Unbelievable !!!

[Bellow]

a. Equally, F1 cars go in circles, but the technology developed trickles-down to cars that we see on the road getting people from A to B. Clearly the idea behind all these commercial space flight is to eventually find practical means of lifting people and cargo off the planet.

That was true once but barely at all now (for reasons that I'll skip here). F1 can also be deemed a waste of energy resources and will have to adapt and may possibly not survive. Space travel on the other hand is being presented as a future and therefore will burgeon - while F1 will likely contract.

b. Theoretical question 1: Had you lived in 1903 and known then what we know now about pollution caused by aviation, would have you have campaigned for the Right bothers' enterprise to be shut-down and for government to legislate against any form of carbon-powered flight?

Look at from a very slightly different perspective. If Kitty Hawk had been nuclear powered and exposed everyone beneath its flight path to nuclear radiation - would it have been allowed to continue?
To answer your question more directly - possibly. Or at least seek to place less reliance on it for global necessities and question it's purely recreational use.

c. I am not sure that the majority of humanity share your view that mankind is destined to live and die on planet Earth.

Really?

d. If you what you are suggesting about MAD is correct, that it is very depressing, and I would argue that it produced more harm than a nuclear war would. It means that as a precondition of our coexisting on this planet, we must never ever leave it.

Until we rid the world of sociopaths - or at least keep them out of power - possibly so.

Perhaps in the same way that a truce with Germany in 1940 would have condemned most of Europe to living under Nazism for the next thousand years - an actual nuclear war would have been horrific (WW2 was) but at the same time it would have ended MAD and allowed us to travel to the starts.

That's some assumption there - of surviving a nuclear war, being in a position to successfully navigate galaxies, prevent re-proliferation of nuclear weapons here, and prevent a repeat of MAD. I'm not so sanguine that nuclear war delivers such positive outcomes. It's just a teensy bit more destructive than that.

 

[Bellow]

I’m LOVING that this thread got to here from a letter about the London ULEZ...

Thread drift - all the way to space and back. To land in the same spot....

 

[chic0821]

Wish I had never mentioned that #### letter

 

[markjay]

Until we rid the world of sociopaths - or at least keep them out of power - possibly so.

I have a degree in Psychology and I think I am qualified to answer that - not gonna happen, ever...

 

[Piff]

This may be a bit simplistic, but surely if we are looking to reduce pollution (and/or congestion) in cities we should be banning the vehicles/polluters rather than still allowing them in and charging for the privilege.
Alternate means of transporting people & goods must be found.
Whenever I visit London I either go by train or I drive to the outskirts, park up and use the tube.

 

[Darrell]

Where does the money go??

 

[markjay]

This may be a bit simplistic, but surely if we are looking to reduce pollution (and/or congestion) in cities we should be banning the vehicles/polluters rather than still allowing them in and charging for the privilege.
Alternate means of transporting people & goods must be found.
Whenever I visit London I either go by train or I drive to the outskirts, park up and use the tube.

Agreed.

There are cities (Oxford, Edinburgh, etc) where private vehicles are banned from city centres. I would support schemes like this in most large cities, plus more streets converted to pedestrian areas. With the necessary improvements in public transport, obviously.

There would still be residential areas though, where banning private cars altogether would be difficult. What they have done in some parts of London, is convert residential streets so that one side is blocked for private vehicles (enforced by a camera), meaning that in practice only residents will actually drive into these streets, eliminating through-traffic. This measure will reduce pollution in these residential areas.

As for ULEZ... I guess it was a practical compromise, a measure that didn't go far enough. It may have seemed too harsh banning the worst polluting cars altogether, due to the sheer numbers that are still being driven on our roads.

 

[m80]

To combat the pollution from cars better filtration has been recognised as one answer.

We have become used to wearing face filters, people just need wear better ones.

Helmet, duck, who said that?

 

[markjay]

To combat the pollution from cars better filtration has been recognised as one answer.

We have become used to wearing face filters, people just need wear better ones.

Helmet, duck, who said that?

 

[m80]

More advantages.
No more looking at ugly people.
Can't hear the inane dribble from so many, in fact politicians speeches would be massively improved.
No more "wot r u lookin' at".
No more wolf whistles from builders to annoy young women, for 2 reasons there.
Not gonna put yer glasses down and sit on 'em.
innovation possibilities of BT music within.

 

[Rpp999]

I don’t understand this.
Their cars are both Euro 6 and they park on public roads so what are they having to fork out an extra £250 a month on each?

Because of the change to the congestion charges to 24 hours a day, before they could adjust their shift start and finish times to suit.

 

[markjay]

Because of the change to the congestion charges to 24 hours a day, before they could adjust their shift start and finish times to suit.

It was changed from Mon-Fri 07:00-18:00, to 7-days 07:00-22:00. So not quite '24 hours', but nevertheless a considerable increase in the time window is covers.

The change wasn't pollution-related, BTW, instead it was COVID-related - the idea was to make-up the shortfall in Congestion Charge revenues following the various lockdowns during 2020 which saw a significant decline in traffic in Central London (and much better air quality, obviously).

