One thing that may correlate with age is ability or lack thereof to go online. My mother is still driving at the age of 90, and she's still a good driver (speaking as someone who is happy to be her passenger).
Ordering online for Mum involves hand writing a shopping list, driving to post the list and cheque to me, and then me doing the online bit when I get the list. The nearest letter box is closer than the nearest supermarket, but there's not much in it! Both letter box and supermarket are too far to walk and neither are on a bus route.
Then Tesco drive to deliver the groceries to Mum, and I drive to the next town to bank the cheque (although I'd always combine that with doing something else in town.)
Mum doesn't live in London though, so her situation is only tangentially relevant to the thread. But it's definitely more environmentally friendly for Mum to just drive to the supermarket herself.
Can your mum not send you a text message of her list and simply pay you back later for the money spent? Actually posting a cheque through the mail seems utterly ridiculous. If someone can't text I'm not sure I would trust them to drive!
Also such people must be in a tiny minority of older people - my grandma is in her 90s and happily on Facebook, and does all her shopping online. Many of today's older people were the ones inventing the internet in the first place!
Also, lest I be accused of being a digital native - as someone in their mid-30s I didn't use the internet until I was 11 or 12, like many other Millennials, and online shopping becoming as normal as it now is wasn't a thing until only a decade ago maybe.
Continuing in my role as Devil's Advocate, it's all very well, but walking perhaps a long way from a bus stop in the rain, with one's shopping trolley crammed full, may not be too easy for someone who is 86.
IOW, one size doesn't fit all.
It equally may not be easy for a disabled 25yo. I realise that you are talking about your own experience here, but please don't conflate age with disability status. Many physically disabled people are young - being told that "you're too young to be disabled" is not a fun experience. There are many 86yos who are significantly less disabled than I am!
Speaking as a disabled person I'm talking from my own experiences, not assumptions. In my own experience this is when I would shop less often and buy a large enough shop that would (for me) justify getting a taxi home. Or shop online - certainly things like less common spice mixes or international products are likely to be easier to find online anyway. Utilising things like frozen vegetables so I would have to shop less often, and so on.
Where have I conflated age with disability status?
You are right that a disabled 25 year old may not find things easy, of course, but I was referring to @Merry Vole 's mother, who is 86, and using that venerable lady as an example.
Mum has been driving for seventy years, including driving commercially in the 1960s. She's got news clippings of a driving award she received in 1961, the first woman in the North of Scotland to get such an award.
The fact that she didn't subsequently become computer literate doesn't mean that she can't be trusted to drive now. None of her friends are online either, they still keep in touch by phone and proper handwritten letters, in cursive script, on Basildon Bond.
It's harsh and unkind to say *If someone can't text I'm not sure I would trust them to drive!*
I can just about make calls or read messages on my Smartphone, but texting is not something I've mastered - yet... Cognitive decline doesn't help, though.
Perhaps I should give up driving, too?
(FWIW, I'm getting a little tired of @Pomona 's digs at people, but I see that there is now a Hell thread...)
Sorry, I don't see where I have made any 'little digs'. It's not being harsh or unkind to say that driving requires a huge amount of concentration and dexterity, given that you are steering a huge lump of metal that can easily kill another person. If someone does not have the dexterity to send a text message I would be concerned about their safety on the road, and the safety of others. That is in NO WAY a personal criticism, but what I think is a pretty reasonable desire not to get run over! Many people in this thread have commented on the dangers cars present to pedestrians and cyclists, so I'm not sure why I'm the bad guy for also commenting on this.
@Bishops Finger apologies for any confusion wrt the 86yo, I thought you were referring to yourself there.
I think a lot of drivers - especially those who learned at a relatively young age - often forget how incredibly dangerous cars are for other people and even themselves, even leaving aside issues of pollution. As a disabled pedestrian it is so, so easy for someone driving a car to kill me. Wanting that to be taken seriously is not at all harsh or unkind. I haven't even called for maximum age limits for driving, which is an extremely common thing in many places. However there should be annual exams for all drivers regardless of age to test things like reaction time and so on - like an MOT for drivers. I don't see how this is unreasonable. Perhaps given the reality of age-related decline - which I'm not saying would necessarily apply to anyone mentioned here - for people over 70 it could be every 6 months.
Also before someone deliberately misunderstands me - I can't drive for disability reasons, so it's not actually a choice not to in my case. I would say that for the safety of others and themselves, many people of all ages probably should not be driving. Cognitive impairment is in no way exclusive to older people.
There are many reasons why people can't/don't text, not necessarily related to cognitive impairment, and even if it is, there are all sorts of different cognitive issues a person can have, which don't necessarily impact on driving. That does seem an odd sweeping judgement to make. Everyone's disabilities are different, and it's worth pointing out that the fact that a person has disabilities themselves doesn't mean they can't also be ableist about other people's disabilities.
