Stop expanding the ULEZ to all the London boroughs in 2023

[Dryce]

Why?

Because we're removing optional travel.

You've got be consistent.

Moreover bear in mind that not every bus runs full outside of rush hour so the emissions per passenger KM likely go up significantly outside of rush hour.

Moreover think of the congestion benefits of removing these buses along with the optional car journeys. The non-optional travellers will get to where the are going more efficiently and quickly (probably lowering their emissions).

Seriously ..... what's not to like?

I think with your suggestion being applied universally you've cracked the problem.

 

[TC350]

The origins of the Internet (the www came much later) were ARPANET and Bitnet. Bitnet was a project linking researchers across universities worldwide allowing academics to exchange information and views (I used Bitnet in the early eighties, with a 300 baud Hays modem). The first non-academic use of Bitnet was by a group of students playing D&D online. And it exploded from there... USENET followed shortly. The underlying infrastructure moved from universities' network and private operators' networks (AOL, etc) to the ARPANET-based Internet that we have today much later, in the mid to late nineties.

The www came about in 1990 (from memory), and its Inventor Tim Berners-Lee was working at CERN at the time and created it predominantly for academic use.

In short, the public Internet that we have today came-about after some 20 years of military use and 15 years of academic use. I obviously welcome the transition from military and academic to civilian public use, but this was never the original intention of it's creators.

How I wish that what we now take for granted was more widely available in the early 70s when I was doing the research for my Masters in Microelectronics. Discussions with the likes of Intel and Texas Instruments were laborious to say the least, not just because they were naturally protective of their ideas.

 

[Dryce]

Straight out of Fascism for Dummies, and just as unconvincing

Pointing at people and calling them fascists is rather Putinesque.

 

[clk320x]

But hang on a minute - it's all about public health and safety amd the thousands of deaths that will be averted.

You simply can't argue against that.

Which can still happen by banning non-compliant cars whilst still allowing others to get on with their lives. I’ve always agreed that a full on ban would be better.

Do you drive an old Rotbox?

 

[clk320x]

Because we're removing optional travel.

You've got be consistent.

Optional activities are fine when they don’t involve shortening the lives of others in the process.

 

[markjay]

Ah yes, the Donald Trump line to take. It’s the fault of the ‘establishment conspiracy’, mouthed by a billionaire who got rich by joining the establishment and mugging off ordinary people

‘If the facts don’t back anything you say then it’s the facts that are wrong’ is a line used by extremists across the generations to justify law-breaking, violence and oppression, oh and the imposition of rules and strictures to suppress the facts.

It’s nothing new. In the USA now teachers are sacked for reading the ‘wrong books’ to kids, here the right to carry on poisoning the air our kids breathe is positioned as a ‘freedom’, just like smoking was claimed to be. Smoking in closed cars with kids in the back? It’s an absolute right and how dare you question it!

Nicely topped off with the line blaming the political classes and the media. Straight out of Fascism for Dummies, and just as unconvincing

Talking about The Donald, you forgot to mention Whataboutism.... he didn't invent it, true, but he did refine it to an art form, and it has been widely copied since: "We should ban old Diesel cars because they emit harmful particulates, you say? Hang on, but what about the Underground...?" Etc etc.

 

[markjay]

This is how I see it:

There's no doubt that ULEZ presents a major challenge to tradesmen driving older Diesel vans. Personally I think that they should have received some assistance, perhaps a one-off grant to help with the transition to newer (post 2014) Diesel vans, paid from the expected ULEZ revenues.

Then, there are elderly people who own a low mileage older Diesel car, which they were expecting to be the last car they'll own before eventually giving-up driving. For them, replacing their car now presents a challenge both financially as well as the actual act of selling and buying a car, especially for those who do not have younger family members who can assist with the process.

And last, there are many people who just like their older Diesel cars for whatever reason, and are reluctant to change them.

I am not oblivious to these issues.

But... what I do have a difficulty with is some of the arguments made against ULEZ, which to me feel disingenuous.

Some said that theres no issue with particulate emissions. Other said that particulate emissions are indeed a problem, but ULEZ won't bring it down. Then we get YouTubers and Internet bloggers... and so it goes.

The shutting down of the analogue radio transmitters was cancelled because it would have inconvenienced too many people.

The planned abolishing of cheques was cancelled because older people still like using them.

I don't see an issue with people objecting to ULEZ due to the varying levels of inconvenience or financial hardships that it will cause them.

But, again, I have an issue with some of the other arguments made against it.

 

[Dryce]

Optional activities are fine when they don’t involve shortening the lives of others in the process.

So ban personal driving completely. Tell people to get jobs within walking distance of their homes or public transport.

I'll reiterate - ban public transport for leisure.

Ban air travel. And where there is a need to travel - by air we have the problem that the journey to the airport is allegedly the dangerous part - so let people who have to travel by air do so - but ban them from taking a road journey to the airport.

Shipping is supposed to be a major emissions source - think about banning any non-critical imports / exports.

And in Glasgow the streets with pollution problems were down to buses. I suspect that buses are still the major road polluter. So in cities like Glasgow completely ban buses from the city centre.

And bacxk to banning the construction or placement of buses and offices - presumably there will still be some necessary transport on some routes - eg. motorways and trunk roads. As this is non-optional and saving lives is important - then ban all dwellings and offices within a vicinity of them.

