| Bunch of nutters 14:04 - Aug 27 with 8687 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ulez-protest-tooting-broadway-sadiq-khan-
So many things wrong with this lot. People are up in arms about polluted air, about 4000 people dying a year due to pollution, then you bring something in to stop it and they're wailing that they can't drive to the shops now FFS.
Every argument in this piece is nonsensical.
“It is saying you are ‘OK to drive your polluting car if you give me £12.50’." - err, no, you're missing the point, the charge is to dissuade people from driving polluting cars.
“It is all about money, otherwise they would ban petrol and polluting cars." - LOL, you really would be up in arms if Khan said, "Ok then, we're banning petrol and polluting cars."
“You drive for your shopping to the nearest supermarket and to go about 150m down the road will now cost £12.50." - You're driving somewhere that's 150m away and you don't see a problem here?!
"We all want clean air for our children and generations, but you’ve gone in too far, too deep and it’s going to cost people’s lives and livelihoods." - you want clean air but you don't want it to impact YOU, basically. Pollution is literally costing people's lives. There is a scrapage scheme, which has been extended, to help not cost people's lives/livelihoods. Just exaggerated/emotive nonsense.
I have a mate who had asthma, who moved out of London to the seaside. Her asthma has completely cleared up. |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |  |
| Bunch of nutters on 21:04 - Aug 28 with 1553 views | noggin |
| Bunch of nutters on 19:10 - Aug 27 by The_Flashing_Smile |
So many assumptions and so much nonsense (again) from you. Coming from the board's resident covid-player-downer (I won't go so far to say denier) that's quite something.
No idea what you mean about tax everything politicians. I just want to breathe unpolluted air, but yeah, put me in a box that says "happy to be taxed on everything". So lazy and so dumb.
Even if it's 1000 deaths, or 500, it's significant. Why would you immediately go to "it's unprovable so let's dismiss it"? Are you trying to suggest pollution from traffic in London is not responsible for any deaths/ill health? There are plenty of reports that it is, have you any that disprove them?
Your last point is just dumb, again. I've not remotely suggested people close to the poverty line can just move out, and as it happens she is most definitely not a wealthy person and actually moved out because she could no longer afford to live in London. But it's beside the point anyway, the point is her asthma has cleared up breathing clean air. Nothing more. |
True story... Before moving to Norway, I worked for the London Ambulance Service and we pretty much attended asthma patients every day. I've been here for 17 years and I haven't seen a single case. |  |
| |
| Bunch of nutters on 21:26 - Aug 28 with 1509 views | DJR |
| Bunch of nutters on 15:09 - Aug 28 by Churchman |
SE22? Underhill Road, Lordship Lane? Know them all - Nah, all Peckham to me 😃. Should all be under SE15.
Been in the Grove pub too.
I seem to remember Thatcher lived in Dulwich village. Is that why you liked her? 🥲😃😂😅
Ok, an insult too far. I stand reprimanded. [Post edited 28 Aug 2023 15:13]
|
I missed the reference to Mrs Thatcher. Around the time she bought a house there, there was a proposal (subsequently abandoned) to dual-carriage the South Circular but the route had a bizarre kink in it around the house she had bought which adjoined the South Circular. Private Eye picked this up, suggesting some sort of influence was involved, and called it (from recollection) the Dulwich Kink. [Post edited 29 Aug 2023 7:40]
|  | | |
| Bunch of nutters on 21:33 - Aug 28 with 1494 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Bunch of nutters on 15:09 - Aug 28 by Churchman |
SE22? Underhill Road, Lordship Lane? Know them all - Nah, all Peckham to me 😃. Should all be under SE15.
Been in the Grove pub too.
