You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Although personally I would go further and say that it is a problem which is currently resolving itself. As I have repeatedly pointed out that are less pre 2007 petrol vehicles and pre 2015 diesel vehicles on the roads every day.
So the children who are impacted disproportionately by air pollution should be patient and allow market forces to dictate the pace of change?
The Tory candidate for the next London mayoral election makes Liz Truss look smart.
But I bet Liz Truss can't carry out a full service on a car.
So the children who are impacted disproportionately by air pollution should be patient and allow market forces to dictate the pace of change?
Yeah, like the leader of the Labour Party I don't care if children and little babies die. Well spotted.
Not everyone can afford the luxury of investing money and buying vehicles with the very latest technology
When you say “the very latest technology”, you mean cars with 20-year-old petrol engines? I don’t live in the shit-hole that is London but something that makes it better for everyone can only be a good thing.
To clarify some of the points made above, the value of Euro-5 diesel cars has indeed plummeted in London and the surrounding areas, but they’ve held their value in the rest of the country. Drive down to Devon and swap it for a petrol version at pretty much zero cost. Source: 2 minutes on Autotrader.
Londoners need to get their heads around the fact that they have an enormously disproportionate amount of money invested in them for transport compared to the rest of the UK and that they’ve effectivel been paid off multiple times already.
And on top of this it’s pissing me off that people who should know better are jumping on the “but it’s an attack on the poor” bandwagon in order to object to it without using the line “I’m too cheap too pay or too lazy to use public transport, and don’t give a damn about other people’s health”.
Edit: oh, and EVs don’t produce brake dust. But I still wouldn’t let private ones into London.
When you say “the very latest technology”, you mean cars with 20-year-old petrol engines? I don’t live in the shit-hole that is London but something that makes it better for everyone can only be a good thing.
No I mean vehicles that use adblue technology which has been mostly available for about the last 8 years.
And thank you for your honesty in expressing the view that the city which I live in is a "shit-hole".
Edit: oh, and EVs don’t produce brake dust
Doesn't that rather depend how hard you're braking? I thought they did regenerative braking up to a certain point (as I suspect my MHEV does), but then good old hydraulic discs took over if you mash the pedal (which is where the bigger/heavier issue comes in).
And thank you for your honesty in expressing the view that the city which I live in is a “shit-hole”.
I mean, if it helps it’s still marginally better than Aylesbury.
Look at the people objecting to ULEZ. We’re talking Nigel Farage, Lawrence Fox, the Tories, Kier Starmer, the white-haired Brexit Brigade, anti-vaxxers, anti-LTN groups… basically everyone who doesn’t give a damn about other people. You have to ask yourself whether you’d trust their opinion on anything else, and why you agree with them about ULEZ.
Brake dust - basically you have to stamp on the anchors to get the mechanical brakes engaged on a pure EV and it just doesn’t happen in normal driving. The brake pedal in my Model 3 still has the protective paper sticker from the factory on it because I’ve only pushed it in anger once in two years. Everything else is just lifting off the accelerator.
Look at the people objecting to ULEZ. We’re talking Nigel Farage, Lawrence Fox, the Tories, Kier Starmer, the white-haired Brexit Brigade, anti-vaxxers, anti-LTN groups… basically everyone who doesn’t give a damn about other people. You have to ask yourself whether you’d trust their opinion on anything else, and why you agree with them about ULEZ.
Not very long ago I was being told on here that ulez was Boris Johnson's brainchild and that the ulez expansion was being forced on to Londoners by the current right-wing Tory government.
Now it is being suggested that if you don't support ulez you are jumping into bed with bigots and racists.
Yeah, like the leader of the Labour Party I don’t care if children and little babies die. Well spotted.
seems an odd response. Are you saying I misquoted you or took your comments out of context?
Now it is being suggested that if you don’t support ulez you are jumping into bed with bigots and racists.
Possibly that's overstating it, but if you find yourself on the same side as e.g. Laurence Fox or Piers Corbyn maybe it's time to stop and think?
Now it is being suggested that if you don’t support ulez you are jumping into bed with bigots and racists.
Given that the bigots and racists listed earlier also turned on Boris Johnson and routinely attack the Government, I'd still agree that if you're anti-ULEZ, you're associated with a bunch of bigots and racists.
A while ago, they hijacked various anti-LTN protests and the anti-LTN lot were overjoyed at this swelling of support before it all got called out for what it was - a bunch of right wing thugs. Khan even said as much, something along the lines of "be careful who you're associating with, there's an element of far right conspiracy ****s got in amongst all this" and the anti-LTN lot went mental because they thought Khan had called them far right conspiracy ****s - he hasn't, he'd simply pointed out, entirely correctly, that they were standing alongside far right conspiracy ****s and this was not helping the overall "look" of the protests.
