Also in the News - Part 2

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

Uxbridge people in favour of dirty air? Is there not enough public transport in that area so car use should not be required as much?

In favour of dirty air if they're convinced, by themselves or others, that it won't actually affect them in the short term - when the alternative leaves them out of pocket in some way, anyhow.

 

And if you think that's irrational, you'd be spot on.

 

2 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

Worth pointing out that Labour would likely have won comfortably if the by-election had taken place during Brunel University term time.

 

It's definitely a communication point on ULEZ - 9 out of 10 people won't need to pay it and there are 15+ year old cars out there which are ULEZ-compliant. But I think the right have been successful in bullshitting people into thinking that everyone will be paying it every time they open their car door, which needed countering.

And I can understand contesting policy of the "other guy" as a matter of course, but I cannot understand why a smart informed person would directly or indirectly advocate for greater air pollution in any case, really. Unless, of course, they thought they wouldn't have to suffer the consequences of such.

[Milo]

9 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

ULEZ - 9 out of 10 people won't need to pay it

Where’s this stat from, mate? 

[Milo]

Sharks on cocaine. 
 

 

Fvck yeah. 

[Wymsey]

London tube strikes have been called off, fortunately.

 

Am sure strikes will happen again at some point over something else the Unions aren't happy with.. 

Edited 21 July 2023 by Wymsey

[Bellend Sebastian]

33 minutes ago, Milo said:

Where’s this stat from, mate? 

I was intrigued too.

 

I imagine it's this:

 

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2023/march/over-90-per-cent-of-cars-driving-in-outer-london-now-meet-the-ulez-standards

 

I've not got a clue how the scheme works. If you drive a non-ULEZ compliant vehicle but actually live within the zone, do you have to pay or are you exempt?

[Sparrowhawk]

5 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Am sure strikes will happen again at some point over something else the Unions aren't happy with

AKA:

Am sure there will be some other issues so important to the workers that they're prepared to sacrifice pay to fight for them.

[Foxdiamond]

2 minutes ago, Sparrowhawk said:

AKA:

Am sure there will be some other issues so important to the workers that they're prepared to sacrifice pay to fight for them.

It seems some people think workers go on strike on a whim.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Foxdiamond said:

It seems some people think workers go on strike on a whim.

Or that they do it out of sadistic enjoyment rather than, you know, no other choice.

 

Of course, one of the marks of a self-centred sadist is thinking that everyone else is one too.

[Foxdiamond]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Or that they do it out of sadistic enjoyment rather than, you know, no other choice.

 

Of course, one of the marks of a self-centred sadist is thinking that everyone else is one too.

I heard Michael Portillo even thinks the balance is now too anti union in the country

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

I heard Michael Portillo even thinks the balance is now too anti union in the country

Goodness only knows what he must think of practically every other "first world" country than the US (ever the outlier), then.

[Sparrowhawk]

7 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

It seems some people think workers go on strike on a whim

 

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Or that they do it out of sadistic enjoyment rather than, you know, no other choice.

 

Of course, one of the marks of a self-centred sadist is thinking that everyone else is one too.

Never underestimate the sheer idiotic cluelessness of some people.

I once saw someone suggest that striking workers should be docked pay for every day they strike, on the grounds that 'that would stop them.'

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Sparrowhawk said:

 

Never underestimate the sheer idiotic cluelessness of some people.

I once saw someone suggest that striking workers should be docked pay for every day they strike, on the grounds that 'that would stop them.'

Churchill had it right tbh - democracy is a truly awful form of government in a fair few regards, but it's just better than every other option we have developed at the present time.

[Sparrowhawk]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Churchill had it right tbh - democracy is a truly awful form of government in a fair few regards, but it's just better than every other option we have developed at the present time.

Gandhi had it right too, when asked his opinion of western democracy, replying "I think it would be a very good idea."

 

(I have no idea if he actually said this, but it's a good quote regardless.)

[Daggers]

Sublime

 

 

[HighPeakFox]

5 minutes ago, Sparrowhawk said:

Gandhi had it right too, when asked his opinion of western democracy, replying "I think it would be a very good idea."

 

(I have no idea if he actually said this, but it's a good quote regardless.)

He also said something about not believing quotes you read on the internet, too. Or was that Abraham Lincoln?

[ealingfox]

33 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

I was intrigued too.

 

I imagine it's this:

 

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2023/march/over-90-per-cent-of-cars-driving-in-outer-london-now-meet-the-ulez-standards

 

 

 

Yep. In fact I'm being generous as of course a significant minority of Londoners don't own a vehicle at all.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Foxdiamond said:

Uxbridge people in favour of dirty air? Is there not enough public transport in that area so car use should not be required as much?

 

I'm sure that short-sighted selfishness does explain some people's attitudes, likewise the stoking of misguided anxiety through cynical misinformation as @ealingfox suggests.

 

However, my brother pointed out that the bloke he works with cannot use public transport as he needs to take heavy tools and equipment to London work sites every day, so has to pay £12 daily due to having an old, polluting vehicle.

That would be fair enough if it was made viable for people to upgrade, but by all accounts the public (central govt?) subsidies are minimal - and a new or compliant vehicle will be costly. It might be viable for wealthier folk, but less so for low-earning small traders.

It could even tilt the market in favour of big businesses that can afford to upgrade their vehicles, thereby avoiding the fees that small traders still have to pay as they cannot afford to upgrade.

 

Action is needed. But I'm guessing that the London mayor does not have the funds to dole out thousands of quid in subsidies to thousands of small traders, so either the central govt needs to provide more funds (unlikely with the current govt) or the ULEZ scheme needs to be organised differently. Otherwise, it risks (a) limiting how many polluting vehicles ULEZ gets off the road, (b) tilting the market against small businesses and (c) operating as a regressive tax.