I seem to remember Thatcher lived in Dulwich village. Is that why you liked her? 🥲😃😂😅
Ok, an insult too far. I stand reprimanded. [Post edited 28 Aug 2023 15:13]
|
Nunhead surely! |  |
| |
| Bunch of nutters on 22:36 - Aug 28 with 1457 views | jayessess |
| Bunch of nutters on 18:03 - Aug 28 by Swansea_Blue |
My only experience of this ULEZ business is the sister in law and husband who are at the other extreme. They’ve a circa 17 year old small car, but it’s diesel so doesn’t qualify and they’re self employed with irregular work relying on the car. They can’t afford ULEZ every day and can’t use public transport easily due to the nature of their work and late hours/where they have to go. They hate this expansion - it’s nothing but an extra cost to them, yet I bet by keeping and maintaining an old car they have a fraction of the carbon footprint of people who buy a new Tesla every 3 years (yes, I know that air quality is the justification). |
I get that particular measures always have someone who has it tough and those people are entitled to advocate for themselves. It's the tone of the argument that's strange to me.
An enormous amount of resources go into making Britain a comfortable place to drive in. Huge amounts of public money is spent. Between parking and roads, the amount of geographical space given over to it is enormous. As it stands, it's made incredibly convenient and cheap to habitually use your private car for travel. Bar maybe a bus journey in London almost any conceivable journey is cheaper to do by car than it is public transport. Yet almost any measure that affects the cost or convenience of car journeys is treated as an "end-times-Stalinism" deal, whilst cuts to bus services or train station ticket offices or hikes in fares seem to be regarded as just one of those things. [Post edited 28 Aug 2023 22:43]
|  |
| |
| Bunch of nutters on 09:07 - Aug 29 with 1368 views | Coastalblue |
| Bunch of nutters on 10:58 - Aug 28 by StokieBlue |
Unfortunately, it seems a very large number of eBikes in London have had the 20mph cap removed.
Frequently when I am cycling to work I'll have someone on an eBike absolute bolt past me at a speed that has to be well over 30mph and they aren't even peddling. The fact they do this in a separate cycle lane in what is essentially a motorised vehicle is both annoying and dangerous.
SB |
Those aren't actually legal and literally hundreds get seized on a weekly basis. |  |
| |
| Bunch of nutters on 09:30 - Aug 29 with 1336 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Bunch of nutters on 20:41 - Aug 28 by Trequartista |
Lol great argument, “I don’t know the facts but I’m right anyway” |
Way to avoid the point. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Bunch of nutters on 09:41 - Aug 29 with 1330 views | StokieBlue |
| Bunch of nutters on 09:07 - Aug 29 by Coastalblue |
Those aren't actually legal and literally hundreds get seized on a weekly basis. |
I'm aware they aren't legal but any getting seized is a drop in the ocean.
I frequently see them tearing past the police who don't have the resources to really do anything about it.
SB |  | | |
| Bunch of nutters on 09:41 - Aug 29 with 1325 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Bunch of nutters on 18:03 - Aug 28 by Swansea_Blue |
My only experience of this ULEZ business is the sister in law and husband who are at the other extreme. They’ve a circa 17 year old small car, but it’s diesel so doesn’t qualify and they’re self employed with irregular work relying on the car. They can’t afford ULEZ every day and can’t use public transport easily due to the nature of their work and late hours/where they have to go. They hate this expansion - it’s nothing but an extra cost to them, yet I bet by keeping and maintaining an old car they have a fraction of the carbon footprint of people who buy a new Tesla every 3 years (yes, I know that air quality is the justification). |
My 80 year old mother in law got a ULEZ fine through the post just this week.
She had dropped off my wife's sister at the airport and when driving back she was diverted into the city due to roadworks.
We have appealed for her. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Bunch of nutters on 10:24 - Aug 29 with 1312 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Bunch of nutters on 09:41 - Aug 29 by GlasgowBlue |
My 80 year old mother in law got a ULEZ fine through the post just this week.
She had dropped off my wife's sister at the airport and when driving back she was diverted into the city due to roadworks.
We have appealed for her. |
That's annoying! Was there any indication that that's the sort of thing you can appeal? | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Bunch of nutters on 10:29 - Aug 29 with 1304 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Bunch of nutters on 10:24 - Aug 29 by The_Flashing_Smile |
That's annoying! Was there any indication that that's the sort of thing you can appeal? |
It's all new up here so no idea. But he wouldn't have entered the city if she could have avoided it. | |
| |
| Bunch of nutters on 11:44 - Aug 29 with 1260 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Bunch of nutters on 10:29 - Aug 29 by GlasgowBlue |
It's all new up here so no idea. But he wouldn't have entered the city if she could have avoided it. |
Oh it definitely sounds like something you ought to be able to appeal, but knowing traffic authorities and their propensity for leniency/being jobsworths...