Now it is being suggested that if you don’t support ulez you are jumping into bed with bigots and racists.
Not my intention. The point I’m trying to make is that the said bigots and racists don’t tend to oppose something for altruistic reasons.
You mean the thing that materially reduced the obesity rate among girls?
The same researchers found a squadron of pigs flying over Beachy Head.
I pop back on here just to see how the debate is going…
Just to be absolutely clear, the external cost of cars (i.e. cost to society) is not currently reflected in the cost of driving. The external costs include road building, cost of road traffic accidents, health costs from poor air quality and also from obesity, reduced efficiency of other forms of transport (eg slowing down buses, putting people off cycling). And that’s before the carbon emissions which will cost us all a huge amount in the long term or the spatial issues where areas of land are required for car storage rather than more useful activities.
Trying to bring the cost of driving into line with its impacts is going to be difficult. We’ve become very dependent on cars (particularly in the UK). As with everything that we’ve become unhealthily dependent on, there are various ways to reduce that. Bringing up costs, making it less convenient, increasing restrictions (in particular on the aspects that are most damaging) are all approaches. I think the ULEZ falls within this - particularly as it will raise revenue for TFL which provides the only comprehensive public transport system within the UK and thus provides alternatives to cars.
On the ‘I have to use my car for work’ issue - employers should be providing access to compliant pool cars. The use of ‘grey fleet’ ie personal cars for work is not ideal. Employers are responsible for the state of the vehicles used in the course of work and should already be doing risk assessments and vehicle checks if they are insisting on personal vehicle use. This tends to tilt the risk reward equation in favour of providing employees with vehicles rather than relying on personal cars. Even small employers can do this without huge overheads through car club solutions.
The brake pedal in my Model 3 still has the protective paper sticker from the factory on it because I’ve only pushed it in anger once in two years. Everything else is just lifting off the accelerator.
That's not strictly true in most cars. You may not be pressing the pedal, but the friction brakes are working otherwise you'd never end up coming to a stop. In most EVs and hybrids, you signal to the car how fast you want to stop, either via the brake pedal or throttle (or, bizarrely, the steering wheel paddles on my Hyundai) and the car always uses regeneration to slow down unless that cannot meet your request then it uses friction brakes. The amount of regenerative braking available depends on your speed, so you could slow down at a certain rate on the motorway using regen only, but not around town. If you look at your discs they will show signs of having been used.
That said, they are used far less, and last much much longer. So you probably get I dunno, 1/3 or 1/4 of the brake wear on an EV.
Just to be absolutely clear, the external cost of cars (i.e. cost to society) is not currently reflected in the cost of driving.
True, but there is also a societal benefit to personal mobility. It means that businesses are more able to get the skills they need, and people are more able to get better jobs. Both these things have a major economic benefit. On top of that, individual car ownership works very well when the population density is very low, so that means people in rural areas can still work for example in professional jobs whose locations are not local to them. This brings money into comnunities that would otherwise have disappeared because their traditional sources of employment are no longer viable.
So the debate is very complex. Before you argue with me I'm hugely in favour of public transport and I would spent a load of money on it if I were in charge, even if that money wasn't recovered; but we would also need a high degree of social engineering and planning to get this to work. By adopting a laissez-faire approach since the 60s we have caused these problems we now have.
Doesn’t that rather depend how hard you’re braking? I thought they did regenerative braking up to a certain point (as I suspect my MHEV does), but then good old hydraulic discs took over if you mash the pedal (which is where the bigger/heavier issue comes in).
Early regen equipped cars would only go up to ~1m/s2 of decel and then switch over to friction. It moved to about 2m/s2 when the rules around system safety were updated about 5 years ago. That branched to "regen braking on accel pedal lift" (2m/s2) and "regen braking on brake pedal press" (up to ~4m/s2) in 2021 ish. That's what most current cars have, plus brake blending, so the car can switch back and forth with minimal fuss. Braking on accel pedal is unlikely to change (as it's hard to drive with more than ~2m/s2). But regen on brake pedal will get up to about 6m/s2 with cars currently in development.
Just to put those numbers into perspective, approx 98% of pedal braking is covered in that range. Even in shitholes. Bigger/heavier isn't generally an issue as they also have bigger motors, batteries and invertors, which will allow more regen (the battery and invertor are generally the limiting factors). I'd have to go back through my notes to check the exact numbers.
Biggest issue around brakes at the moment in EVs is *lack* of use. Many manufacturers are experimenting with (and rolling out to the public) various corrosion resistant materials and extra cleaning strategies to get the rust off. And i've seen some very speculative proposals around deleting rear braking systems in EVs.
