LOL! What a crock of shit. If you persecute the working-lower middle class to benefit those even less well off, you lose. And rightly so.
How is ULEZ persecution? Asking people to walk or use public transport if their car is more polluting is good sense, not persecution. Do you think car parking charges are persecution?
<snip>
And not have prats from Extinction Rebellion, its spawn Insulate Britain, and Just Stop Oil and local, city and national government making it worse.
Your description of certain protestors as *prats* is rather offensive IMHO. At least they're trying to do something to draw attention to the climate crisis...
Everyone affected by their actions is already aware of the climate crisis,
But some people deny it.
I agree that some people deny it but they are aware of it. Do these protests persuade the deniers that they are wrong ?
LOL! What a crock of shit. If you persecute the working-lower middle class to benefit those even less well off, you lose. And rightly so.
How is ULEZ persecution? Asking people to walk or use public transport if their car is more polluting is good sense, not persecution. Do you think car parking charges are persecution?
<snip>
And not have prats from Extinction Rebellion, its spawn Insulate Britain, and Just Stop Oil and local, city and national government making it worse.
Your description of certain protestors as *prats* is rather offensive IMHO. At least they're trying to do something to draw attention to the climate crisis...
Everyone affected by their actions is already aware of the climate crisis,
But some people deny it.
I agree that some people deny it but they are aware of it. Do these protests persuade the deniers that they are wrong ?
LOL! What a crock of shit. If you persecute the working-lower middle class to benefit those even less well off, you lose. And rightly so.
How is ULEZ persecution? Asking people to walk or use public transport if their car is more polluting is good sense, not persecution. Do you think car parking charges are persecution?
<snip>
And not have prats from Extinction Rebellion, its spawn Insulate Britain, and Just Stop Oil and local, city and national government making it worse.
Your description of certain protestors as *prats* is rather offensive IMHO. At least they're trying to do something to draw attention to the climate crisis...
Everyone affected by their actions is already aware of the climate crisis,
But some people deny it.
I agree that some people deny it but they are aware of it. Do these protests persuade the deniers that they are wrong ?
It's a fair question.
The answer at the moment may be *No, not really*, but I think the aim is to try to convince them - and, perhaps more importantly, the government - that they are wrong.
Whether they succeed or not, it's probably too late now to avoid catastrophic climate failure across the world.
LOL! What a crock of shit. If you persecute the working-lower middle class to benefit those even less well off, you lose. And rightly so.
How is ULEZ persecution? Asking people to walk or use public transport if their car is more polluting is good sense, not persecution. Do you think car parking charges are persecution?
Your good sense is another's persecution. Making life harder for the 75%, marginally for the sake of the 20%, all beyond the N. & S. Circulars, is political insanity. Getting to work is a huge stressor. If the masses can't walk or cycle to work or school (and why not?), it needs to be as easy as possible first by (highly subsidized, automated) public (and publicly owned) then private transport. And not have prats from Extinction Rebellion, its spawn Insulate Britain, and Just Stop Oil and local, city and national government making it worse.
Oh, and tax wealth.
So you think air pollution is just fine?
Being inconvenienced isn't persecution and it diminishes the meaning of the word to suggest that it is.
@KarlLB I personally don't want e-scooters to be banned but want them to require licensing and a maximum speed for pedestrian areas imposed. And helmets being required.
@KarlLB I personally don't want e-scooters to be banned but want them to require licensing and a maximum speed for pedestrian areas imposed. And helmets being required.
Our car is '09 registration, petrol, and complies.
Our car is a ‘10 registration and doesn’t comply. We couldn’t afford to replace it at the moment, and we’re hoping to replace it with electric or hybrid when it had to go. With six of us travelling it is still cheaper to go in the car, although £12.50 more expensive than it would have been.
We would get an electric vehicle if we could afford it, although I’m not sure what the overall balance of environmental advantage is in replacing even an older and more polluting vehicle before it really is at the end of its life.
From that point of view it’s good that we only visit London occasionally.
LOL! What a crock of shit. If you persecute the working-lower middle class to benefit those even less well off, you lose. And rightly so.
How is ULEZ persecution? Asking people to walk or use public transport if their car is more polluting is good sense, not persecution. Do you think car parking charges are persecution?
<snip>
And not have prats from Extinction Rebellion, its spawn Insulate Britain, and Just Stop Oil and local, city and national government making it worse.
Your description of certain protestors as *prats* is rather offensive IMHO. At least they're trying to do something to draw attention to the climate crisis...
Everyone affected by their actions is already aware of the climate crisis,
But some people deny it.
I agree that some people deny it but they are aware of it. Do these protests persuade the deniers that they are wrong ?
LOL! What a crock of shit. If you persecute the working-lower middle class to benefit those even less well off, you lose. And rightly so.
How is ULEZ persecution? Asking people to walk or use public transport if their car is more polluting is good sense, not persecution. Do you think car parking charges are persecution?
<snip>
And not have prats from Extinction Rebellion, its spawn Insulate Britain, and Just Stop Oil and local, city and national government making it worse.
Your description of certain protestors as *prats* is rather offensive IMHO. At least they're trying to do something to draw attention to the climate crisis...
Everyone affected by their actions is already aware of the climate crisis,
But some people deny it.
I agree that some people deny it but they are aware of it. Do these protests persuade the deniers that they are wrong ?
It's a fair question.
The answer at the moment may be *No, not really*, but I think the aim is to try to convince them - and, perhaps more importantly, the government - that they are wrong.
Whether they succeed or not, it's probably too late now to avoid catastrophic climate failure across the world.
The government and all the opposition parties recognise that there is a problem.
LOL! What a crock of shit. If you persecute the working-lower middle class to benefit those even less well off, you lose. And rightly so.
How is ULEZ persecution? Asking people to walk or use public transport if their car is more polluting is good sense, not persecution. Do you think car parking charges are persecution?
<snip>
And not have prats from Extinction Rebellion, its spawn Insulate Britain, and Just Stop Oil and local, city and national government making it worse.
Your description of certain protestors as *prats* is rather offensive IMHO. At least they're trying to do something to draw attention to the climate crisis...
Everyone affected by their actions is already aware of the climate crisis,
But some people deny it.
I agree that some people deny it but they are aware of it. Do these protests persuade the deniers that they are wrong ?
LOL! What a crock of shit. If you persecute the working-lower middle class to benefit those even less well off, you lose. And rightly so.
