disproportionately hits the those least able to afford it.rjsterry said:
It's a problem that is being eliminated just as '50s smog was. And one more time: it was a mandatory part of the deal between TfL and central government to bail it out from Covid losses. It's as much Shapps's ULEZ as Khan's.Stevo_666 said:
This is the problem with cities you see. However it will be sorted once EVs are the only option. This looks like more of an opportunity for Sadiq to fill his coffers in the meantime. But not with my money.rjsterry said:
Good to hear. When we last changed our car we went for petrol as we could see the way the rules were heading and with two asthmatics in the family, a diesel was just a bad idea. Everyone was still trying to sell us a diesel - presumably as they were trying to clear stock that would soon be worth less than they paid for it. That was about 5 or 6 years ago, so not sure people have much to complain about. I'm sure there were some coal merchants that complained about the Clean Air Acts in the 1950s, too.Stevo_666 said:
The ULEZ extension in 2021 was from the original boundaries in central London to the current North and South Circular boundaries. This latest extension to cover the whole of Greater London is new and pretty major, which may explain the resistance it is encountering.rjsterry said:
I didn't say you couldn't have an opinion; just wondering why you are so against a restriction on certain, mostly pretty old, vehicles. I have an opinion because the pollution directly affects me and my family - I think that's a fairly obvious reason to support it. We do have a car, but one that meets the emissions requirements (which aren't even that onerous) and isn't a diesel.Stevo_666 said:
Just because it doesn't really affect me doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. You don't drive but you have an opinion on cars.rjsterry said:
Still can't understand why you are so bothered about this when it has no effect on you.Stevo_666 said:
May depend what they said in their manifesto etc. People like Hidalgo and sadiq will soon be reminded that motorists have votes and there are a lot of them.Pross said:
Sometimes that is exactly what is needed. One of the biggest problems in the UK is we elect people but then expect to have a say in all decision making. It’s why it takes decades for any meaningful project to get anyway and when it comes to things like climate and pollution that’s too long.Stevo_666 said:And Hidalgo isn't exactly popular with the French. I wonder why?
https://statista.com/statistics/1086154/anne-hidalgo-populairty-france/
Although being a socialist she'll probably just plough on with her agenda anyway.
As regards manifestos, the extension of the ULEZ was in Khan's last manifesto:A GREEN NEW DEAL
A Green New Deal for the city, with cleaner air, improved open
spaces, green jobs and tackling climate change at its heart, including
extending the ULEZ in October 2021.
Not sure what's unclear about that. There's even been an extra 18 months for people to take advantage of the scrappage scheme.
Ironically I had a diesel runabout which I sold in advance of that last expansion as it was not ULEZ compliant and quite a few of my journeys at the time would have taken me into the zone. I bought a petrol car to replace it which does at best half the mpg and is three times more powerful. But its ULEZ compliant so I clearly did the right thing
Ken's original congestion charge priced poor people out of London and emptied he roads for the toof in his chauffeur driven Rolls.
Blair/Brown loved the fuel duty escalator which again was pricing poor people off the road
Poor people weren't driving in the CZ in the first place. They catch the bus.. I know it's really difficult for some to grasp, but roughly half of the Greater London population don't have access to a car.Stevo_666 said:
Strange how concern for the interests of poor goes out the window when a matter deemed by some to be in pursuit of a worthy cause. I want to be on the committee that decides what's worthy.surrey_commuter said:
It is strange that this does not get discussed more.Stevo_666 said:
Terrible isn't it. But interesting that those who usually claim to be compassionate about those less fortunate seem to be silent on this one because its a 'green' cause or their hobby horse.Pross said:
Typical bleeding heart liberal!Stevo_666 said:
Whatever the deal was I'm not that fussed. However as several councils have pointed out, it disproportionately hits the those least able to afford it.rjsterry said:
It's a problem that is being eliminated just as '50s smog was. And one more time: it was a mandatory part of the deal between TfL and central government to bail it out from Covid losses. It's as much Shapps's ULEZ as Khan's.Stevo_666 said:
This is the problem with cities you see. However it will be sorted once EVs are the only option. This looks like more of an opportunity for Sadiq to fill his coffers in the meantime. But not with my money.rjsterry said:
Good to hear. When we last changed our car we went for petrol as we could see the way the rules were heading and with two asthmatics in the family, a diesel was just a bad idea. Everyone was still trying to sell us a diesel - presumably as they were trying to clear stock that would soon be worth less than they paid for it. That was about 5 or 6 years ago, so not sure people have much to complain about. I'm sure there were some coal merchants that complained about the Clean Air Acts in the 1950s, too.Stevo_666 said:
The ULEZ extension in 2021 was from the original boundaries in central London to the current North and South Circular boundaries. This latest extension to cover the whole of Greater London is new and pretty major, which may explain the resistance it is encountering.rjsterry said:
I didn't say you couldn't have an opinion; just wondering why you are so against a restriction on certain, mostly pretty old, vehicles. I have an opinion because the pollution directly affects me and my family - I think that's a fairly obvious reason to support it. We do have a car, but one that meets the emissions requirements (which aren't even that onerous) and isn't a diesel.Stevo_666 said:
Just because it doesn't really affect me doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. You don't drive but you have an opinion on cars.rjsterry said:
Still can't understand why you are so bothered about this when it has no effect on you.Stevo_666 said:
May depend what they said in their manifesto etc. People like Hidalgo and sadiq will soon be reminded that motorists have votes and there are a lot of them.Pross said:
Sometimes that is exactly what is needed. One of the biggest problems in the UK is we elect people but then expect to have a say in all decision making. It’s why it takes decades for any meaningful project to get anyway and when it comes to things like climate and pollution that’s too long.Stevo_666 said:And Hidalgo isn't exactly popular with the French. I wonder why?