Tyre dust is also becoming less of an issue, despite the vehicles being heavier. The wheel speed (under both acceleration and deceleration) can be controlled *far* more accurately than it can with an ICE/Friction brake setup. There is the capability to do proper full bore launches in proper performance cars with *almost* zero wheelspin. And all the expensive, difficult, complicated stuff is software. Same goes for braking (but that's a little harder.) Can't do that with ICE/ABS as they are far too slow to react.
FWIW some of the EV race cars are experimenting with some *really* weird braking and traction control systems. Will be interesting times.
And i’ve seen some very speculative proposals around deleting rear braking systems in EVs.
That went *really* well in formula e 🙂
Interesting post mert thanks.
Also seems to be the case that low rolling resistance tyres, with added silica in the compound seem to be much longer lasting. I wonder if 20mph limits will reduce tyre wear?
That went *really* well in formula e
You'd hope that most personal cars aren't driven at formula e speeds ever. In fact, if changing car design to reduce the available friction breaking, you could could limit speeds at the same time (and about time to).
Just on the ‘rural people need cars’ point… I currently live in rural France, in a village of 450 people, 10km from the nearest town (6,000 people) and 50km from the nearest city (100,000). I mainly work remotely so my income doesn’t depend on car ownership and I spend it locally (on food … the village cafe is excellent, as are the markets).
This isn’t ‘so no one should have a car’. I think what I’d like to see in the UK is a French style commitment to public transport. It works better for the country as a whole because more people have access to mobility.
Whilst living in the countryside entirely without a car would be limiting, it’s by no means essential here - I e-bike to the market for the shopping, and to the dentists. There’s a bus that connects with the train for longer trips. I recently had a client meeting in Paris which I went door-to-door by bus and train. I guess my income contributes to the French economy so Monsieur Macron is getting a return on this investment…
A major blocker for people biking from where I live in the suburbs is the layout of the roads, not even the existence of cycling facilities. It's shit for cars too, but also shit for cycling and even busses.
We could solve this with bus and cycling corridors. There is even the land available for it. And I don't just mean some white lines or a blue sign on a footpath through the park, I mean a proper new road that goes where it needs to go but that only has busses and bikes on it.
Londoners need to get their heads around the fact that they have an enormously disproportionate amount of money invested in them for transport compared to the rest of the UK and that they’ve effectivel been paid off multiple times already.
^ this I agree with.
Government spending on transport per capita UK 2022, by region. In 2021/22, transport spending in London was 1,212 British pounds per capita, compared with just 394 pounds per head in the East Midlands
^ the thing is while London does get a lot more spent on public transport and infrastructure I struggle to criticise - because car use is falling and all public or active travel is increasing. Perhaps a reflection of the investment in alternatives - and that carrot is being followed up by the stick of ULEZ....
Government spending on transport per capita UK 2022, by region. In 2021/22, transport spending in London was 1,212 British pounds per capita, compared with just 394 pounds per head in the East Midlands
That doesn't come close to telling the true story though because, as alluded to earlier in the thread, there's very little long term plan or strategy and vast sums of that money are simply pissed up the wall.
I detest the whole "we'll spend £10 per head of population on cycling" attitude as though that'll magically fix everything. What happens is that £9.95 per head of population goes on consulting and trying to come up with an "innovative" design (instead of something that actually ****ing works) and publicity and more consultations and finally some procurement and then some design and project scope changes which require some re-procurement and eventually the remaining 5p per head of population gets spent on some white lines along a bit of pavement.
Same sort of thing happens in rail (HS2 being an astoundingly good example), trams (Edinburgh trams being the absolute gold standard in pissing public money around the place and getting not very much in return), buses (bendy buses)....
I feel like transport should be in that "unreasonable work requests" thread for the amount of money it can waste and the constant changes to project spec that get lumped on it.
Wouldn't be half as much uproar over ULEZ if companies weren't forcing people back into the office, which would also cut down on emissions, but hey what do I know 👀
That doesn’t come close to telling the true story though
Garden Bridge
Bridge to France
Bridge from Ireland to Scotland
New airport in the Thames Estuary...
I wonder if there's a connection between all these?
Should the country get the same per capita everywhere on public transport spending?
Clearly big cities have much greater need due to having many more people who are very difficult to move around, and the solutions are far more expensive. London couldn't function without the tube, and that costs money to keep up. And the GDP per capita in London is way higher than in the East Midlands (about double).
I'm not offering an answer either way, but it's not as simple as 'oh look they get more money spent on their transport than we do'. I suspect that London needs a lot more money spent on transport, but the East Midlands needs more money spent on other things and transport is a bit further down the list.