How is ULEZ persecution? Asking people to walk or use public transport if their car is more polluting is good sense, not persecution. Do you think car parking charges are persecution?
<snip>
And not have prats from Extinction Rebellion, its spawn Insulate Britain, and Just Stop Oil and local, city and national government making it worse.
Your description of certain protestors as *prats* is rather offensive IMHO. At least they're trying to do something to draw attention to the climate crisis...
Everyone affected by their actions is already aware of the climate crisis,
But some people deny it.
I agree that some people deny it but they are aware of it. Do these protests persuade the deniers that they are wrong ?
It's a fair question.
The answer at the moment may be *No, not really*, but I think the aim is to try to convince them - and, perhaps more importantly, the government - that they are wrong.
Whether they succeed or not, it's probably too late now to avoid catastrophic climate failure across the world.
The government and all the opposition parties recognise that there is a problem.
Yes, indeed they do - but what are they doing about it? Not enough, according to many people - and rowing back on green policies isn't going to help.
LOL! What a crock of shit. If you persecute the working-lower middle class to benefit those even less well off, you lose. And rightly so.
How is ULEZ persecution? Asking people to walk or use public transport if their car is more polluting is good sense, not persecution. Do you think car parking charges are persecution?
<snip>
And not have prats from Extinction Rebellion, its spawn Insulate Britain, and Just Stop Oil and local, city and national government making it worse.
Your description of certain protestors as *prats* is rather offensive IMHO. At least they're trying to do something to draw attention to the climate crisis...
Uh huh. Whose attention? To what end? If it quacks like a prat...
Given the facts that scientists have been telling the world for 50 years of the impacts of burning fossil fuels and how to mitigate those impacts there are only a limited number of possible conclusions:
Governments and people haven't been listening, or they've not understood (ie: they don't recognise there's a problem).
Or, the have been listening and understand but put their short term political careers or profits above the good of all (ie: they've chosen to not address the problem).
The option of them recognising the problem isn't one of those conclusions - otherwise they'd have done something. LEZs aren't more than a sticking plaster for the local impacts of pollution from burning fossil fuels, helping only a little bit if they lead to less cars on our roads. I don't see any government or major opposition party in our countries actively pursuing policies towards even something as modest as a 20% reduction in car use over the next few years, let alone major steps to address climate change like closing down all combustion for electricity generation and replacing all space heating with systems that don't burn stuff, no halt to opening and exploration for new fossil fuel reserves.
Who visits London by car?? @Bishops Finger can you not get the high speed line into London from where you are?
I'm sorry to say, but no, I can't.
I am disabled - I can't walk more than a few feet without crutches, and the purpose of our visit was to see our elderly aunt in a convent in Stoke Newington. I simply could not manage the train/underground/bus journey that would be required.
Auntie is 92, and ailing, This was probably the last time I'll see her, so I won't be adding to London's poor air quality again.
LOL! What a crock of shit. If you persecute the working-lower middle class to benefit those even less well off, you lose. And rightly so.
How is ULEZ persecution? Asking people to walk or use public transport if their car is more polluting is good sense, not persecution. Do you think car parking charges are persecution?
<snip>
And not have prats from Extinction Rebellion, its spawn Insulate Britain, and Just Stop Oil and local, city and national government making it worse.
Your description of certain protestors as *prats* is rather offensive IMHO. At least they're trying to do something to draw attention to the climate crisis...
Everyone affected by their actions is already aware of the climate crisis,
But some people deny it.
I agree that some people deny it but they are aware of it. Do these protests persuade the deniers that they are wrong ?
LOL! What a crock of shit. If you persecute the working-lower middle class to benefit those even less well off, you lose. And rightly so.
How is ULEZ persecution? Asking people to walk or use public transport if their car is more polluting is good sense, not persecution. Do you think car parking charges are persecution?
<snip>
And not have prats from Extinction Rebellion, its spawn Insulate Britain, and Just Stop Oil and local, city and national government making it worse.
Your description of certain protestors as *prats* is rather offensive IMHO. At least they're trying to do something to draw attention to the climate crisis...
Everyone affected by their actions is already aware of the climate crisis,
But some people deny it.
I agree that some people deny it but they are aware of it. Do these protests persuade the deniers that they are wrong ?
It's a fair question.
The answer at the moment may be *No, not really*, but I think the aim is to try to convince them - and, perhaps more importantly, the government - that they are wrong.
Whether they succeed or not, it's probably too late now to avoid catastrophic climate failure across the world.
The government and all the opposition parties recognise that there is a problem.
It's not a question of whether they recognise there is a problem, but of what they propose to do about it (apart from following the four stage strategy)
LOL! What a crock of shit. If you persecute the working-lower middle class to benefit those even less well off, you lose. And rightly so.
How is ULEZ persecution? Asking people to walk or use public transport if their car is more polluting is good sense, not persecution. Do you think car parking charges are persecution?
<snip>
And not have prats from Extinction Rebellion, its spawn Insulate Britain, and Just Stop Oil and local, city and national government making it worse.
Your description of certain protestors as *prats* is rather offensive IMHO. At least they're trying to do something to draw attention to the climate crisis...
Everyone affected by their actions is already aware of the climate crisis,
But some people deny it.
I agree that some people deny it but they are aware of it. Do these protests persuade the deniers that they are wrong ?
LOL! What a crock of shit. If you persecute the working-lower middle class to benefit those even less well off, you lose. And rightly so.
How is ULEZ persecution? Asking people to walk or use public transport if their car is more polluting is good sense, not persecution. Do you think car parking charges are persecution?
<snip>
And not have prats from Extinction Rebellion, its spawn Insulate Britain, and Just Stop Oil and local, city and national government making it worse.
Your description of certain protestors as *prats* is rather offensive IMHO. At least they're trying to do something to draw attention to the climate crisis...
Everyone affected by their actions is already aware of the climate crisis,
But some people deny it.
I agree that some people deny it but they are aware of it. Do these protests persuade the deniers that they are wrong ?
It's a fair question.
The answer at the moment may be *No, not really*, but I think the aim is to try to convince them - and, perhaps more importantly, the government - that they are wrong.
Whether they succeed or not, it's probably too late now to avoid catastrophic climate failure across the world.
The government and all the opposition parties recognise that there is a problem.