https://statista.com/statistics/1086154/anne-hidalgo-populairty-france/
Although being a socialist she'll probably just plough on with her agenda anyway.
As regards manifestos, the extension of the ULEZ was in Khan's last manifesto:A GREEN NEW DEAL
A Green New Deal for the city, with cleaner air, improved open
spaces, green jobs and tackling climate change at its heart, including
extending the ULEZ in October 2021.
Not sure what's unclear about that. There's even been an extra 18 months for people to take advantage of the scrappage scheme.
Ironically I had a diesel runabout which I sold in advance of that last expansion as it was not ULEZ compliant and quite a few of my journeys at the time would have taken me into the zone. I bought a petrol car to replace it which does at best half the mpg and is three times more powerful. But its ULEZ compliant so I clearly did the right thing
Ken's original congestion charge priced poor people out of London and emptied he roads for the toof in his chauffeur driven Rolls.
Blair/Brown loved the fuel duty escalator which again was pricing poor people off the road
https://lbc.co.uk/news/ulez-expansion-will-put-enormous-financial-pressure-on-the-nhs-and-carers-warns/
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Some do not live locally and that is fair enough, however, many do, within 10 miles and many on a popular bus route, but they still prefer to drive.Pross said:
Maybe they live somewhere that means cycling or the bus aren't as convenient as they are for you? Maybe they already lived there before they took the job or they can't afford to live closer or they don't like living within an urban environment or maybe they're just lazy feckers who prefer the convenience or comfort of their cars. None of those reasons are particularly odd although some could be considered selfish possibly.ugo.santalucia said:back on topic…
in over 20 years, I have never regularly commuted by car. It has happened on very few occasionas, maybe 5 or 6 times per year.
Currently I cycle to work most says, unless it is icy or hopelessly wet, in which case I use the bus service, which is very convenient, at £4 for the return trip, most buses are electric.
I don’t get the appeal of driving. Many of my colleagues do, spending up to 3 grand per year, between fuel and parking parmits. They seem to be the same people who come in at 9 AM and leave at 5 PM, hence making the least of their car, basically being stuck in traffic. Very odd indeed
I suspect it is down to perception: the bus is seen a poor man's and student's choice, whereas a car shows (even in 2023) that you are not a bum on a street and have made it in life...
Sad sods...left the forum March 20230 -
Cars are very much still a status symbol, for those who care about status symbols.ugo.santalucia said:
Some do not live locally and that is fair enough, however, many do, within 10 miles and many on a popular bus route, but they still prefer to drive.Pross said:
Maybe they live somewhere that means cycling or the bus aren't as convenient as they are for you? Maybe they already lived there before they took the job or they can't afford to live closer or they don't like living within an urban environment or maybe they're just lazy feckers who prefer the convenience or comfort of their cars. None of those reasons are particularly odd although some could be considered selfish possibly.ugo.santalucia said:back on topic…
in over 20 years, I have never regularly commuted by car. It has happened on very few occasionas, maybe 5 or 6 times per year.
Currently I cycle to work most says, unless it is icy or hopelessly wet, in which case I use the bus service, which is very convenient, at £4 for the return trip, most buses are electric.