[Milo]

1 hour ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

I was intrigued too.

 

I imagine it's this:

 

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2023/march/over-90-per-cent-of-cars-driving-in-outer-london-now-meet-the-ulez-standards

 

I've not got a clue how the scheme works. If you drive a non-ULEZ compliant vehicle but actually live within the zone, do you have to pay or are you exempt?

Good shout. 
 

Not sure I’d massively trust the source of that article, though!! 
 

If you live in the new ULEZ zone, as I do, you have to pay each day. 
 

Most of my mates will have to pay. If you forget/drive in an area unaware then you will be issued a £180 fine each time. 
 

It really has got sweet fa to do with concerns for clean air. 
 

 

 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Milo said:

Good shout. 
 

Not sure I’d massively trust the source of that article, though!! 
 

If you live in the new ULEZ zone, as I do, you have to pay each day. 
 

Most of my mates will have to pay. If you forget/drive in an area unaware then you will be issued a £180 fine each time. 
 

It really has got sweet fa to do with concerns for clean air. 

 

Would you mind elaborating on this? I'm interested.

[BKLFox]

The expansion almost quadruples the existing ULEZ zone & will just about cover the entire inner ring of the M25, this also loops in Heathrow & imagine the amount traffic in/out of there on a daily bases.
Will be another charge to add to the single drop off or an added double charge if you can afford the parking for a 2 week break, will also be added to taxi, bus hire costs & the cynic in me says regardless of if the hire firm is green.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

The expansion almost quadruples the existing ULEZ zone & will just about cover the entire inner ring of the M25, this also loops in Heathrow & imagine the amount traffic in/out of there on a daily bases.
Will be another charge to add to the single drop off or an added double charge if you can afford the parking for a 2 week break, will also be added to taxi, bus hire costs & the cynic in me says regardless of if the hire firm is green.

 

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

In favour of dirty air if they're convinced, by themselves or others, that it won't actually affect them in the short term - when the alternative leaves them out of pocket in some way, anyhow.

 

And if you think that's irrational, you'd be spot on.

 

And I can understand contesting policy of the "other guy" as a matter of course, but I cannot understand why a smart informed person would directly or indirectly advocate for greater air pollution in any case, really. Unless, of course, they thought they wouldn't have to suffer the consequences of such.

Sorry for picking this one out, but it is a pretty salient example of exactly what I said above.

 

Of course, the argument that such measures don't actually make the air cleaner is a salient one too but then it might be nice to hear suggestions that would both do that and not inconvenience people materially (at least a little) at the same time.

[Bellend Sebastian]

36 minutes ago, Milo said:

Good shout. 
 

Not sure I’d massively trust the source of that article, though!! 
 

If you live in the new ULEZ zone, as I do, you have to pay each day. 
 

Most of my mates will have to pay. If you forget/drive in an area unaware then you will be issued a £180 fine each time. 
 

It really has got sweet fa to do with concerns for clean air. 
 

 

 

What sort of cars do you and your mates drive? I'm speaking largely from a position of ignorance but it's older diesels (most pre 2016 I believe) that are the problem. My 14 year old, CO2 blasting nightmare petrol car that I've only just got rid of would be exempt.

 

I can understand why small business owners, driving around their knackered old vans, would be up in arms but I'm intrigued as to who actually gets hit by this in practice. I think 9 out of 10 missing it seems overly optimistic and if that's the case I don't see why it would be so contentious politically

[BKLFox]

31 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Sorry for picking this one out, but it is a pretty salient example of exactly what I said above.

 

Of course, the argument that such measures don't actually make the air cleaner is a salient one too but then it might be nice to hear suggestions that would both do that and not inconvenience people materially (at least a little) at the same time.

i get you & agree so don't be sorry but it's the cynic in me coming out seeing it as a money making scheme 1st & foremost as @Milo suggested.

According to the RAC in Oct 22 after the 1st expansion of the ULEZ it generated an additional income to the TfL of £100m in daily charges 'in the 1st 8mths' alone & that doesn't take into account any penalty charges. The previous period it generated £19m.

This next expansion as i say almost quadruples the current zone in area & god knows how many vehicles that brings in, so can't help feeling is it for the good & benefit of us or someones purse

 

 

 

Edited 21 July 2023 by BKLFox

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

i get you & agree so don't be sorry but it's the cynic in me coming out seeing it as a money making scheme 1st & foremost as @Milo suggested.

According to the RAC in Oct 22 after the 1st expansion of the ULEZ it generated an additional income to the TfL of £100m in daily charges 'in the 1st 8mths' alone & that doesn't take into account any penalty charges. The previous period it generated £19m.

This next expansion as i say almost quadruples the current zone in area & god knows how many vehicles that brings in, so can't help feeling is it for the good & benefit of us or someones purse

 

 

 

I think the cynicism is fine - and possibly warranted.

 

However, if such measures are proven to lower the level of harmful emissions within that zone, then it becomes a matter of aiding human life and comfort. And what that can or should cost is a matter that is a very involved debate.

[oxford blue]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

 

However, if such measures are proven to lower the level of harmful emissions within that zone, then it becomes a matter of aiding human life and comfort. And what that can or should cost is a matter that is a very involved debate.

True, it would be  an involved debate. However,  on that basis, all cars should be banned everywhere. Even electric vehicles emit particulate as tyres wear. As generally heavier, EV's likely to be greater for tyre particulates than petrol/diesel cars.

 

There may be some merit in ULEZ in central cities, but this expansion includes normal residential roads.

 

If, for example, you were getting the underground from Hillingdon Underground to Wembley (play-offs if not automatically promoted  ) you may have to travel less than a mile within zone, but unless your caris  exempt that is £12.50