It's not a question of whether they recognise there is a problem, but of what they propose to do about it (apart from following the four stage strategy)
One thing they could do is to stop people causing traffic jams.
LOL! What a crock of shit. If you persecute the working-lower middle class to benefit those even less well off, you lose. And rightly so.
How is ULEZ persecution? Asking people to walk or use public transport if their car is more polluting is good sense, not persecution. Do you think car parking charges are persecution?
<snip>
And not have prats from Extinction Rebellion, its spawn Insulate Britain, and Just Stop Oil and local, city and national government making it worse.
Your description of certain protestors as *prats* is rather offensive IMHO. At least they're trying to do something to draw attention to the climate crisis...
Everyone affected by their actions is already aware of the climate crisis,
But some people deny it.
I agree that some people deny it but they are aware of it. Do these protests persuade the deniers that they are wrong ?
LOL! What a crock of shit. If you persecute the working-lower middle class to benefit those even less well off, you lose. And rightly so.
How is ULEZ persecution? Asking people to walk or use public transport if their car is more polluting is good sense, not persecution. Do you think car parking charges are persecution?
<snip>
And not have prats from Extinction Rebellion, its spawn Insulate Britain, and Just Stop Oil and local, city and national government making it worse.
Your description of certain protestors as *prats* is rather offensive IMHO. At least they're trying to do something to draw attention to the climate crisis...
Everyone affected by their actions is already aware of the climate crisis,
But some people deny it.
I agree that some people deny it but they are aware of it. Do these protests persuade the deniers that they are wrong ?
It's a fair question.
The answer at the moment may be *No, not really*, but I think the aim is to try to convince them - and, perhaps more importantly, the government - that they are wrong.
Whether they succeed or not, it's probably too late now to avoid catastrophic climate failure across the world.
The government and all the opposition parties recognise that there is a problem.
It's not a question of whether they recognise there is a problem, but of what they propose to do about it (apart from following the four stage strategy)
One thing they could do is to stop people causing traffic jams.
The majority of traffic jams are caused by sheer weight of traffic itself and the ultimate problem is one of emissions to which the only solution is to reduce them, both by replacing older cars and taking cars off the road altogether and replacing them with more efficient means of transport.
A fairly significant part of the problem is caused by the earlier 'dash for diesel' (which intersected with the switch to SUVs - as they needed diesel to get reasonable efficiency numbers).
Who visits London by car?? @Bishops Finger can you not get the high speed line into London from where you are?
We do because there are six of us with luggage, staying two nights in Richmond with relatives and needing to get to a different relative’s wedding in Peckham, evening do in Crystal Palace and late return to Richmond. Then home again the following day.
The return trip to London would cost in the order of £800 (and there’s a strike on the day we need to return). Then cross south London journey would be a 50% longer journey time than by car. Then 40-60 minutes journey time between wedding venue and reception (v. 20 mins by car). Return journey after reception (3 buses) twice as long as by car. Travel to and fro across south London c. £50. Total cost around £850. We couldn’t afford it.
This compares to a marginal cost of under £150 to do the whole thing by car, even allowing for the congestion charge.
Who visits London by car?? @Bishops Finger can you not get the high speed line into London from where you are?
I'm sorry to say, but no, I can't.
I am disabled - I can't walk more than a few feet without crutches, and the purpose of our visit was to see our elderly aunt in a convent in Stoke Newington. I simply could not manage the train/underground/bus journey that would be required.
Auntie is 92, and ailing, This was probably the last time I'll see her, so I won't be adding to London's poor air quality again.
That's fair enough, but most visitors to London are visiting central London or Zone 2 at most, and much of the TFL network is wheelchair accessible. I appreciate that for a one-off visit in those circumstances, car travel is more convenient.
As an aside, have you tried using a powerchair instead of crutches? I'm surprised that crutches would be preferable to a wheelchair. As you well know, I am also disabled and I'm well-experienced with travelling across London while disabled.
@KarlLB I personally don't want e-scooters to be banned but want them to require licensing and a maximum speed for pedestrian areas imposed. And helmets being required.
I agree. I live in a village on the edge of a market town that has e scooters and no cycle ways at all. The scooters are fast and use pavements and roads indiscriminately. A month ago there was a serious crash a few weeks ago when a scooter crashed into a stationary car just a few hundred yards down the road requiring the full blue light treatment.
I have passed a driving test. Why not ask the same for a scooter that goes as fast as the moped I used to ride? Why not insist on helmets?
To reduce car use, public transport has to be more reliable and better connected. If you live in a rural area - even with a rich city close by - connections are awful.
I live in Bedfordshire, I have an aging uncle in South Cambs. To drive is 34 miles each way, roughly 45 mins. Public transport? Bus to station. Train to London tube to Kings Cross Train to Royston. then to village. 3 buses a day or a 3 mile walk (can't do the latter due to arthritis). Half mile walk from the bus stop. On a good day 3 hours each way.
Buses - well across the road into town (10 mins) but only 3 a day. Local to Northampton (one hour for 15 miles) , then to Cambridge (direct about an hour) . Then to Royston (an hour) , then to village (20 mins excluding wait). Over 3 hours each way again.
It's a great goal but how will we achieve it?
My daughter and son in law do not have a car. She walks to work 2 miles. He walks to a station to go 20 miles by train. The trains are unreliable even with no strikes. He cannot work from home being a customer facing role in a public setting. Total journey time if working 1 hour 15. Max driving 30 mins on cross country routes.
@KarlLB I personally don't want e-scooters to be banned but want them to require licensing and a maximum speed for pedestrian areas imposed. And helmets being required.
I agree. I live in a village on the edge of a market town that has e scooters and no cycle ways at all. The scooters are fast and use pavements and roads indiscriminately. A month ago there was a serious crash a few weeks ago when a scooter crashed into a stationary car just a few hundred yards down the road requiring the full blue light treatment.
I have passed a driving test. Why not ask the same for a scooter that goes as fast as the moped I used to ride? Why not insist on helmets?
They don't. They're limited to 15mph. Mopeds are limited to twice that speed.
LOL! What a crock of shit. If you persecute the working-lower middle class to benefit those even less well off, you lose. And rightly so.
How is ULEZ persecution? Asking people to walk or use public transport if their car is more polluting is good sense, not persecution. Do you think car parking charges are persecution?
<snip>
And not have prats from Extinction Rebellion, its spawn Insulate Britain, and Just Stop Oil and local, city and national government making it worse.