Wouldn’t be half as much uproar over ULEZ if companies weren’t forcing people back into the office
I know. I mean yes there might be issues with home working but forcing people back to the office is not the solution, IMO. It's the lazy easy thing for companies to do, but it's the employees and society that bears the brunt.
Wouldn’t be half as much uproar over ULEZ if companies weren’t forcing people back into the office, which would also cut down on emissions, but hey what do I know 👀
It didn't lower emissions at all. People still drive - if anything even more than "drive to work, park all day, drive home" because now they're WFH, they're often doing small "quick" local trips - they'll just nip to the shops or just pop out to meet a friend or they'll head out and pick the kids up cos it's raining.
It actually added up to more individual trips, more short journeys locally rather than one (possibly marginally longer) trip to/from the office. Home working is a bit of red herring in this - what that mostly affects is public transport use.
but if you find yourself on the same side as e.g. Laurence Fox or Piers Corbyn maybe it’s time to stop and think?
Why pick those two particular individuals and not two more high profile and better known individuals such as Andy Burnham and Keir Starmer?
Aren't Andy Burnham and Keir Starmer not looney enough for you?
Btw I have absolutely no idea at all what Laurence Fox and Piers Corbyn have said concerning ulez, nor do I care. Presumably you have and you do?
I do know what Andy Burnham and Keir Starmer have said on the issue though. Although I am not greatly influenced by their personal opinions.
It actually added up to more individual trips, more short journeys locally rather than one (possibly marginally longer) trip to/from the office
But were those trips more spread out rather than heading to central locations?
It didn’t lower emissions at all. People still drive – if anything even more than “drive to work, park all day, drive home” because now they’re WFH, they’re often doing small “quick” local trips – they’ll just nip to the shops or just pop out to meet a friend or they’ll head out and pick the kids up cos it’s raining.
Any evidence for this? During lockdown when people worked from home emissions reduced, according to the ONS
During strict lockdown no-one was going anywhere, and roads were pretty quiet, so emissions were clearly a lot lower. But there was a period where we were able to go out and businesses were open, but a lot of offices were still closed whilst people waited to see if WFH would become the norm. It's only relatively recently that companies have started asking people to come back.
Long term though, if we know that working back at the office is required, will we see people considering where the live and take jobs? Perhaps we have all got used to the commute in a car.
Maybe there is something in the 20 minute neighbourhoods/15 minute cities....?
A guy at work was moaning about the ulez charge, until I checked, and found out his 59 plate ford focus was exempt.
People complaining about this really need to get a grip, maybe, ride a bike instead 😁
Aren’t Andy Burnham and Keir Starmer not looney enough for you?
Possibly they’re carefully targeting the silent Tory voters who will turn their backs on them if they publicly support ULEZ?
I don’t think you can really trust Starmer. He seems to be as bad as any incumbent at changing his mind depending on which way the opinion polls are blowing.
Long term though, if we know that working back at the office is required, will we see people considering where the live and take jobs? Perhaps we have all got used to the commute in a car.
The whole reason that a ULEZ is now needed is because society has evolved (with a lot of help from car-centric policies over the decades) to a situation where people can live in the nice pleasant suburbs and commute relatively cheaply to their workplace. Public transport has not (generally) kept pace with the evolution so driving remains the cheap, easy option and more and more people do that.
As society is driven entirely by the wealthy and privileged, as they've moved further out of town to the nice country house but still want to retain their access to a s****y city centre office, that has been enabled via cheap/free car parking on site, the convenience and status of the car and lots of road building programmes with very limited thought or care about public transport, network integration, walking and cycling etc.
And now everyone is wondering why the air is really polluted.
ULEZ (CAZ, LEZ etc) are all answers to decades of failed car-centric policies.
Possibly they’re carefully targeting the silent Tory voters who will turn their backs on them if they publicly support ULEZ?
Or perhaps they just believe that right now during a cost of living crises isn't the best time to add further financial burdens on struggling lower income families......is that a possibility?
It is certainly what Andy Burnham claims. And with over three times more votes than his Tory rival at the last Manchester mayoral election I very much doubt that Burnham is particularly worried about "silent Tory voters".
What does Piers Corbyn have to say on the issue?
Long term though, if we know that working back at the office is required, will we see people considering where the live and take jobs?
It's fashionable to blame people for having a job in X and choosing to live miles away in Y, and whilst some people clearly take the piss it's not always that straightforward as we've discussed before.
A lot of people change jobs more often than they change houses, because they can and they often need to. Moving is expensive and difficult, and can be very disruptive if you have kids. Changing jobs much less so - and sometimes it's essential. You lose one job, or you can't stand it any more, and you have to find something else quickly. And whilst you might try to find something with public transport, it doesn't always work out.
