• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

Stop expanding the ULEZ to all the London boroughs in 2023

He’s an arrogant dictator. How the hell was he put in a position of such power where the government can do nothing (or anyone else) ?
 
Darrell said:
Sadiq Khan urges Rishi Sunak to spend £110million on scrappage scheme
Click to expand...
OK, I give in. How many cars can get scrapped for £110 million ?

The best number i can come up with is about 110,000, but that can't be right, can it ?

Surely any scrappage results in parts which have an economic value? And don't these schemes link to new or near new vehicle sales? Which generate income for a dealer, VAT and so on?

And why can't 2013 diesel Fiestas be "scrapped" by relocating them to areas where pollution isn't an issue? The sort of areas where folks still use wood-burning stoves and coal without a second thought?

So much fuss to keep unwanted near empty buses running at times when people don't want to use them. While "out in the countryside," where occasional buses are actually needed, they can't be found for love nor money. So people end up running 2013 diesel Fiestas.
 
How can scrappage ever been seen as the right environmental choice.

Whilst I was watching "Desperate Measures" on Channel 5 last night (highly recommended by the way) there was actually an advert about the new ULEZ on....warning you to check your car is compatible..........if people were not angry before (lots Im sure just don't know about the expansion) then they will be now.
 
As I grow older, hopefully, I'm becoming more reasonable/sensible and consider others more than I did when I was a lot younger.
Something needs to be done about the pollution. All of our cars met/beat the proposed new regulations.

I do feel for those that genuinely can't afford to upgrade and I am not sure how to tackle this. Possibly give them interest-free loans up to 5k if they have an older car, loan for 3 years?

Slightly OT. But the 20mph and cycle lanes cause massive congestion and vehicles stand around for longer in traffic. Even a donkey would know that this causes more pollution when compared to 30mph speed zones. People do drive dangerously and speeds need to be kept, enforced at 30mph and side streets 20mph or less. I've always driven a lot slower at times in narrow side streets with lots of parked cars etc for obvious reasons and IMO, a limit of 20mph o main roads does not help.

What I have noted about our London mayor is that he is very shy about coming to o telly/radio stations where he would be asked questions
where he cannot justify his actions

I feel that the 20mph on the main roads is massively contributing to pollution for reasons I have stated above.
 
MSG2004 said:
As I grow older, hopefully, I'm becoming more reasonable/sensible and consider others more than I did when I was a lot younger.
Something needs to be done about the pollution. All of our cars met/beat the proposed new regulations.

I do feel for those that genuinely can't afford to upgrade and I am not sure how to tackle this. Possibly give them interest-free loans up to 5k if they have an older car, loan for 3 years?

Slightly OT. But the 20mph and cycle lanes cause massive congestion and vehicles stand around for longer in traffic. Even a donkey would know that this causes more pollution when compared to 30mph speed zones. People do drive dangerously and speeds need to be kept, enforced at 30mph and side streets 20mph or less. I've always driven a lot slower at times in narrow side streets with lots of parked cars etc for obvious reasons and IMO, a limit of 20mph o main roads does not help.

What I have noted about our London mayor is that he is very shy about coming to o telly/radio stations where he would be asked questions
where he cannot justify his actions

I feel that the 20mph on the main roads is massively contributing to pollution for reasons I have stated above.
Click to expand...
There's much discussion here in Guildford generally about cars and pollution. Guildford apparently has some of the highest pollution levels. Its essentially because there has never been any considered investment in infrastructure that provides a viable alternative to using a car. Coupled with infill development and subsequent increase in population density its easy to see the cause of the congestion and pollution problem. There is also a huge element of nimbyism that stunts any valid attempt at changing the status quo. The Council has gone through the usual process of painting some ridiculous white lines to tick the "cycling infrastructure" box with zero benefit. The only real attempt at a decent cycle lane has been hit with such ferocity from car drivers raging at the required roadworks that the project has been shelved. Its a sorry state of affairs. There is even talk now of adding a congestion charge to curb car use/pollution.