On the same note, the London Congestion Charge should not be confused with air quality. We have ULEZ specifically addressing the latter. The Congestion Charge's immediate aim has always been simply to reduce traffic congestion, as the name implies. Its secondary official aim was to reduce CO2 emissions (which are not harmful to humans). The improvement in air quality was an expected outcome resulting from the reduction in traffic, but it wasn't an issue that was directly addressed by the CC until very recently, when EVs became exempt from the Charge - the obvious contradiction being that encouraging EVs into Central London by exempting them from the CC (and providing near-free parking) will improve air quality but will also bring back traffic congestion.

 

[m80]

It was changed from Mon-Fri 07:00-18:00, to 7-days 07:00-22:00. So not quite '24 hours', but nevertheless a considerable increase in the time window is covers.

The change wasn't pollution-related, BTW, instead it was COVID-related - the idea was to make-up the shortfall in Congestion Charge revenues following the various lockdowns during 2020 which saw a significant decline in traffic in Central London (and much better air quality, obviously).

On the same note, the London Congestion Charge should not be confused with air quality. We have ULEZ specifically addressing the latter. The Congestion Charge's immediate aim has always been simply to reduce traffic congestion, as the name implies. Its secondary official aim was to reduce CO2 emissions (which are not harmful to humans). The improvement in air quality was an expected outcome resulting from the reduction in traffic, but it wasn't an issue that was directly addressed by the CC until very recently, when EVs became exempt from the Charge - the obvious contradiction being that encouraging EVs into Central London by exempting them from the CC (and providing near-free parking) will improve air quality but will also bring back traffic congestion.

I think your good description show the confusion/s to be understandable, especially your comments regarding EV's into the congested zone.
It also shows the incentive to enjoy revenues. EV concessions don't really contradict that as what they do to those as they increase in popularity / numbers may well demonstrate my view further.

So regardless of what the politicians tell us and how they name their initiatives seeing other motives is easy.

I wonder how much congestion would be relieved, and pollution reduced if the PM didn't stop all traffic (bad for mo mo efficiency) while 2 flippin' big mo mo's and a few m'cycles travel to and from where ever.
Then how much better would London be if 793 Lords not a leaping, 650 'M'upp'P'et's, their staff, security, their cleaners, serving plebs and aaalllllll those deliveries, were relocated to rural anywhere.

I appreciate that could impact on tourism, so they would need to be replaced with cardboard cut outs (not the support staff, they deserve respect). No one would notice.

 

[Rpp999]

It was changed from Mon-Fri 07:00-18:00, to 7-days 07:00-22:00. So not quite '24 hours', but nevertheless a considerable increase in the time window is covers.

The change wasn't pollution-related, BTW, instead it was COVID-related - the idea was to make-up the shortfall in Congestion Charge revenues following the various lockdowns during 2020 which saw a significant decline in traffic in Central London (and much better air quality, obviously).

On the same note, the London Congestion Charge should not be confused with air quality. We have ULEZ specifically addressing the latter. The Congestion Charge's immediate aim has always been simply to reduce traffic congestion, as the name implies. Its secondary official aim was to reduce CO2 emissions (which are not harmful to humans). The improvement in air quality was an expected outcome resulting from the reduction in traffic, but it wasn't an issue that was directly addressed by the CC until very recently, when EVs became exempt from the Charge - the obvious contradiction being that encouraging EVs into Central London by exempting them from the CC (and providing near-free parking) will improve air quality but will also bring back traffic congestion.

Thank you for the correction, it’s that 10pm finish time that causes the main problem in their start and finish shift times.

 

[Darrell]

Thank you for the correction, it’s that 10pm finish time that causes the main problem in their start and finish shift times.

Where do they live and work?? (Please don’t give too much away).

 

[Rpp999]

Where do they live and work?? (Please don’t give too much away).

Bexleyheath to Vauxhall soon to be West Brompton.

 

[Dazsw]

It speaks very highly of you.

We are all allowed our opinions, are we not? And it doesn't speak highly, lowly or anywhere in between with regards to myself, if you can judge a person based on that, you are very gifted.

London may be the capital, doesn't mean we have to like it, many do, many don't.

 

[Fastcar155]

Hi , I don't like the idea of tolls but what really annoyed me is how the collect the money.

Birmingham has just introduced an CAZ and looks like car crash to me.Every large city will have a different method to collect the toll.

I drive in Portugal and Portugal and have a reader placed in my car and every time a pass a collection gantry the reader pings and the toll is collected.

I pay by DD monthly from my UK bank account.

Seems easy to me.

 

[Fastcar155]

Where does the money go??

Hi , that would be telling

 

[Fastcar155]

We are all allowed our opinions, are we not? And it doesn't speak highly, lowly or anywhere in between with regards to myself, if you can judge a person based on that, you are very gifted.

London may be the capital, doesn't mean we have to like it, many do, many don't.

Hi , but for how long !