Your description of certain protestors as *prats* is rather offensive IMHO. At least they're trying to do something to draw attention to the climate crisis...
Everyone affected by their actions is already aware of the climate crisis,
But some people deny it.
I agree that some people deny it but they are aware of it. Do these protests persuade the deniers that they are wrong ?
LOL! What a crock of shit. If you persecute the working-lower middle class to benefit those even less well off, you lose. And rightly so.
How is ULEZ persecution? Asking people to walk or use public transport if their car is more polluting is good sense, not persecution. Do you think car parking charges are persecution?
<snip>
And not have prats from Extinction Rebellion, its spawn Insulate Britain, and Just Stop Oil and local, city and national government making it worse.
Your description of certain protestors as *prats* is rather offensive IMHO. At least they're trying to do something to draw attention to the climate crisis...
Everyone affected by their actions is already aware of the climate crisis,
But some people deny it.
I agree that some people deny it but they are aware of it. Do these protests persuade the deniers that they are wrong ?
It's a fair question.
The answer at the moment may be *No, not really*, but I think the aim is to try to convince them - and, perhaps more importantly, the government - that they are wrong.
Whether they succeed or not, it's probably too late now to avoid catastrophic climate failure across the world.
The government and all the opposition parties recognise that there is a problem.
It's not a question of whether they recognise there is a problem, but of what they propose to do about it (apart from following the four stage strategy)
One thing they could do is to stop people causing traffic jams.
The majority of traffic jams are caused by sheer weight of traffic itself and the ultimate problem is one of emissions to which the only solution is to reduce them, both by replacing older cars and taking cars off the road altogether and replacing them with more efficient means of transport.
A fairly significant part of the problem is caused by the earlier 'dash for diesel' (which intersected with the switch to SUVs - as they needed diesel to get reasonable efficiency numbers).
So, what is more efficient than getting in your car when you reasonably need to? Which I in my privilege only need to once a week if that.
@KarlLB I personally don't want e-scooters to be banned but want them to require licensing and a maximum speed for pedestrian areas imposed. And helmets being required.
I agree. I live in a village on the edge of a market town that has e scooters and no cycle ways at all. The scooters are fast and use pavements and roads indiscriminately. A month ago there was a serious crash a few weeks ago when a scooter crashed into a stationary car just a few hundred yards down the road requiring the full blue light treatment.
I have passed a driving test. Why not ask the same for a scooter that goes as fast as the moped I used to ride? Why not insist on helmets?
They don't. They're limited to 15mph. Mopeds are limited to twice that speed.
well, they're *legally* limited to 15 MPH.... in reality, it takes about 10 seconds and a mod off the internet to ungovern the motor....
@KarlLB I personally don't want e-scooters to be banned but want them to require licensing and a maximum speed for pedestrian areas imposed. And helmets being required.
I agree. I live in a village on the edge of a market town that has e scooters and no cycle ways at all. The scooters are fast and use pavements and roads indiscriminately. A month ago there was a serious crash a few weeks ago when a scooter crashed into a stationary car just a few hundred yards down the road requiring the full blue light treatment.
I have passed a driving test. Why not ask the same for a scooter that goes as fast as the moped I used to ride? Why not insist on helmets?
They don't. They're limited to 15mph. Mopeds are limited to twice that speed.
well, they're *legally* limited to 15 MPH.... in reality, it takes about 10 seconds and a mod off the internet to ungovern the motor....
Yeah, but that's a different thing isn't it? The problem there isn't that the rider doesn't have a driving licence (you don't need one for a pushbike either and you can do 20mph on the flat on a road bike quite easily); it's that they're riding an illegally modified vehicle.
You can mod most mopeds to get 45mph out of them (I had one where the regulator developed a fault and found that out!) but we still let 16 year olds ride them, and don't require a motorcycle licence - based on what they can do if not illegally adapted.
Who visits London by car?? @Bishops Finger can you not get the high speed line into London from where you are?
I'm sorry to say, but no, I can't.
I am disabled - I can't walk more than a few feet without crutches, and the purpose of our visit was to see our elderly aunt in a convent in Stoke Newington. I simply could not manage the train/underground/bus journey that would be required.
Auntie is 92, and ailing, This was probably the last time I'll see her, so I won't be adding to London's poor air quality again.
That's fair enough, but most visitors to London are visiting central London or Zone 2 at most, and much of the TFL network is wheelchair accessible. I appreciate that for a one-off visit in those circumstances, car travel is more convenient.
As an aside, have you tried using a powerchair instead of crutches? I'm surprised that crutches would be preferable to a wheelchair. As you well know, I am also disabled and I'm well-experienced with travelling across London while disabled.
I didn't say that I prefer crutches to a wheelchair. I would happily use a powered wheelchair, but there are logistical reasons for not doing so - I won't go into details.
Who visits London by car?? @Bishops Finger can you not get the high speed line into London from where you are?
I'm sorry to say, but no, I can't.
I am disabled - I can't walk more than a few feet without crutches, and the purpose of our visit was to see our elderly aunt in a convent in Stoke Newington. I simply could not manage the train/underground/bus journey that would be required.
Auntie is 92, and ailing, This was probably the last time I'll see her, so I won't be adding to London's poor air quality again.
That's fair enough, but most visitors to London are visiting central London or Zone 2 at most, and much of the TFL network is wheelchair accessible. I appreciate that for a one-off visit in those circumstances, car travel is more convenient.
As an aside, have you tried using a powerchair instead of crutches? I'm surprised that crutches would be preferable to a wheelchair. As you well know, I am also disabled and I'm well-experienced with travelling across London while disabled.
I didn't say that I prefer crutches to a wheelchair. I would happily use a powered wheelchair, but there are logistical reasons for not doing so - I won't go into details.
@KarlLB I personally don't want e-scooters to be banned but want them to require licensing and a maximum speed for pedestrian areas imposed. And helmets being required.
I agree. I live in a village on the edge of a market town that has e scooters and no cycle ways at all. The scooters are fast and use pavements and roads indiscriminately. A month ago there was a serious crash a few weeks ago when a scooter crashed into a stationary car just a few hundred yards down the road requiring the full blue light treatment.
I have passed a driving test. Why not ask the same for a scooter that goes as fast as the moped I used to ride? Why not insist on helmets?