Or perhaps they just believe that right now during a cost of living crises isn’t the best time to add further financial burdens on struggling lower income families……is that a possibility?
While I do agree - I think we will all be poorer long term if/when the full impact of climate change kicks in. And I think we are already poorer as the cost to the NHS, the environment and society is not really met through our current cost of driving....
A lot of people change jobs more often than they change houses, because they can and they often need to. Moving is expensive and difficult, and can be very disruptive if you have kids. Changing jobs much less so – and sometimes it’s essential. You lose one job, or you can’t stand it any more, and you have to find something else quickly. And whilst you might try to find something with public transport, it doesn’t always work out.
Again I hear you and agree - but also wonder if long term the serial job swapping which has been enabled by the ability to commute by car to anywhere easily will start to reduce.
With my extreme glass-half-full mode on, this is doable and in fact needed for us all and the planet.
With my glass-half-empty mode on we are all screwed financially and environmentally anyway....
And whilst you might try to find something with public transport, it doesn’t always work out.
Yup, i future proofed myself. Then they took all the buses away, so i can't even get to the station without driving/parking.
The same researchers found a squadron of pigs flying over Beachy Head.
"Yeah, well, like, you can prove anything with facts, can't you?" 🙄
As society is driven entirely by the wealthy and privileged, as they’ve moved further out of town to the nice country house but still want to retain their access to a s****y city centre office, that has been enabled via cheap/free car parking on site, the convenience and status of the car and lots of road building programmes with very limited thought or care about public transport, network integration, walking and cycling etc.
None of that is true in London and wonder where it is true. In my last 3 workplaces (total population about 7,000), there were 0, 1 and ~20 parking places available for the "wealthy and privileged".
None of that is true in London and wonder where it is true. In my last 3 workplaces (total population about 7,000), there were 0, 1 and ~20 parking places available for the “wealthy and privileged”.
Our office has 2000 spaces for 2000 people.
Oddly we actually have quite a high proportion of cycling (4%ish).
Plans are ongoing to move office which will reduce that to about 350 spaces, the collective gnashing of teeth has been a boom for the local dental industry.
Again I hear you and agree – but also wonder if long term the serial job swapping which has been enabled by the ability to commute by car to anywhere easily will start to reduce.
There's a correlation Vs causation argument I suppose.
People swap jobs, or take "better" jobs elsewhere because commuting by car is cheap.
Commuting by car is cheap because you expect to already have a car.
You're expected to already have a car because even small towns are built around them (e.g. my previous point about Reading, to get to the town center shops I have to ride past 4 miles of mostly car parks, if it wasn't for car dependency then the distances would be smaller).
If we discourage cars, then we discourage long commutes, which means we discourage big conglomerated regional offices in favor of smaller local ones. Those offices are then in smaller towns that themselves (geographically) shrink because no one needs a toy shop with 1000 car park spaces and a Burger King with 200 anymore when they can walk to a toy shop and restaurant on the high street.
Yeah, well, like, you can prove anything with facts, can’t you?”
Unfortunately the study depends upon a dubious counterfactual rather than facts.
Again I hear you and agree – but also wonder if long term the serial job swapping which has been enabled by the ability to commute by car to anywhere easily will start to reduce.
Maybe, but that ability to find work and for companies to get the workers they need has grown the economy, and if you want people to move less whilst still being able to find workers you need to come up with another solution. Like.. remote working for example.
You hear about people not being able to find skilled workers - this is related to mobility. If we could all teleport anywhere in the country they they'd have a bigger pool of workers to choose from - and we'd have a better choices of jobs. Where I live is a good example - Cardiff's not a particularly small place but the business that employ software engineers here are small and local. They don't pay that well, and they do not do particularly big-time projects usually. It's also a small pool, so the opportunities for progression are less. And there are also very few jobs available. I've tried many times over the years of living here. However, I can get something more interesting, better paying and more suitable to my skills if I travel further.
As society is driven entirely by the wealthy and privileged, as they’ve moved further out of town to the nice country house but still want to retain their access to a s****y city centre office,
Yeah, they have, but they aren't the issue. In a typical business there are only a couple of wealthy privileged people working there. Often the people struggling across the city or from miles away are the people who had to take that job because they had nothing else and didn't have the savings to fall back on until they found something local.
People swap jobs, or take “better” jobs elsewhere because commuting by car is cheap.
Right, and without mobility, we'd be forced more to take worse jobs. Or employers could exploit us more because they'd have more power over us.