I was once parked on a road round the corner from a red route and Lambeth Council tried to do me for parking on a red route. I challenged it and said it's not on the red route, even included photos showing where the red lines stopped (a couple of car lengths before my car) but they still pursued it, with the classic "If you pay now the price is X but if you continue refusing to pay it doubles."
I stuck to my guns and when it reached independent arbitration they suddenly dropped it. Absolute scumbags. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Bunch of nutters on 11:52 - Aug 29 with 1253 views | DJR |
| Bunch of nutters on 10:29 - Aug 29 by GlasgowBlue |
It's all new up here so no idea. But he wouldn't have entered the city if she could have avoided it. |
Interesting to note that you can't pay to enter the LEZ in Glasgow, and from what you say there appears to have been insufficient notice of the scheme. But if forced to enter the zone by a diversion, I would have thought that is a grounds of appeal, depending on what the grounds of appeal actually are.
This from the Glasgow City Council website.
You cannot pay to enter a LEZ.
If a non-compliant vehicle is detected in Glasgow's LEZ, a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) will be issued to the registered keeper of that vehicle.
A maximum of one PCN will be issued to the vehicle's registered keeper for breaching LEZ rules in any one day.
Set at national level by the Scottish Government for consistency across cities, the initial penalty charge for all non-compliant vehicles entering a LEZ in Scotland is £60. [Post edited 29 Aug 2023 11:54]
| | | |
| Bunch of nutters on 13:10 - Aug 29 with 1228 views | giant_stow |
| Bunch of nutters on 18:03 - Aug 28 by Swansea_Blue |
My only experience of this ULEZ business is the sister in law and husband who are at the other extreme. They’ve a circa 17 year old small car, but it’s diesel so doesn’t qualify and they’re self employed with irregular work relying on the car. They can’t afford ULEZ every day and can’t use public transport easily due to the nature of their work and late hours/where they have to go. They hate this expansion - it’s nothing but an extra cost to them, yet I bet by keeping and maintaining an old car they have a fraction of the carbon footprint of people who buy a new Tesla every 3 years (yes, I know that air quality is the justification). |
might be good news for your sister: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66645379 |  |
| |
| Bunch of nutters on 13:12 - Aug 29 with 1229 views | Number22 |
Mines a diesel 1.1 "Eco-Dynamic" and is apparently not green enough... |  | | |
| Bunch of nutters on 13:31 - Aug 29 with 1215 views | Ryorry |
| Bunch of nutters on 19:51 - Aug 28 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Can they not do the scrapage scheme and get reimbursed? |
On phone so brief, but painter and decorator on R5l phone in this morning said documentation for scrappage was impossible to fulfill; another caller said she’d only get £2k for car and didn’t have the extra £8k to buy one which met requirements |  |
| |
| Bunch of nutters on 13:40 - Aug 29 with 1202 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Bunch of nutters on 13:31 - Aug 29 by Ryorry |
On phone so brief, but painter and decorator on R5l phone in this morning said documentation for scrappage was impossible to fulfill; another caller said she’d only get £2k for car and didn’t have the extra £8k to buy one which met requirements |
That's not ideal. I wonder if they're just a couple of extreme examples where it hasn't worked, or is this a widespread issue? | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Bunch of nutters on 14:41 - Aug 29 with 1181 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Bunch of nutters on 13:12 - Aug 29 by Number22 |
Mines a diesel 1.1 "Eco-Dynamic" and is apparently not green enough... |
Should have bought a 5.0 v8 Mustang mate, you’d have been exempt. |  | | |
| Bunch of nutters on 15:13 - Aug 29 with 1159 views | DJR |
| Bunch of nutters on 13:12 - Aug 29 by Number22 |
Mines a diesel 1.1 "Eco-Dynamic" and is apparently not green enough... |
Mine too is not green enough, even I don't pay road tax on it because its CO2 emissions are so low. Indeed, that was the reason I bought it. [Post edited 29 Aug 2023 15:16]
| | | |
| Bunch of nutters on 15:17 - Aug 29 with 1151 views | StokieBlue |
| Bunch of nutters on 14:41 - Aug 29 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Should have bought a 5.0 v8 Mustang mate, you’d have been exempt. |
It's not a scheme to lower CO2 emissions, it's a scheme to lower NOx emissions.