They don't. They're limited to 15mph. Mopeds are limited to twice that speed.
15mph is still very fast compared to a pedestrian, especially someone who can't move as quickly like a young child or elderly person. I don't think e-scooters should require the equivalent of a driving license but some kind of standardised cycling license that could cover both e-bikes and e-scooters. It could be a scannable license which could then also be used to unlock public hire scooters and bikes.
I'm all in favour of e-bikes and e-scooters, including publicly hireable ones. But riders can still harm themselves and others when they're used irresponsibly.
Who visits London by car?? @Bishops Finger can you not get the high speed line into London from where you are?
I'm sorry to say, but no, I can't.
I am disabled - I can't walk more than a few feet without crutches, and the purpose of our visit was to see our elderly aunt in a convent in Stoke Newington. I simply could not manage the train/underground/bus journey that would be required.
Auntie is 92, and ailing, This was probably the last time I'll see her, so I won't be adding to London's poor air quality again.
That's fair enough, but most visitors to London are visiting central London or Zone 2 at most, and much of the TFL network is wheelchair accessible. I appreciate that for a one-off visit in those circumstances, car travel is more convenient.
As an aside, have you tried using a powerchair instead of crutches? I'm surprised that crutches would be preferable to a wheelchair. As you well know, I am also disabled and I'm well-experienced with travelling across London while disabled.
I didn't say that I prefer crutches to a wheelchair. I would happily use a powered wheelchair, but there are logistical reasons for not doing so - I won't go into details.
Fair enough, I was just a bit puzzled!
Well, your question as to who would visit London by car has now been answered.
Who visits London by car?? @Bishops Finger can you not get the high speed line into London from where you are?
I'm sorry to say, but no, I can't.
I am disabled - I can't walk more than a few feet without crutches, and the purpose of our visit was to see our elderly aunt in a convent in Stoke Newington. I simply could not manage the train/underground/bus journey that would be required.
Auntie is 92, and ailing, This was probably the last time I'll see her, so I won't be adding to London's poor air quality again.
That's fair enough, but most visitors to London are visiting central London or Zone 2 at most, and much of the TFL network is wheelchair accessible. I appreciate that for a one-off visit in those circumstances, car travel is more convenient.
As an aside, have you tried using a powerchair instead of crutches? I'm surprised that crutches would be preferable to a wheelchair. As you well know, I am also disabled and I'm well-experienced with travelling across London while disabled.
I didn't say that I prefer crutches to a wheelchair. I would happily use a powered wheelchair, but there are logistical reasons for not doing so - I won't go into details.
Fair enough, I was just a bit puzzled!
Well, your question as to who would visit London by car has now been answered.
I mean I did already say that I understood why in your case you went by car. Crutches vs powerchair is a different issue since even people who travel by car get out of the car at some point.
@KarlLB I personally don't want e-scooters to be banned but want them to require licensing and a maximum speed for pedestrian areas imposed. And helmets being required.
I agree. I live in a village on the edge of a market town that has e scooters and no cycle ways at all. The scooters are fast and use pavements and roads indiscriminately. A month ago there was a serious crash a few weeks ago when a scooter crashed into a stationary car just a few hundred yards down the road requiring the full blue light treatment.
I have passed a driving test. Why not ask the same for a scooter that goes as fast as the moped I used to ride? Why not insist on helmets?
They don't. They're limited to 15mph. Mopeds are limited to twice that speed.
15mph is still very fast compared to a pedestrian, especially someone who can't move as quickly like a young child or elderly person. I don't think e-scooters should require the equivalent of a driving license but some kind of standardised cycling license that could cover both e-bikes and e-scooters. It could be a scannable license which could then also be used to unlock public hire scooters and bikes.
I'm all in favour of e-bikes and e-scooters, including publicly hireable ones. But riders can still harm themselves and others when they're used irresponsibly.
Both e-Scooters and e-Bikes shouldn't be on pavements. They're often found there because the roads are are so dangerous because of our terrible driving standards, especially around vulnerable road users.
The solution is threefold:
1. Proper segregation;
2. Where that can't be achieved, 20mph limits
3. Removal of driving licences from drivers who demonstrate that either their competence or attitude makes them unable to drive safely around bikes and scooters.
How would you justify requiring licences for e Bikes when their motors cut out at a speed lower than most cyclists are quite capable of reaching on a regular bike? It's only uphill that they actually go any faster. The focus doesn't want to be on e-scooters or bikes really - the focus needs to be on the way motor vehicles are prioritised still, so that everyone else is pushed to the edges where they are in conflict with each other.
I've definitely had people on e-scooters barely miss me on a perfectly flat pavement in a pedestrianised city centre, going much faster than a pushbike would be going.
Edited to add that I don't necessarily disagree with you but also maybe this is a bigger issue in urban areas? Which of course has its own contributing factors, but for what it's worth the places where e-scooters have been a problem have also had large city centre parks with paths suitable for bikes and scooters. It wasn't due to a lack of facilities elsewhere. Perhaps there is a clash with pedestrianised areas taking up much of a city centre? It means that cycle paths are therefore much less direct.
We have a ULEZ in Sheffield city centre. The problem is that it includes the inner ring road surrounds the city centre. People with older cars who want to go from one end of the city to the other have weave their way through the suburbs. The ring road was built to avoid such journeys
We have a ULEZ in Sheffield city centre. The problem is that it includes the inner ring road surrounds the city centre. People with older cars who want to go from one end of the city to the other have weave their way through the suburbs. The ring road was built to avoid such journeys
The Sheffield ULEZ doesn't cover private cars, so these people need not do this.
Sheffield Clean Air Zone
This is a class C chargeable Clean Air Zone for the most polluting heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), light goods vehicles (LGVs), vans, buses, coaches and taxis that drive in the Clean Air Zone.
@KarlLB I personally don't want e-scooters to be banned but want them to require licensing and a maximum speed for pedestrian areas imposed. And helmets being required.
I agree. I live in a village on the edge of a market town that has e scooters and no cycle ways at all. The scooters are fast and use pavements and roads indiscriminately. A month ago there was a serious crash a few weeks ago when a scooter crashed into a stationary car just a few hundred yards down the road requiring the full blue light treatment.
I have passed a driving test. Why not ask the same for a scooter that goes as fast as the moped I used to ride? Why not insist on helmets?
They don't. They're limited to 15mph. Mopeds are limited to twice that speed.