Remember I'm not advocating the status quo, I'm saying why we need mobility. Which is why governments need to provide it, or organise things better, not just let us all buy cars and get stuck in traffic jams buggering everything up.
What does Piers Corbyn have to say on the issue?
Dunno. But it looks like he was at the protests, so you and he are of the same mindset.
It does seem quite simple.
A> Poison children.
Or
B> Use a slightly newer car, a bike, your legs, a ride-share, work from home, or public transport and let the children live.
I mean, if you care about deprived children so little that you want to keep poisoning them it’s actually a very reasonable £12.50 for the privilege.
Our office has 2000 spaces for 2000 people.
Where, though?
I mean, if you care about deprived children so little that you want to keep poisoning them....
Are we back to the "you don't care about killing children"? Yeah I don't care about killing children, nor does the mayor of Manchester or the current leader of the Labour Party. Now that I agree with that claim no need to bring up again.
But it looks like he was at the protests, so you and he are of the same mindset.
I wasn't at a protest which Piers Corbyn allegedly attended so that puts me in the same mindset as him?
Edit: Can we expand on your logic and assume that anyone who drives on motorways is of the same mindset as Adolf Hitler because he was a huge fan of motorways/autobahns?
Should the country get the same per capita everywhere on public transport spending?
Yes.
Obviously this would still mean more spending and more provision in more densely populated areas. But the current approach of so little spending in the North of England isn’t working. It’s basically a “cars first” policy that is choking our roads and holding the country back economically.
Jesus. He’s gone full Godwin’s Law now. This could be an interesting thread with the removal of one poster.
He only said Hitler, not the N word.
Edit: Can we expand on your logic and assume that anyone who drives on motorways is of the same mindset as Adolf Hitler because he was a huge fan of motorways/autobahns?
Should the country get the same per capita everywhere on public transport spending?
Yes.
No, obviously not. Costs are much lower in some parts of the country, and some parts of the country are hubs through which people from all over the country pass.
Yeah the full Godwin, because claiming that anyone who doesn't support the ulez expansion under the current circumstances doesn't care about poisoning children is proper rational debating.
As is the claim that because Piers Corbyn and Lawrence Fox (I'm not sure who the **** he is) allegedly supports something it means that no right minded person should. But apparently if it has the support of the Labour mayor of Manchester that, strangely, doesn't count.
Some people don't believe that now was the time to expand ulez. It doesn't necessarily make them bigots who want to see children poisoned.
A couple of years ago Sadiq Khan chose to expand the ulez zone to cover all vehicles only within Inner London, he chose not to expand it, at that time, to Greater London, was he compared to Nigel Farage or accused of not caring about the health of children ffs?
The only reason he didn't go beyond Inner London was because he chose not to.
Edit: And btw I will repeat that a couple of weeks ago here on stw I was told that ulez was Tory policy - the brainchild of Boris Johnson and the expansion forced onto Londoners by the current Tory government. Today if you don't fully support it it makes you as bad as Nigel Farage and Piers Corbyn.
Unless apparently you are the Leader of the Labour Party or Mayor of Manchester.
ULEZ are just another smack in the face for the repressed hardworking British motorist. Too long have we been sidelined and troddon on, our already highly vulnerable rights undermined. I applaud those brave heros who dismantle the infrastructure of our oppression. Like 20mph urban speed limits, seat belts, and the appalling LTNs, ULEZ are just the beginning of an outrageous and sustained attack on the Great British motorist. We must resist people or soon we will wake up and find ourselves in some sort of socialist nightmare.
e.g. my previous point about Reading, to get to the town center shops
The cycle lanes are particularly hilariously done in Reading aren’t they?
As is the claim that because Piers Corbyn and Lawrence Fox (I’m not sure who the **** he is) allegedly supports something it means that no right minded person should.
That is a case of whose side are you one. No it doesn't mean anything by default but if a load of horrible ****ers are in favour of or are against something it is quite telling. They may be on the 'right' side on this one but all that has gone before would suggest otherwise.
anyone who drives on motorways is of the same mindset as Adolf Hitler because he was a huge fan of motorways/autobahns?
I was always suspicious of people who liked motorways and now I know why, those Nazi bastards.
Not just motorways - anyone remember watching Heimat (if not, then do - best thing ever on the telly). An Operation Todt road building team turns up in the village in the 1934 episode (Edward, dein lung!). The road they built is real, a rather enjoyable "A road" standard.
Autobahns were developed under the Weimar Republic, so it's actually democracy that's poisoning children.
Makes you think. And cough.
Heimat - best thing ever on the telly
Yep 👍
Well if I am to use that as a basis of I should stand with regards to ulez expansion kerley then I have been assured on stw that the whole ulez idea was Boris Johnson's, a man who I am also assured on here has never had a good idea.