I don’t get the appeal of driving. Many of my colleagues do, spending up to 3 grand per year, between fuel and parking parmits. They seem to be the same people who come in at 9 AM and leave at 5 PM, hence making the least of their car, basically being stuck in traffic. Very odd indeed
I suspect it is down to perception: the bus is seen a poor man's and student's choice, whereas a car shows (even in 2023) that you are not a bum on a street and have made it in life...
Sad sods...The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I do think it depends where you live. I assume you are in London? If you have good rail links, busses are indeed seen as being cheap, but slow, so why would you.ugo.santalucia said:
Some do not live locally and that is fair enough, however, many do, within 10 miles and many on a popular bus route, but they still prefer to drive.Pross said:
Maybe they live somewhere that means cycling or the bus aren't as convenient as they are for you? Maybe they already lived there before they took the job or they can't afford to live closer or they don't like living within an urban environment or maybe they're just lazy feckers who prefer the convenience or comfort of their cars. None of those reasons are particularly odd although some could be considered selfish possibly.ugo.santalucia said:back on topic…
in over 20 years, I have never regularly commuted by car. It has happened on very few occasionas, maybe 5 or 6 times per year.
Currently I cycle to work most says, unless it is icy or hopelessly wet, in which case I use the bus service, which is very convenient, at £4 for the return trip, most buses are electric.
I don’t get the appeal of driving. Many of my colleagues do, spending up to 3 grand per year, between fuel and parking parmits. They seem to be the same people who come in at 9 AM and leave at 5 PM, hence making the least of their car, basically being stuck in traffic. Very odd indeed
I suspect it is down to perception: the bus is seen a poor man's and student's choice, whereas a car shows (even in 2023) that you are not a bum on a street and have made it in life...
Sad sods...
Edinburgh went all in on busses about 30 years ago and was quite forward thinking with long dedicated bus/cycle lanes right into the city and well thought out express routes from the burbs. When we moved up bus was just how most people got around, regardless of status.
Same in Vancouver, incidentally, where a lot of the routes are what we would call trolley busses. The only other city I've remotely relevant experience of is Oxford, which also has a P&R culture, plus way more cycling. Pity that even 20 years ago the P&R's were too close to the city centre and created traffic jams to get to them.0 -
Haven't been in (or to) London since 2015.First.Aspect said:
I do think it depends where you live. I assume you are in London? If you have good rail links, busses are indeed seen as being cheap, but slow, so why would you.ugo.santalucia said:
Some do not live locally and that is fair enough, however, many do, within 10 miles and many on a popular bus route, but they still prefer to drive.Pross said:
Maybe they live somewhere that means cycling or the bus aren't as convenient as they are for you? Maybe they already lived there before they took the job or they can't afford to live closer or they don't like living within an urban environment or maybe they're just lazy feckers who prefer the convenience or comfort of their cars. None of those reasons are particularly odd although some could be considered selfish possibly.ugo.santalucia said:back on topic…
in over 20 years, I have never regularly commuted by car. It has happened on very few occasionas, maybe 5 or 6 times per year.
Currently I cycle to work most says, unless it is icy or hopelessly wet, in which case I use the bus service, which is very convenient, at £4 for the return trip, most buses are electric.
I don’t get the appeal of driving. Many of my colleagues do, spending up to 3 grand per year, between fuel and parking parmits. They seem to be the same people who come in at 9 AM and leave at 5 PM, hence making the least of their car, basically being stuck in traffic. Very odd indeed
I suspect it is down to perception: the bus is seen a poor man's and student's choice, whereas a car shows (even in 2023) that you are not a bum on a street and have made it in life...
Sad sods...
Edinburgh went all in on busses about 30 years ago and was quite forward thinking with long dedicated bus/cycle lanes right into the city and well thought out express routes from the burbs. When we moved up bus was just how most people got around, regardless of status.
Same in Vancouver, incidentally, where a lot of the routes are what we would call trolley busses. The only other city I've remotely relevant experience of is Oxford, which also has a P&R culture, plus way more cycling. Pity that even 20 years ago the P&R's were too close to the city centre and created traffic jams to get to them.