15mph is still very fast compared to a pedestrian, especially someone who can't move as quickly like a young child or elderly person. I don't think e-scooters should require the equivalent of a driving license but some kind of standardised cycling license that could cover both e-bikes and e-scooters. It could be a scannable license which could then also be used to unlock public hire scooters and bikes.
I'm all in favour of e-bikes and e-scooters, including publicly hireable ones. But riders can still harm themselves and others when they're used irresponsibly.
I agree with you that this is an issue. I am reasonably mobile but on Sunday was blind sided by a scooter rider who came along the narrow pavement behind me at speed. I didn't hear them. It's a quiet road with plenty of drop kerbs - so why choose to stay on the path and expect me both to hear and to move? The former doesn't happen with electrics, the latter not so easy due to arthritis and also on that occasion carrying something quite heavy and unwieldy.
I've definitely had people on e-scooters barely miss me on a perfectly flat pavement in a pedestrianised city centre, going much faster than a pushbike would be going.
Edited to add that I don't necessarily disagree with you but also maybe this is a bigger issue in urban areas? Which of course has its own contributing factors, but for what it's worth the places where e-scooters have been a problem have also had large city centre parks with paths suitable for bikes and scooters. It wasn't due to a lack of facilities elsewhere. Perhaps there is a clash with pedestrianised areas taking up much of a city centre? It means that cycle paths are therefore much less direct.
If your cycle paths are very indirect people won't use them; that's human nature. In pedestrianised areas you could segregate pedestrian from cycle/scooter but that does depend on pedestrians observing it as well, which doesn't always happen.
Any scooter going faster than a bike could be must be illegally modified; as I say, 20mph is relatively easy to reach on a road bike on the flat, and most hybrids and mountain bikes wouldn't be much slower. You'd have to be a complete arse to be doing that speed around pedestrians but its the person on it, not the vehicle itself. So I can believe an arse on a legal e-scooter could be faster than a non-arse on a bike, but it's the arsery that's the governing factor, not the vehicle.
@KarlLB I personally don't want e-scooters to be banned but want them to require licensing and a maximum speed for pedestrian areas imposed. And helmets being required.
I agree. I live in a village on the edge of a market town that has e scooters and no cycle ways at all. The scooters are fast and use pavements and roads indiscriminately. A month ago there was a serious crash a few weeks ago when a scooter crashed into a stationary car just a few hundred yards down the road requiring the full blue light treatment.
I have passed a driving test. Why not ask the same for a scooter that goes as fast as the moped I used to ride? Why not insist on helmets?
They don't. They're limited to 15mph. Mopeds are limited to twice that speed.
15mph is still very fast compared to a pedestrian, especially someone who can't move as quickly like a young child or elderly person. I don't think e-scooters should require the equivalent of a driving license but some kind of standardised cycling license that could cover both e-bikes and e-scooters. It could be a scannable license which could then also be used to unlock public hire scooters and bikes.
I'm all in favour of e-bikes and e-scooters, including publicly hireable ones. But riders can still harm themselves and others when they're used irresponsibly.
I agree with you that this is an issue. I am reasonably mobile but on Sunday was blind sided by a scooter rider who came along the narrow pavement behind me at speed.
As I said to @Pomona the issue here is illegal use - these things aren't legal on footways at all, unless they're shared use - and shared use footways shouldn't be narrow pavements.
Make the roads safe, provide infrastructure that actually works (needs to be direct, and paint is not a protective measure), and you can then get the scooters away from the pedestrians.
We still see it as normal that motor vehicles get the lions' share of the space and push other modes into a small space (your narrow pavement is a case in point) where they are in conflict with each other.
It's like with the problems delivery app riders driving dangerously - the problem is the unethical companies causing this.
A problem not limited to electric two-wheeled vehicles.
Oh definitely not, I meant the riders in general. Around here they mostly use normal bikes or mopeds, congestion is a total nightmare due to medieval roads so cars are actually too slow. We have an absurd lack of pedestrianisation compared to other cathedral cities of comparable age.
A lot of people seem to be assuming that Uxbridge showed the unpopularity of ULEZ, and hence green policies. Both main parties seems to be flirting with "dump the green". But I wonder about this, chopping and changing is nor a good look. After all, this happened with diesel, good, no, but bad. Green, yes, but no.
A lot of people seem to be assuming that Uxbridge showed the unpopularity of ULEZ, and hence green policies. Both main parties seems to be flirting with "dump the green". But I wonder about this, chopping and changing is nor a good look. After all, this happened with diesel, good, no, but bad. Green, yes, but no.
Well yes; given the turnout
on the face of it, an equally valid narrative is that progressive voters were put off voting by the major candidates both opposing the ULEZ
We have a ULEZ in Sheffield city centre. The problem is that it includes the inner ring road surrounds the city centre. People with older cars who want to go from one end of the city to the other have weave their way through the suburbs. The ring road was built to avoid such journeys
The Sheffield ULEZ doesn't cover private cars, so these people need not do this.
Sheffield Clean Air Zone
This is a class C chargeable Clean Air Zone for the most polluting heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), light goods vehicles (LGVs), vans, buses, coaches and taxis that drive in the Clean Air Zone.
A lot of people seem to be assuming that Uxbridge showed the unpopularity of ULEZ, and hence green policies. Both main parties seems to be flirting with "dump the green". But I wonder about this, chopping and changing is nor a good look. After all, this happened with diesel, good, no, but bad. Green, yes, but no.
Well yes; given the turnout
on the face of it, an equally valid narrative is that progressive voters were put off voting by the major candidates both opposing the ULEZ
Indeed. And the Lib Dems (and locally the Greens) are showing that green issues DO matter to people.
Edited to add that I don't necessarily trust the Lib Dems to do anything but 'light green' anything. Not least because they were willing to sign off on harsher benefit sanctions in order to get the supermarket plastic bag fee.
A lot of people seem to be assuming that Uxbridge showed the unpopularity of ULEZ, and hence green policies. Both main parties seems to be flirting with "dump the green". But I wonder about this, chopping and changing is nor a good look. After all, this happened with diesel, good, no, but bad. Green, yes, but no.
Well yes; given the turnout
on the face of it, an equally valid narrative is that progressive voters were put off voting by the major candidates both opposing the ULEZ
Indeed. And the Lib Dems (and locally the Greens) are showing that green issues DO matter to people.