I have also been told on here that the ulez expansion was forced onto the Mayor of London by the current Tory government which made it a condition of financial support for TfL. A Tory government which I am assured on stw is extreme, right-wing, racist, and bigoted.
Is this not therefore sufficient reason to oppose the ulez expansion?
The problem of course is that people choose to be extremely selective. Piers Corbyn, a totally inconsequential conspiracy theorist is trotted out because apparently he is opposed to the ulez expansion, whilst the views of the man who will very likely be UK prime minister in a couple of years time are totally dismissed as being unimportant.
And all the more surprising when you consider there is one individual on here who appears to believe that every position that Keir Starmer takes is the correct one.
Even the veiws of the current Mayor of London are dismissed as being of no relevance if they don't sit comfortably into their preferred narrative.
In October 2021 Sadiq Khan decided that ulez should not be expanded into the outer London boroughs, despite the fact that exactly the same vehicles were available to those living in outer London as to those living in inner London. At no time do I recall people claiming that he didn't care about the health of children in outer London,
And yet now almost two years later, when there are even less non compliant vehicles in outer London, if you don't think it is the right time to expand ulez you are labelled as someone who doesn't care about children dying.
Or perhaps they just believe that right now during a cost of living crises isn’t the best time to add further financial burdens on struggling lower income families……is that a possibility?
More likely they will say whatever they believe to be politically convenient.
More likely they will say whatever they believe to be politically convenient.
Are you suggesting that an ulez would be unpopular in Manchester? It would have to be extremely unpopular as Andy Burnham received more than three times the votes of his nearest political rival last mayoral election.
Don't the people of Manchester care about the health of their children? Don't they care that Piers Corbyn is opposed to ulez?
Don’t the people of Manchester care about the health of their children? Don’t they care that Piers Corbyn is opposed to ulez?
Don't know why you're talking about Piers Corbyn. I was talking about Keir Starmer, leader of the Labour Party, who has form for abandoning commitments when it's politically advantageous. Still, as you say, it could be because of a genuinely held concern about ULEZ and not that it could cost him a few votes.
Where, though?
Reading, London commuter belt.
The cycle lanes are particularly hilariously done in Reading aren’t they?
There are some absolute f****** jokes.
It's like Reading (Lab) and Wokingham (Con for the last few centuries, now a Lib lead coalition as of this year) are having a competition to see who can spaff the most money on the worst cycle path.
Recent highlights include:
Shinfield road, with a tarmac surface so rough it'll take your fillings out, convenient as I cant get a dentist. Kerbs at acute angles to crash you, and it literally just ends at a junction/pinch point meaning you'll get smushed by a car if you use it as intended. Terifyingly they seem very proud of it and this is just phase 1 of doing the entire Shinfield road which could have, if done well, actually been a really useful arterial cycle route.
Wokingham Road (Reading), 90% useless shared path with a million driveways and side roads, 10% downright dangerous magic paint past parked cars.
Reading Road (Wokingham), magic paint in all the wrong places, no help around junctions.
Reading Bridge, it's so narrow they can't even fit the bike symbols in it.
London Road (Wokingham), I rode it once and actually got nauseous as the shared path undulates up and down past a million driveways. It's set back from the road so far that they could have made it flat, but they didn't.
The only good bit they've done is they accidentally made Reading Road (Arborfield) a nice place to cycle when they made it an LTN-lite by adding give-way chicanes on blind bends making it outright terrifying to drive so people would use the new bypass.
Are you suggesting that an ulez would be unpopular in Manchester? It would have to be extremely unpopular as Andy Burnham received more than three times the votes of his nearest political rival last mayoral election.
Don’t the people of Manchester care about the health of their children? Don’t they care that Piers Corbyn is opposed to ulez?
As someone has pointed out above AB is beholden to the GM council leaders to get anything done though (as he has far less power than Khan) and in places like Bolton a bit of CAZ backlash might be enough to turn the council from Lab to Con.
The absence of any meaningful plan is poor though, and frankly if he's so sure a non-charging zone is going to work, why won't he trial it in the two boroughs with the worst air quality (and coincidentally unassailable Lab majorities) ie. Manchester and Salford?
While I do agree – I think we will all be poorer long term if/when the full impact of climate change kicks in.
Exactly why we shouldn't be doing ULEZ... as it has nothing to do with climate change. (at least not in any good way)
Molgrips
A lot of people change jobs more often than they change houses, because they can and they often need to. Moving is expensive and difficult, and can be very disruptive if you have kids. Changing jobs much less so – and sometimes it’s essential. You lose one job, or you can’t stand it any more, and you have to find something else quickly. And whilst you might try to find something with public transport, it doesn’t always work out.