Midlands, my friend... or as I like to call it JLRland... as I was waiting for the bus this morning, I counted the number of cars with a 20-72 registration... turns out they were the majority
left the forum March 20230 -
Fair enough. I'm baffled by the new cars as well. People get trapped in PCP deals though I think. Right now, even though the rates aren't that attractive, used prices are high so selling and putting down a deposit means the new car dream is still viable.ugo.santalucia said:
Haven't been in (or to) London since 2015.First.Aspect said:
I do think it depends where you live. I assume you are in London? If you have good rail links, busses are indeed seen as being cheap, but slow, so why would you.ugo.santalucia said:
Some do not live locally and that is fair enough, however, many do, within 10 miles and many on a popular bus route, but they still prefer to drive.Pross said:
Maybe they live somewhere that means cycling or the bus aren't as convenient as they are for you? Maybe they already lived there before they took the job or they can't afford to live closer or they don't like living within an urban environment or maybe they're just lazy feckers who prefer the convenience or comfort of their cars. None of those reasons are particularly odd although some could be considered selfish possibly.ugo.santalucia said:back on topic…
in over 20 years, I have never regularly commuted by car. It has happened on very few occasionas, maybe 5 or 6 times per year.
Currently I cycle to work most says, unless it is icy or hopelessly wet, in which case I use the bus service, which is very convenient, at £4 for the return trip, most buses are electric.
I don’t get the appeal of driving. Many of my colleagues do, spending up to 3 grand per year, between fuel and parking parmits. They seem to be the same people who come in at 9 AM and leave at 5 PM, hence making the least of their car, basically being stuck in traffic. Very odd indeed
I suspect it is down to perception: the bus is seen a poor man's and student's choice, whereas a car shows (even in 2023) that you are not a bum on a street and have made it in life...
Sad sods...
Edinburgh went all in on busses about 30 years ago and was quite forward thinking with long dedicated bus/cycle lanes right into the city and well thought out express routes from the burbs. When we moved up bus was just how most people got around, regardless of status.
Same in Vancouver, incidentally, where a lot of the routes are what we would call trolley busses. The only other city I've remotely relevant experience of is Oxford, which also has a P&R culture, plus way more cycling. Pity that even 20 years ago the P&R's were too close to the city centre and created traffic jams to get to them.
Midlands, my friend... or as I like to call it JLRland... as I was waiting for the bus this morning, I counted the number of cars with a 20-72 registration... turns out they were the majority
I did exactly that and I just got out. But I still bought it second hand in the first place to save 30%. It still felt like an irresponsible expense (was about the price of a new mid-range Focus, so actually not that extravagant).
Given our household income starts with a 1, what an earth are some people thinking?0 -
EDIT: on the rare times I go out on a group ride, I have the same thoughts about people's bikes....0
-
Mine won't let me set it to the Drive mode with the cable plugged in to the charging port. Just remains in P, displays a plug icon on the display and beeps.Pross said:I assume there is also something that prevents the car driving off before it has been disconnected? I know it sounds unlikely that anyone is stupid enough to do that but I once saw someone start towing their horse trailer whilst the wheel lock was still in place on the trailer.
I was worried at the beginning of unplugging after a rainfall when the whole port had water all over it, but that turns out not be a problem. It's completely safe.0 -
You see a much greater number of JLR vehicles where you live because 4 of the big JLR plants (and a couple of satellite sites) are in the area and there are a lot of employees (>10,000) proud and able to drive the productsugo.santalucia said:
Haven't been in (or to) London since 2015.
Midlands, my friend... or as I like to call it JLRland... as I was waiting for the bus this morning, I counted the number of cars with a 20-72 registration... turns out they were the majority
Elsewhere you would not see that high a ratio of JLR vehicles. It is a bubble because of this
JLR - a world famous brand selling globally recognised products that people across the world want to buy. Clearly not everyone's cup of tea and facing challenges as the world of personal transport evolves, but there are actually a lot of people who buy them because they need them and they do a role that other vehicles can't. Also accept that for many of them the only time they go "off road" is to park on the pavement. Also sure that many people may slate them as well.
I am just clarifying that Ugo's observation needs some context0 -
I think Ugo was referring to all cars with a 20-72 reg plate, not just JLR productscaptain_chaos said:
You see a much greater number of JLR vehicles where you live because 4 of the big JLR plants (and a couple of satellite sites) are in the area and there are a lot of employees (>10,000) proud and able to drive the productsugo.santalucia said:
Haven't been in (or to) London since 2015.
Midlands, my friend... or as I like to call it JLRland... as I was waiting for the bus this morning, I counted the number of cars with a 20-72 registration... turns out they were the majority
Elsewhere you would not see that high a ratio of JLR vehicles. It is a bubble because of this
JLR - a world famous brand selling globally recognised products that people across the world want to buy. Clearly not everyone's cup of tea and facing challenges as the world of personal transport evolves, but there are actually a lot of people who buy them because they need them and they do a role that other vehicles can't. Also accept that for many of them the only time they go "off road" is to park on the pavement. Also sure that many people may slate them as well.