Edited to add that I don't necessarily trust the Lib Dems to do anything but 'light green' anything. Not least because they were willing to sign off on harsher benefit sanctions in order to get the supermarket plastic bag fee.
They don't matter to the 80% non-'progressive'. An American 'progressive' was on The Context (BBC24) recently saying how the masses must pay for all this. At least they were honest. As the rich, the landed, certainly won't.
A lot of people seem to be assuming that Uxbridge showed the unpopularity of ULEZ, and hence green policies. Both main parties seems to be flirting with "dump the green". But I wonder about this, chopping and changing is nor a good look. After all, this happened with diesel, good, no, but bad. Green, yes, but no.
Well yes; given the turnout
on the face of it, an equally valid narrative is that progressive voters were put off voting by the major candidates both opposing the ULEZ
Indeed. And the Lib Dems (and locally the Greens) are showing that green issues DO matter to people.
Edited to add that I don't necessarily trust the Lib Dems to do anything but 'light green' anything. Not least because they were willing to sign off on harsher benefit sanctions in order to get the supermarket plastic bag fee.
They don't matter to the 80% non-'progressive'. An American 'progressive' was on The Context (BBC24) recently saying how the masses must pay for all this. At least they were honest. As the rich, the landed, certainly won't.
A lot of people seem to be assuming that Uxbridge showed the unpopularity of ULEZ, and hence green policies. Both main parties seems to be flirting with "dump the green". But I wonder about this, chopping and changing is nor a good look. After all, this happened with diesel, good, no, but bad. Green, yes, but no.
Well yes; given the turnout
on the face of it, an equally valid narrative is that progressive voters were put off voting by the major candidates both opposing the ULEZ
Indeed. And the Lib Dems (and locally the Greens) are showing that green issues DO matter to people.
Edited to add that I don't necessarily trust the Lib Dems to do anything but 'light green' anything. Not least because they were willing to sign off on harsher benefit sanctions in order to get the supermarket plastic bag fee.
They don't matter to the 80% non-'progressive'. An American 'progressive' was on The Context (BBC24) recently saying how the masses must pay for all this. At least they were honest. As the rich, the landed, certainly won't.
What has an American got to do with ULEZ?
What's making the masses pay got to do with social justice?
Comments
I agree that some people deny it but they are aware of it. Do these protests persuade the deniers that they are wrong ?
Do you deny it?
It's a fair question.
The answer at the moment may be *No, not really*, but I think the aim is to try to convince them - and, perhaps more importantly, the government - that they are wrong.
Whether they succeed or not, it's probably too late now to avoid catastrophic climate failure across the world.
So you think air pollution is just fine?
Being inconvenienced isn't persecution and it diminishes the meaning of the word to suggest that it is.
This.
Our car is a ‘10 registration and doesn’t comply. We couldn’t afford to replace it at the moment, and we’re hoping to replace it with electric or hybrid when it had to go. With six of us travelling it is still cheaper to go in the car, although £12.50 more expensive than it would have been.
We would get an electric vehicle if we could afford it, although I’m not sure what the overall balance of environmental advantage is in replacing even an older and more polluting vehicle before it really is at the end of its life.
From that point of view it’s good that we only visit London occasionally.
My Ford Fiesta is a '15 registration, so presumably is compliant with ULEZ?
Certainly not. It's obvious that they's a problem
The government and all the opposition parties recognise that there is a problem.
Yes, indeed they do - but what are they doing about it? Not enough, according to many people - and rowing back on green policies isn't going to help.
Uh huh. Whose attention? To what end? If it quacks like a prat...
Governments and people haven't been listening, or they've not understood (ie: they don't recognise there's a problem).
Or, the have been listening and understand but put their short term political careers or profits above the good of all (ie: they've chosen to not address the problem).
The option of them recognising the problem isn't one of those conclusions - otherwise they'd have done something. LEZs aren't more than a sticking plaster for the local impacts of pollution from burning fossil fuels, helping only a little bit if they lead to less cars on our roads. I don't see any government or major opposition party in our countries actively pursuing policies towards even something as modest as a 20% reduction in car use over the next few years, let alone major steps to address climate change like closing down all combustion for electricity generation and replacing all space heating with systems that don't burn stuff, no halt to opening and exploration for new fossil fuel reserves.
I'm sorry to say, but no, I can't.
I am disabled - I can't walk more than a few feet without crutches, and the purpose of our visit was to see our elderly aunt in a convent in Stoke Newington. I simply could not manage the train/underground/bus journey that would be required.
Auntie is 92, and ailing, This was probably the last time I'll see her, so I won't be adding to London's poor air quality again.
It's not a question of whether they recognise there is a problem, but of what they propose to do about it (apart from following the four stage strategy)
One thing they could do is to stop people causing traffic jams.
The majority of traffic jams are caused by sheer weight of traffic itself and the ultimate problem is one of emissions to which the only solution is to reduce them, both by replacing older cars and taking cars off the road altogether and replacing them with more efficient means of transport.
A fairly significant part of the problem is caused by the earlier 'dash for diesel' (which intersected with the switch to SUVs - as they needed diesel to get reasonable efficiency numbers).
The return trip to London would cost in the order of £800 (and there’s a strike on the day we need to return). Then cross south London journey would be a 50% longer journey time than by car. Then 40-60 minutes journey time between wedding venue and reception (v. 20 mins by car). Return journey after reception (3 buses) twice as long as by car. Travel to and fro across south London c. £50. Total cost around £850. We couldn’t afford it.
This compares to a marginal cost of under £150 to do the whole thing by car, even allowing for the congestion charge.
That's fair enough, but most visitors to London are visiting central London or Zone 2 at most, and much of the TFL network is wheelchair accessible. I appreciate that for a one-off visit in those circumstances, car travel is more convenient.
As an aside, have you tried using a powerchair instead of crutches? I'm surprised that crutches would be preferable to a wheelchair. As you well know, I am also disabled and I'm well-experienced with travelling across London while disabled.
I agree. I live in a village on the edge of a market town that has e scooters and no cycle ways at all. The scooters are fast and use pavements and roads indiscriminately. A month ago there was a serious crash a few weeks ago when a scooter crashed into a stationary car just a few hundred yards down the road requiring the full blue light treatment.
I have passed a driving test. Why not ask the same for a scooter that goes as fast as the moped I used to ride? Why not insist on helmets?