And stating that an elderly person may have difficulty getting around is not making any comment about younger people, or people of various ages with all sorts of different disabilities. It's a simple statement in itself, and it's true. I have my own disabilities and I am not elderly, but I also would say that an 86 year old might have difficulty getting around, because it is quite common for people in their 80s to struggle to get around.
In the same way I might say autistic people can have difficulties with executive functioning, or with sensory processing, and I'm not for one minute suggesting that people with other disabilities/illnesses that are not autism don't have these issues.
Sorry, I don't see where I have made any 'little digs'. It's not being harsh or unkind to say that driving requires a huge amount of concentration and dexterity, given that you are steering a huge lump of metal that can easily kill another person. If someone does not have the dexterity to send a text message I would be concerned about their safety on the road, and the safety of others. That is in NO WAY a personal criticism, but what I think is a pretty reasonable desire not to get run over! Many people in this thread have commented on the dangers cars present to pedestrians and cyclists, so I'm not sure why I'm the bad guy for also commenting on this.
I don't think texting and driving and particularly comparable. Aside from the obvious fact that a skill learned over 70 years will be less subject to cognitive decline than one learned 6 months ago, texting is pretty much entirely fine motor control (couldn't avoid the pun) at short vision distances, while driving is nearly all gross motor control at long vision distances. The sort of age-related issues that make it hard to text (tremors, arthritis in wrists and fingers) are much less impactful in driving.
I wonder whether there should be an over-80 exemption or cost reduction for the ULEZ. It is, after all (without wishing to be unkind) a problem that will diminish in size quite rapidly.
It's not ableist to say that people need to be able to have a great deal of concentration and dexterity in order to drive safely. In addition, driving is a privilege and not a right - nobody is owed the right to drive. I don't drive because my PTSD means my ability to respond safely to things like unexpected and loud noises is impaired - not driving means that others are kept safer. I'm not sure why it's wrong to expect that basic courtesy from others.
The reality is that every driver is a potential killer - it's impossible to eliminate the risk that drivers pose to pedestrians and other road users, but it is possible to reduce that risk. And that means that people should not be able to drive if they are less able to drive safely.
Sorry, I don't see where I have made any 'little digs'. It's not being harsh or unkind to say that driving requires a huge amount of concentration and dexterity, given that you are steering a huge lump of metal that can easily kill another person. If someone does not have the dexterity to send a text message I would be concerned about their safety on the road, and the safety of others. That is in NO WAY a personal criticism, but what I think is a pretty reasonable desire not to get run over! Many people in this thread have commented on the dangers cars present to pedestrians and cyclists, so I'm not sure why I'm the bad guy for also commenting on this.
I don't think texting and driving and particularly comparable. Aside from the obvious fact that a skill learned over 70 years will be less subject to cognitive decline than one learned 6 months ago, texting is pretty much entirely fine motor control (couldn't avoid the pun) at short vision distances, while driving is nearly all gross motor control at long vision distances. The sort of age-related issues that make it hard to text (tremors, arthritis in wrists and fingers) are much less impactful in driving.
I wonder whether there should be an over-80 exemption or cost reduction for the ULEZ. It is, after all (without wishing to be unkind) a problem that will diminish in size quite rapidly.
Well, that depends whether you mean all 80+ or 80+ at the point of introduction of the ULEZ.
There are exemptions for disability; given that some 80 year olds are lucky enough to still be able to run marathons and whatnot, the argument is presumably that if your age makes you that infirm you'd qualify as disabled. That may or may not be a valid argument.
It's not ableist to say that people need to be able to have a great deal of concentration and dexterity in order to drive safely.
No, of course it's not, and no one suggested it was. It is, however, ableist to say 'If someone can't text I'm not sure I would trust them to drive!' Because, as I said, there are many different reasons why a person might not be able to text, and you are dismissing and reducing them all into one massive assumption. This is exactly how ableism works.
Sorry, I don't see where I have made any 'little digs'. It's not being harsh or unkind to say that driving requires a huge amount of concentration and dexterity, given that you are steering a huge lump of metal that can easily kill another person. If someone does not have the dexterity to send a text message I would be concerned about their safety on the road, and the safety of others. That is in NO WAY a personal criticism, but what I think is a pretty reasonable desire not to get run over! Many people in this thread have commented on the dangers cars present to pedestrians and cyclists, so I'm not sure why I'm the bad guy for also commenting on this.
I don't think texting and driving and particularly comparable. Aside from the obvious fact that a skill learned over 70 years will be less subject to cognitive decline than one learned 6 months ago, texting is pretty much entirely fine motor control (couldn't avoid the pun) at short vision distances, while driving is nearly all gross motor control at long vision distances. The sort of age-related issues that make it hard to text (tremors, arthritis in wrists and fingers) are much less impactful in driving.
I wonder whether there should be an over-80 exemption or cost reduction for the ULEZ. It is, after all (without wishing to be unkind) a problem that will diminish in size quite rapidly.
Well, that depends whether you mean all 80+ or 80+ at the point of introduction of the ULEZ.