They are completely different things that cause different issues.
SB | | | |
| Bunch of nutters on 15:30 - Aug 29 with 1142 views | Ryorry |
| Bunch of nutters on 21:04 - Aug 28 by noggin |
True story... Before moving to Norway, I worked for the London Ambulance Service and we pretty much attended asthma patients every day. I've been here for 17 years and I haven't seen a single case. |
On the other hand, I lived in London for 2 years (Acton, only about 4 streets away from Loftus Rd.), used the tube for 3 hrs daily incl Victoria Line to get to work & back (in Brixton where my job involved visiting peoples' homes using buses, tube & Shanks' Pony); & never had a problem.
Developed asthma in my late 60s after living in rural N. Yorks for 20 years (damage might have been done earlier of course). | |
| |
| Bunch of nutters on 16:26 - Aug 29 with 1108 views | DJR |
| Bunch of nutters on 15:17 - Aug 29 by StokieBlue |
It's not a scheme to lower CO2 emissions, it's a scheme to lower NOx emissions.
They are completely different things that cause different issues.
SB |
That is true but it is perhaps slightly ironic that new cars emit more CO2 than old cars, according to Which.
https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/new-cars-emit-more-climate-changing-co2-tha
It's headline says "we may have saved our lungs at the expense of the planet", so a bit of a double-edged sword. [Post edited 29 Aug 2023 16:28]
| | | |
| Bunch of nutters on 17:04 - Aug 29 with 1067 views | StokieBlue |
CO2 and NOx are two totally different problems that will need different solutions. The difference in CO2 emissions from the ULEZ will have no impact globally to the CO2 whilst it will reduce the NOx level locally by a meaningful amount.
Not really sure why you're trying to conflate the two things.
SB | | | |
| Bunch of nutters on 17:24 - Aug 29 with 1036 views | giant_stow |
| Bunch of nutters on 17:04 - Aug 29 by StokieBlue |
CO2 and NOx are two totally different problems that will need different solutions. The difference in CO2 emissions from the ULEZ will have no impact globally to the CO2 whilst it will reduce the NOx level locally by a meaningful amount.
Not really sure why you're trying to conflate the two things.
SB |
A bit harsh at the end there Stokie me old mucker!
I am perhaps / probably hugely ignorant, but DJR's point about CO2 emissions being higher in new cars was complete and surprising news to me. | |
| |
| Bunch of nutters on 17:33 - Aug 29 with 1028 views | DJR |
| Bunch of nutters on 17:04 - Aug 29 by StokieBlue |
CO2 and NOx are two totally different problems that will need different solutions. The difference in CO2 emissions from the ULEZ will have no impact globally to the CO2 whilst it will reduce the NOx level locally by a meaningful amount.
Not really sure why you're trying to conflate the two things.
SB |
I realise the two things are completely different and my observation wasn't related to ULEZ.
It's just that if all modern cars in the UK, Europe and maybe elsewhere in the world omit more CO2 than old ones there will be an impact globally, given that realistically we are a long way off purely electric cars on the road, despite the 2030 deadline.
EDIT: it makes me think that it is better for the environment for me, living as I do on the edge of a small town, to hang on to my non-ULEZ compliant car which has very low C02 emissions. Indeed, I intend to do so until the price of electric cars comes down, and their range increases, and in the meantime I will have not bought an electric car, the construction of which would have contributed to global warming.
I might add that I support ULEZ, and would buy a compliant car if I lived there, and not just to avoid the charge. [Post edited 30 Aug 2023 7:57]
| | | |
| Bunch of nutters on 19:18 - Aug 29 with 969 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Bunch of nutters on 14:41 - Aug 29 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Should have bought a 5.0 v8 Mustang mate, you’d have been exempt. |
As Maggie Thatcher may have once said, "ULEZ if you want to, the lady's not for lezzing". | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