 

[markjay]

So ban personal driving completely. Tell people to get jobs within walking distance of their homes or public transport.

I'll reiterate - ban public transport for leisure.

Ban air travel. And where there is a need to travel - by air we have the problem that the journey to the airport is allegedly the dangerous part - so let people who have to travel by air do so - but ban them from taking a road journey to the airport.

Shipping is supposed to be a major emissions source - think about banning any non-critical imports / exports.

And in Glasgow the streets with pollution problems were down to buses. I suspect that buses are still the major road polluter. So in cities like Glasgow completely ban buses from the city centre.

And bacxk to banning the construction or placement of buses and offices - presumably there will still be some necessary transport on some routes - eg. motorways and trunk roads. As this is non-optional and saving lives is important - then ban all dwellings and offices within a vicinity of them.

I think that banning is too extreme, but you're bang-on regarding our wasteful use of energy and the pollution we unleash on our planet.

We should all drive less, fly less, ship stuff across the oceans less, etc. Energy is a precious resource, and we should be using it sparingly because it is costing us the earth - literally.

 

[Dryce]

Talking about The Donald, you forgot to mention Whataboutism.... he didn't invent it, true, but he did refine it to an art form, and it has been widely copied since: "We should ban old Diesel cars because they emit harmful particulates, you say? Hang on, but what about the Underground...?" Etc etc.

I don't think Mr Trump has ever refined anything.

And the underground was being talked about as being filthy to breathe long before he was in politics.

 

[clk320x]

So ban personal driving completely. Tell people to get jobs within walking distance of their homes or public transport.

I'll reiterate - ban public transport for leisure.

Ban air travel. And where there is a need to travel - by air we have the problem that the journey to the airport is allegedly the dangerous part - so let people who have to travel by air do so - but ban them from taking a road journey to the airport.

Shipping is supposed to be a major emissions source - think about banning any non-critical imports / exports.

And in Glasgow the streets with pollution problems were down to buses. I suspect that buses are still the major road polluter. So in cities like Glasgow completely ban buses from the city centre.

And bacxk to banning the construction or placement of buses and offices - presumably there will still be some necessary transport on some routes - eg. motorways and trunk roads. As this is non-optional and saving lives is important - then ban all dwellings and offices within a vicinity of them.

Oh dear.

Sure, why don’t you join the campaigning to address these issues?

 

[Darrell]

Land is at a premium within London so that would be stupidity just

Wasn’t one of the benefits of HS2 that people could commute from Birmingham into London.

Therefore they earn London wages but can buy a cheaper property out of the capital.

 

[markjay]

Wasn’t one of the benefits of HS2 that people could commute from Birmingham into London.

Therefore they earn London wages but can buy a cheaper property out of the capital.

A lot of people object to HS2, both on this forum and on other forums that I am a member of.

It seems that whatever the government does, immediately creates two distinct camps, for and against. That's democracy I suppose....

 

[Darrell]

It seems that whatever the government does, immediately creates two distinct camps, for and against. That's democracy I suppose....

Whatever ANY government does creates 2 camps.

 

[Dryce]

A lot of people object to HS2, both on this forum and on other forums that I am a member of.

It seems that whatever the government does, immediately creates two distinct camps, for and against. That's democracy I suppose....

Maybe if HS2 wasn't quite so expensive and the benefits were a bit .... more widespread.

HS2 has suffered from being a bit overhyped, a bit misunderstood, very very expensive, questionable, and in a state of retreat from its original plan. (that last bit making the first and third parts a bit more problematic).

I don't think this has so much to do with democracy as to do with the credibility and benefits of the project.

(I think HS2 is a mistake. This makes me a bad person. Another London-centric project that is incredibly expensive and gets pared down from its original promise while getting even more expensive. When it is completed it will probably work well and been forgiven. But then we will lose sight of what the 'investment' in it could have delivered if used on other projects.)

 

[Dryce]

Whatever ANY government does creates 2 camps.

Are you allowed to say that .... I thought it was all about being non-binary these days?

 

[Dryce]

Oh dear.

Sure, why don’t you join the campaigning to address these issues?

I suspect that the civil disobedience required to actually put a stop to this would be against my actual nature and lose me my job.

 

[Darrell]

Are you allowed to say that .... I thought it was all about being non-binary these days?

Like this?

Binary code - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Darrell]

I suspect that the civil disobedience required to actually put a stop to this would be against my actual nature and lose me my job.

What’s your job?

 

[Darrell]

Maybe if HS2 wasn't quite so expensive and the benefits were a bit .... more widespread.

HS2 has suffered from being a bit overhyped, a bit misunderstood, very very expensive, questionable, and in a state of retreat from its original plan. (that last bit making the first and third parts a bit more problematic).

I don't think this has so much to do with democracy as to do with the credibility and benefits of the project.

(I think HS2 is a mistake. This makes me a bad person. Another London-centric project that is incredibly expensive and gets pared down from its original promise while getting even more expensive. When it is completed it will probably work well and been forgiven. But then we will lose sight of what the 'investment' in it could have delivered if used on other projects.)

Regarding the expense.

The main reason is because everything is being done properly (over the top).

For example.
At one of the sites a smelly old ditch had to be concreted over. There are Newts in that particular area so to appease the public they can’t be left to just die.
Enter the Newt re-locator on £80,000 a year.

And it goes on and on. £££££££