Ultimately the poorest change jobs mostly because they have to.
ULEZ specifically targets the poorest in and around outer London.
ULEZ claims a very high percentage of cars are already exempt... (like the 3.5L landrover Khan drives) so its fairly obviously those who are driving older cars who can't afford anything else to drive to their minimum wage job who are going to be hit most.
As an exercise take a look at the map and note how many hospitals they managed to include.
It's not going to make any difference to the consultant driving their Tesla in from their garage but the nurses and porters who already get charged to park at work for the pleasure of anti-social shifts without public transport.
ratherbeintobago Andy Burnham appears to prefer the carrot approach to the stick approach, which is precisely what I would expect to differentiate a Labour politician from a Tory politician. IE instead of financially penalising those struggling during a cost of living crises helping them by giving them financial support.
An incoming Labour government should make a commitment to provide assistance, nationwide, to those who voluntarily scrap their older non compliant vehicles. If it is deemed that waiting for natural scrappage is not an option. That should be part of a "meaningful plan". Why did the Labour leadership say nothing beyond that Sadiq Khan "should think again"?
TBF after Uxbridge Sadiq Khan accepted that there should be an element of the carrot. Although by making it compulsory there is still a strong stick element as people will still be financially worse off if the value of their vehicles and the cost to replace them exceeds the compensation which they receive. And of course Sadiq Khan will still be relying on the revenue which he will be receiving from non compliant vehicles which every now and again enter the zone from the Home Counties.
While I do agree – I think we will all be poorer long term if/when the full impact of climate change kicks in.
Exactly why we shouldn’t be doing ULEZ… as it has nothing to do with climate change. (at least not in any good way)
I don’t understand how encouraging people to scrap perfectly good cars and buy a new one to avoid paying the ULEZ charge is supposed to be good for the environment.
I don’t understand how encouraging people to scrap perfectly good cars and buy a new one to avoid paying the ULEZ charge is supposed to be good for the environment.
It's a little more complex. Cars get scrapped all the time, this could be just ensuring the worst ones get scrapped. Or maybe decent cars that are non compliant will just get sold to people who don't live in ULEZ zones.
I don’t understand how encouraging people to scrap perfectly good cars and buy a new one to avoid paying the ULEZ charge is supposed to be good for the environment.
good for the environment is a marketing term... it means nothing or whatever someone wants it to mean.
Specifically though what is good for air quality is not the same as good for climate change.
It’s a little more complex. Cars get scrapped all the time, this could be just ensuring the worst ones get scrapped. Or maybe decent cars that are non compliant will just get sold to people who don’t live in ULEZ zones.
Thats a lot of could, ifs and maybes for an allegedly well thought out environmental policy.
Or maybe decent cars that are non compliant will just get sold to people who don’t live in ULEZ zones.
I had a perfectly decent but non compliant diesel euro 5 BMW 320 estate. I bought, privately, for £6.1k a diesel euro 6 Peugeot 308 estate to replace it from a guy in Hemel Hempstead, the seller needed the cash.
I sold my car to him for £1.5k, it was easily worth £3k before ulez. The guy wanted it because it was a very decent car for very little money and he has no intention of driving it into the London zone.
Nothing much has changed, both cars are being driven daily as they were before. The only significant difference is that I am a few thousand pounds worse off and some geezer in Hemel Hempstead is a few thousand pounds better off.
I sold my car to him for £1.5k, it was easily worth £3k
before ulezin the past when it was less old.
Fixed that for you. Cars depreciate. If there is now faster localised deprecation on those cars not suitable for driving in densely populated areas because of their emissions... well...
You haven't fixed anything for me. The £3k wasn't it's value when it was new, but thanks for the lesson deprecation anyway. The car was spotless, and a BMW diesel with 14k on the clock is worth a lot more than £1.5k. Well it would have been if it wasn't because of ulez.
Think of the wider society, the kids of working class families growing up with the pollution in outer London. Policy should be set to help them, not everything should be about protecting the wealth of retired folk.
Thats a lot of could, ifs and maybes for an allegedly well thought out environmental policy.
Which have nothing to do with said policy.
Once again, for the hard of thinking - ULEZ is concerned with local air quality ie. Nitrogen oxides, unburnt hydrocarbons and particulate emissions. Not global greenhouse emissions.
Ernie, you were perfectly free to sell that car elsewhere and get more money for it. That you chose not to is neither here nor there, same as folk who live in butt****, nowhere and won't post bike parts don't get a good price. If you want to make good money you need to sell it to the right market. If you're too lazy then that's on you.
Also not sure how many poverty trap victims are swanning around in 14 plate BMWs.