To my mind the only way is to get people out of cars. And the only way to achieve that is to provide a viable alternative - whether that be infrastructure to allow easier/safer walking/cycling or efficient/cheap enough public transport. I get so frustrated when i go to places like the Netherlands or Belgium. Nijmegen for instance where i go every year for the vierdaagse has a population density way higher than Guildford but i have never seen traffic/pollution problems. Because most people cycle or use public transport. And this is the main issue i see with the extension of ULEZ. Central London is fine for many people as public transport is pretty good (i personally believe those that require to use a vehicle to transport tools/materials for work should be exempt anyway). But in Greater London there isn't really the infrastructure - so i can really understand people rallying against the extension. Provide an alternative and i think it's more justifiable.
 
I spent the day yesterday delivering in the London Borough of Merton. It has a flat speed limit of 20 mph for all roads. It's funny watching people poodling along the speed camera enforced main roads and dual carriageway's at 20 mph. Then speeding up when they get down the side roads where 20 mph is an appropriate speed but no cameras.

Go figure :doh:
 
poormansporsche said:
It's funny watching people poodling along the speed camera enforced main roads and dual carriageway's at 20 mph. Then speeding up when they get down the side roads where 20 mph is an appropriate speed but no cameras.
Click to expand...
The reason for this is well understood, but totally ignored by the "20's Plenty" brigade: absent enforcement, people will (mostly) set their speed according to the conditions and be perfectly safe in so doing.

There's an interesting one in Oxfordshire at the moment, where the council are rolling out 20mph speed limits all over the place. Until, that is, the Oxford Bus Company has raised the valid point that putting 20mph limits on main roads used by buses would make parts of their network unviable, leading to withdrawal of services. More here:
www.bbc.co.uk

Oxfordshire: Delay to 20mph limit after bus company warnings

The Oxford Bus Company warned the council that restrictions would lead to a reduction in bus services.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
Would make. no difference around here.....the bus drivers (along with the taxi drivers) are the first to ignore speed limits anyway.
 
st13phil said:
The reason for this is well understood, but totally ignored by the "20's Plenty" brigade: absent enforcement, people will (mostly) set their speed according to the conditions and be perfectly safe in so doing.
Click to expand...

Most of the people I saw were doing 30/40 down the side roads :eek: may have driven at "safe" speeds if not lost so much time on the main roads !!!!
 
neilrr said:
www.dailymail.co.uk

Sadiq Khan is barracked as he slams 'far-Right' Ulez opponents

London mayor Sadiq Khan was holding a 'People's Question Time' in Ealing when the extraordinary confrontation developed.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...
When your defence of a policy relies upon invoking demagoguery you don't have a defence.

Perhaps as worrying as Khan's remarks were the "clapping seals" in the audience agreeing with him.
 
Does anyone know the 'swastikas' link mentioned in the article?
There is a poor photo of placard of Khan-t holding up his arm like Adolf, captured no doubt to represent the dislike for his authoritarian/totalitarian rule on this issue, and on that placard is said swastika. Is that the protester's own 'logo', or is it them suggesting (obviously in disgust) that they very very strongly disagree with his possible undemocratic methods but Khan is therefore incorrectly and ironically delivering misinformation himself that it must mean the protectors are far right Nazis, all the while accusing everyone else of misinformation?

Genuine question, as delivered via the Daily Mail I have little insight into the correct detail behind the story other than 'protesters' (citizens) are totally peed off.
 
markjay said:
I am not a fan of Mr Khan.

But I have no issue with road charging.

Just putting it out there...
Click to expand...
As long as it's just for BEV drivers who currently don't pay tax on their "fuel", I'm all for it too ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)

Similar threads

T
London ULEZ stops Mercedes W202 entering in 2023.
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
13K
TC350
TC350
Back
Top Bottom