I am just clarifying that Ugo's observation needs some contextWilier Izoard XP0 -
This looks a promising way of keeping our ICE cars on the road for longer and avoid having to drive souped up milk floats:
https://evo.co.uk/fuels/205634/synthetic-v-regular-fuel-sustainable-petrol-put-to-the-test"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
No. Theres not e ough biomass to go around for this sort of thing. Aviation has the same issue. Sp what you end up with is competition with food production, or deforestation. Take your pick.Stevo_666 said:This looks a promising way of keeping our ICE cars on the road for longer and avoid having to drive souped up milk floats:
https://evo.co.uk/fuels/205634/synthetic-v-regular-fuel-sustainable-petrol-put-to-the-test
Hypothetically it's possible to grow algae and brew ethanol as well. You can imagine the problems with that if you scale it up.0 -
Clearly it's not the only answer, but it will be part of the mix.First.Aspect said:
No. Theres not e ough biomass to go around for this sort of thing. Aviation has the same issue. Sp what you end up with is competition with food production, or deforestation. Take your pick.Stevo_666 said:This looks a promising way of keeping our ICE cars on the road for longer and avoid having to drive souped up milk floats:
https://evo.co.uk/fuels/205634/synthetic-v-regular-fuel-sustainable-petrol-put-to-the-test
Hypothetically it's possible to grow algae and brew ethanol as well. You can imagine the problems with that if you scale it up.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Double post.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The idea of using biofuels for heating has also been and gone as soon as someone did the sums for how much farmland they would need. It's a bit of a dead end.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The article and the video that FZ posted are more optimistic than you are.rjsterry said:The idea of using biofuels for heating has also been and gone as soon as someone did the sums for how much farmland they would need. It's a bit of a dead end.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
What, the petrolhead magazine article you posted?Stevo_666 said:
The article and the video that FZ posted are more optimistic than you are.rjsterry said:The idea of using biofuels for heating has also been and gone as soon as someone did the sums for how much farmland they would need. It's a bit of a dead end.
0 -
It's more ethanol head really.First.Aspect said:
What, the petrolhead magazine article you posted?Stevo_666 said:
The article and the video that FZ posted are more optimistic than you are.rjsterry said:The idea of using biofuels for heating has also been and gone as soon as someone did the sums for how much farmland they would need. It's a bit of a dead end.
To those who say it's a dead end, have they spotted that the 'E5' and 'E10' descriptors on pump fuel refers to the ethanol content? That's quite a lot of ethanol we are already producing and using."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Am aware, yes. There's still not enough of it for all "sustainable" fuel needs.Stevo_666 said:
It's more ethanol head really.First.Aspect said:
What, the petrolhead magazine article you posted?Stevo_666 said:
The article and the video that FZ posted are more optimistic than you are.rjsterry said:The idea of using biofuels for heating has also been and gone as soon as someone did the sums for how much farmland they would need. It's a bit of a dead end.
To those who say it's a dead end, have they spotted that the 'E5' and 'E10' descriptors on pump fuel refers to the ethanol content? That's quite a lot of ethanol we are already producing and using.0 -
That's why I said above that it would be part of the mix (of solutions)...First.Aspect said:
Am aware, yes. There's still not enough of it for all "sustainable" fuel needs.Stevo_666 said:
It's more ethanol head really.First.Aspect said:
What, the petrolhead magazine article you posted?Stevo_666 said:
The article and the video that FZ posted are more optimistic than you are.rjsterry said:The idea of using biofuels for heating has also been and gone as soon as someone did the sums for how much farmland they would need. It's a bit of a dead end.
To those who say it's a dead end, have they spotted that the 'E5' and 'E10' descriptors on pump fuel refers to the ethanol content? That's quite a lot of ethanol we are already producing and using."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I wonder what they will fertilise the biomass crops with, given that nitrogen is from gas (bad!), and organic fertiliser comes from livestock (bad!).0
-
Yep, The video from Harry Metcalfe emphasise that.
It's a good idea, contributes to a solution and keeps automotive history on the road.1 -
Synthetic fuel is not just biofuel
https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/20/porsche-pumps-first-synthetic-fuel-as-chilean-plant-finally-starts-producing/"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
What, are you going to stop eating and live off the air?briantrumpet said:I wonder what they will fertilise the biomass crops with, given that nitrogen is from gas (bad!), and organic fertiliser comes from livestock (bad!).
0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyUiHafCdvM
