Stop expanding the ULEZ to all the London boroughs in 2023

[optimusprime]

When you think about this, ULES, it is the governments way of telling you , that you all need to buy EV . Just Blackmail .

 

[Darrell]

Not quite ULEZ but interesting all the same.

Scaffolder wins case ruling that low emission zone signs aren't lawful


Scaffolder wins case ruling that low emission zone signs aren't lawful

 

[Darrell]

Fair enough Darrell, can’t dispute anything you’ve said there.

Unfortunately it’s difficult to make a policy which works for absolutely everyones specific situation.

I suppose there’s a few options for them not limited to:

- Change to an older classic which will be exempted.
- Accept that the cost of their hobby has increased and modify their behaviours appropriately to keep it affordable, for example by reducing the amount of meet ups they attend.

I think ultimately this situation applies to a very small number of people, and I would suggest most that own, store and maintaining a second car for the purpose of shows would be able to afford the charge on the odd occasion they drive it.

What a boring and sterile world we’re soon to be living in.

 

[clk320x]

It will come as a shock to you, but quite a number of people care, because they do not feel superior to those of lesser means that cannot afford a long list of cars they have owned.
What has hit a nerve is the implied contempt for those that drive older non Euro 6 vehicles and the pathetic virtue signalling to justify your choice of an EV.
there are others on here that drive EVs and Euro 6 vehicles without the need to pretend that they made that choice for the good of the population.
I have just checked and my diesel is Euro 6. Obviously a prime reason for its purchase.

When did I say I feel superior?

When did I say I bought an EV solely for the environmental benefits?

I still maintain that an EV isn’t a necessity for this scheme whatsoever (yet) it’s just about buying a compliant car (which can be had for little money)…

You’ve just made a list of assumptions with no backing whatsoever. You also keep mentioning the ‘long list’ of cars I’ve had, what relevance does that have?

You won’t be able to answer the above, because I never said an EV is a necessity for ULEZ, you’ve just mixed up a lot of different threads and come up with a hate filled response.

 

[Darrell]

I still maintain that an EV isn’t a necessity for this scheme whatsoever (yet) it’s just about buying a compliant car (which can be had for little money)…

And you’re correct but you’re not seeing the point are you? Not being a Londoner you’ll never see the point.

 

[JHS]

When did I say I feel superior?

When did I say I bought an EV solely for the environmental benefits?

I still maintain that an EV isn’t a necessity for this scheme whatsoever (yet) it’s just about buying a compliant car (which can be had for little money)…

You’ve just made a list of assumptions with no backing whatsoever. You also keep mentioning the ‘long list’ of cars I’ve had, what relevance does that have?

You won’t be able to answer the above, because I never said an EV is a necessity for ULEZ, you’ve just mixed up a lot of different threads and come up with a hate filled response.

You have completely missed the point.

 

[clk320x]

And you’re correct but you’re not seeing the point are you? Not being a Londoner you’ll never see the point.

I honestly still don’t see what the point is? Can you clarify? Is it that because some can’t afford it they should be given free rein to do as they like? I genuinely don’t get it. The counter argument is people say ‘what about this, what about that’… or that it’ll make a 2% difference… ok so if it made a 20% difference then would everyone suddenly be fine with/be able to easily afford switching cars? or would this argument still continue but just with another point exchanged in there?

What’s the definition of a Londoner? Is living in the imminently to be expanded zone (NW) 5 days a week - as well as being born, educated and exclusively living there for over 20 years of my life not enough to provide me with an understanding on the transportation situation within the city?

 

[clk320x]

You have completely missed the point.

Really? I literally went through your post line by line and replied to the false statements you were making.

 

[ChipChop]

What a boring and sterile world we’re soon to be living in.

Ain't that the truth.

And Khan justifies his extreme policies which have been found to have a "disproportionate financial impact on people with low incomes, the disabled and young families" by the £800,000 paid for Imperial College London study he commissioned. Needless to say the ICL studies misleading alarmist claims are not peer reviewed.

The Times did a piece titled "Do Sadiq Khan's 'toxic air' claims stack up?" on this recently (link archived so you can read it without signing up)...

https://archive.ph/WrckR

 

[Darrell]

What’s the definition of a Londoner? Is living in the imminently to be expanded zone (NW) 5 days a week - as well as being born, educated and exclusively living there for over 20 years of my life not enough to provide me with an understanding on the transportation situation within the city?

It runs far deeper than that and I don’t think you get it.

 

[clk320x]

It runs far deeper than that and I don’t think you get it.

Lol fair enough then.

 

[clk320x]

Ain't that the truth.

And Khan justifies his extreme policies which have been found to have a "disproportionate financial impact on people with low incomes, the disabled and young families" by the £800,000 paid for Imperial College London study he commissioned. Needless to say the ICL studies misleading alarmist claims are not peer reviewed.

The Times did a piece titled "Do Sadiq Khan's 'toxic air' claims stack up?" on this recently (link archived so you can read it without signing up)...

https://archive.ph/WrckR

You just questioned the legitimacy of the Imperial College studies whilst linking to ‘The Times’… is that a research journal?

A lot of people, only want to hear what they want to hear… others on this thread seem to think Youtube is a better source of information than accredited academic institutions.

 

[ChipChop]

You just questioned the legitimacy of the Imperial College studies whilst linking to ‘The Times’… is that a research journal?

A lot of people, only want to hear what they want to hear… others on this thread seem to think Youtube is a better source of information than accredited academic institutions.

Try reading the article The Times published.

Khan is full of it, making it up as he goes along. He was claiming around 10,000 premature deaths back in 2016, now he is spouting a figure of 4,000. Yet both of those figures are meaningless because the ICL study deals in life expectancy not death rates and life expectancy is rising not lowering.

 

[grober]

One subject thats rarely mentioned is that of vehicle occupancy-the ULEZ charge for 4 people in a car is £3.13 each---perhaps what we need are smaller vehicles to satisfy individual destinations if thats whats required- no more driving around larger/heavy almost empty steel boxes with one person in them -- what we have here is a clash of car ownership cultures--- the previous freedom of individual owners to go anywhere at any time V the necessity to restrict/modify that ownership model to suit higher geographical concentrations of vehicles in certain areas at certain times. Trying to fit /FORCE the previous ownership model into a new all encompasing environment without radical changes on both sides of the equation is simply inviting collision rather than consensus?

 

[clk320x]

Try reading the article The Times published.

Khan is full of it, making it up as he goes along. He was claiming around 10,000 premature deaths back in 2016, now he is spouting a figure of 4,000. Yet both of those figures are meaningless because the ICL study deals in life expectancy not death rates and life expectancy is rising not lowering.

The ICL study looks at ‘life years lost’ and converts this to an estimation of 4000 deaths to make the figures easier to comprehend for those of a non-scientific background.

Ultimately a lot of these are studies are based on modelling and estimations, but that’s just the way things go. Overall any reduction in pollution can only be a good thing in my book.

 

[Darrell]

Overall any reduction in pollution can only be a good thing in my book.

An overall reduction in knife crime in London can only be a good thing in my book but the opposition to Stop and Search is enormous.

 

[clk320x]

An overall reduction in knife crime in London can only be a good thing in my book but the opposition to Stop and Search is enormous.

There’ll always be people opposing practically every policy mate.

 

[Darrell]

There’ll always be people opposing practically every policy mate.

Human nature.

 

[ALFAitalia]

Not many on here mentioning the London is in the top few percent for city air quality globally.......which makes me think even more it about money than any perceived danger to the relatively few that are even that sensitive to NOX and particulates.

 

[markjay]

....And Khan justifies his extreme policies which have been found to have a "disproportionate financial impact on people with low incomes, the disabled and young families"...

Compared to what???

If there's a fairer alternative being offered or considered, then the sentence above makes sense.

But if there's no alternative to reducing harmful NOx emissions, then it's a pointless sentence.

I am not making light of the plight of poor and disabled people, but unless there's an fairer alternative that equally protects people's health, then the implication of the above conclusion is that our children should harm their health in the interest of social justice, and I don't subscribe to this view. Personal opinion.