I live in Bedfordshire, I have an aging uncle in South Cambs. To drive is 34 miles each way, roughly 45 mins. Public transport? Bus to station. Train to London tube to Kings Cross Train to Royston. then to village. 3 buses a day or a 3 mile walk (can't do the latter due to arthritis). Half mile walk from the bus stop. On a good day 3 hours each way.
Buses - well across the road into town (10 mins) but only 3 a day. Local to Northampton (one hour for 15 miles) , then to Cambridge (direct about an hour) . Then to Royston (an hour) , then to village (20 mins excluding wait). Over 3 hours each way again.
It's a great goal but how will we achieve it?
My daughter and son in law do not have a car. She walks to work 2 miles. He walks to a station to go 20 miles by train. The trains are unreliable even with no strikes. He cannot work from home being a customer facing role in a public setting. Total journey time if working 1 hour 15. Max driving 30 mins on cross country routes.
They don't. They're limited to 15mph. Mopeds are limited to twice that speed.
So, what is more efficient than getting in your car when you reasonably need to? Which I in my privilege only need to once a week if that.
well, they're *legally* limited to 15 MPH.... in reality, it takes about 10 seconds and a mod off the internet to ungovern the motor....
Yeah, but that's a different thing isn't it? The problem there isn't that the rider doesn't have a driving licence (you don't need one for a pushbike either and you can do 20mph on the flat on a road bike quite easily); it's that they're riding an illegally modified vehicle.
You can mod most mopeds to get 45mph out of them (I had one where the regulator developed a fault and found that out!) but we still let 16 year olds ride them, and don't require a motorcycle licence - based on what they can do if not illegally adapted.
I didn't say that I prefer crutches to a wheelchair. I would happily use a powered wheelchair, but there are logistical reasons for not doing so - I won't go into details.
Fair enough, I was just a bit puzzled!
15mph is still very fast compared to a pedestrian, especially someone who can't move as quickly like a young child or elderly person. I don't think e-scooters should require the equivalent of a driving license but some kind of standardised cycling license that could cover both e-bikes and e-scooters. It could be a scannable license which could then also be used to unlock public hire scooters and bikes.
I'm all in favour of e-bikes and e-scooters, including publicly hireable ones. But riders can still harm themselves and others when they're used irresponsibly.
Well, your question as to who would visit London by car has now been answered.
I mean I did already say that I understood why in your case you went by car. Crutches vs powerchair is a different issue since even people who travel by car get out of the car at some point.
Both e-Scooters and e-Bikes shouldn't be on pavements. They're often found there because the roads are are so dangerous because of our terrible driving standards, especially around vulnerable road users.
The solution is threefold:
1. Proper segregation;
2. Where that can't be achieved, 20mph limits
3. Removal of driving licences from drivers who demonstrate that either their competence or attitude makes them unable to drive safely around bikes and scooters.
How would you justify requiring licences for e Bikes when their motors cut out at a speed lower than most cyclists are quite capable of reaching on a regular bike? It's only uphill that they actually go any faster. The focus doesn't want to be on e-scooters or bikes really - the focus needs to be on the way motor vehicles are prioritised still, so that everyone else is pushed to the edges where they are in conflict with each other.
Edited to add that I don't necessarily disagree with you but also maybe this is a bigger issue in urban areas? Which of course has its own contributing factors, but for what it's worth the places where e-scooters have been a problem have also had large city centre parks with paths suitable for bikes and scooters. It wasn't due to a lack of facilities elsewhere. Perhaps there is a clash with pedestrianised areas taking up much of a city centre? It means that cycle paths are therefore much less direct.
The Sheffield ULEZ doesn't cover private cars, so these people need not do this.
https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/clean-air-zone-sheffield
I agree with you that this is an issue. I am reasonably mobile but on Sunday was blind sided by a scooter rider who came along the narrow pavement behind me at speed. I didn't hear them. It's a quiet road with plenty of drop kerbs - so why choose to stay on the path and expect me both to hear and to move? The former doesn't happen with electrics, the latter not so easy due to arthritis and also on that occasion carrying something quite heavy and unwieldy.
If your cycle paths are very indirect people won't use them; that's human nature. In pedestrianised areas you could segregate pedestrian from cycle/scooter but that does depend on pedestrians observing it as well, which doesn't always happen.
Any scooter going faster than a bike could be must be illegally modified; as I say, 20mph is relatively easy to reach on a road bike on the flat, and most hybrids and mountain bikes wouldn't be much slower. You'd have to be a complete arse to be doing that speed around pedestrians but its the person on it, not the vehicle itself. So I can believe an arse on a legal e-scooter could be faster than a non-arse on a bike, but it's the arsery that's the governing factor, not the vehicle.
As I said to @Pomona the issue here is illegal use - these things aren't legal on footways at all, unless they're shared use - and shared use footways shouldn't be narrow pavements.
Make the roads safe, provide infrastructure that actually works (needs to be direct, and paint is not a protective measure), and you can then get the scooters away from the pedestrians.
We still see it as normal that motor vehicles get the lions' share of the space and push other modes into a small space (your narrow pavement is a case in point) where they are in conflict with each other.
A problem not limited to electric two-wheeled vehicles.
Oh definitely not, I meant the riders in general. Around here they mostly use normal bikes or mopeds, congestion is a total nightmare due to medieval roads so cars are actually too slow. We have an absurd lack of pedestrianisation compared to other cathedral cities of comparable age.
Well yes; given the turnout
on the face of it, an equally valid narrative is that progressive voters were put off voting by the major candidates both opposing the ULEZ
Thanks for that.
Indeed. And the Lib Dems (and locally the Greens) are showing that green issues DO matter to people.
Edited to add that I don't necessarily trust the Lib Dems to do anything but 'light green' anything. Not least because they were willing to sign off on harsher benefit sanctions in order to get the supermarket plastic bag fee.
They don't matter to the 80% non-'progressive'. An American 'progressive' was on The Context (BBC24) recently saying how the masses must pay for all this. At least they were honest. As the rich, the landed, certainly won't.
What has an American got to do with ULEZ?
What's making the masses pay got to do with social justice?
If they were serious about pollution and the climate, they would stop the planes.
Who's the "they" here? The London Mayor doesn't have that power.
The ULEZ is primarily about air quality and in urban areas that's very much about emissions from ICEs.