I meant the latter, an almost-literal "grandfather clause". Those younger and not disabled should be able to use technology sufficiently to place online orders and communicate via text or email as needed.
It's not ableist to say that people need to be able to have a great deal of concentration and dexterity in order to drive safely.
No, of course it's not, and no one suggested it was. It is, however, ableist to say 'If someone can't text I'm not sure I would trust them to drive!' Because, as I said, there are many different reasons why a person might not be able to text, and you are dismissing and reducing them all into one massive assumption. This is exactly how ableism works.
I'm quite aware that there are various reasons for not being able to text, I just would have thought that all of them would impact on someone's ability to drive safely. I am surprised that according to @Arethosemyfeet fine motor skills are less important for driving, because I was imagining fine motor skills to be important for eg gearstick control. I apologise if I was incorrect on that subject.
Meanwhile where I live various churches are protesting Sunday car parking charges, because Jesus loves air pollution I guess.
I said that my mother "didn't become computer literate", not that she was physically incapable of texting etc. Her needlework suggests that her fine motor skills are still good. Her handwriting is beautiful.
As a busy woman with a range of hobbies, interests and caring responsibilites she simply didn't see a need to learn to use computers, texting etc.
More likely because they are "gathered" churches, taking congregations from a wide area, or because the buses don't suit/don't run on Sundays.
Which I totally agree is a problem (lack of Sunday buses I mean), but the optics leave a lot to be desired. It's hard to vigorously defend But My Car and then also claim to love and care for Creation. Or indeed other church members for whom air pollution causes serious illness.
I said that my mother "didn't become computer literate", not that she was physically incapable of texting etc. Her needlework suggests that her fine motor skills are still good. Her handwriting is beautiful.
As a busy woman with a range of hobbies, interests and caring responsibilites she simply didn't see a need to learn to use computers, texting etc.
It's not ableist to say that people need to be able to have a great deal of concentration and dexterity in order to drive safely.
No, of course it's not, and no one suggested it was. It is, however, ableist to say 'If someone can't text I'm not sure I would trust them to drive!' Because, as I said, there are many different reasons why a person might not be able to text, and you are dismissing and reducing them all into one massive assumption. This is exactly how ableism works.
I'm quite aware that there are various reasons for not being able to text, I just would have thought that all of them would impact on someone's ability to drive safely. I am surprised that according to @Arethosemyfeet fine motor skills are less important for driving, because I was imagining fine motor skills to be important for eg gearstick control. I apologise if I was incorrect on that subject.
I'm quite aware that there are various reasons for not being able to text, I just would have thought that all of them would impact on someone's ability to drive safely.
There are still a lot of elderly people who don’t have mobile phones, and many of those who do have never bothered learning how to use the text function as they’ve never felt the need to do so. Many of these people are still mentally and physically able to drive
I am surprised that according to @Arethosemyfeet fine motor skills are less important for driving, because I was imagining fine motor skills to be important for eg gearstick control. I apologise if I was incorrect on that subject.
Ever heard of automatic transmission? 😜
I’m a driving instructor and over the years have taught a lot of people with both physical and neurodiverse disabilities (I’ve attended training courses at QEF Mobility) who have turned out to be safe and responsible drivers. I currently have a lady with dyspraxia. It took longer to cover the basics, but she’s made really good (if slow) progress and I fully expect her to pass her driving test with flying colours.
Sorry, I don't see where I have made any 'little digs'. It's not being harsh or unkind to say that driving requires a huge amount of concentration and dexterity, given that you are steering a huge lump of metal that can easily kill another person. If someone does not have the dexterity to send a text message I would be concerned about their safety on the road, and the safety of others. That is in NO WAY a personal criticism, but what I think is a pretty reasonable desire not to get run over! Many people in this thread have commented on the dangers cars present to pedestrians and cyclists, so I'm not sure why I'm the bad guy for also commenting on this.
@Bishops Finger apologies for any confusion wrt the 86yo, I thought you were referring to yourself there.
I think a lot of drivers - especially those who learned at a relatively young age - often forget how incredibly dangerous cars are for other people and even themselves, even leaving aside issues of pollution. As a disabled pedestrian it is so, so easy for someone driving a car to kill me. Wanting that to be taken seriously is not at all harsh or unkind. I haven't even called for maximum age limits for driving, which is an extremely common thing in many places. However there should be annual exams for all drivers regardless of age to test things like reaction time and so on - like an MOT for drivers. I don't see how this is unreasonable. Perhaps given the reality of age-related decline - which I'm not saying would necessarily apply to anyone mentioned here - for people over 70 it could be every 6 months.
If you don't see that saying that someone who can't text shouldn't drive is harsh and unkind, especially when a particular person is being referred to, then there is no point in discussing the matter further on this thread.
I see that, on the Hell thread, this attitude has been described as *ableist*.
More likely because they are "gathered" churches, taking congregations from a wide area, or because the buses don't suit/don't run on Sundays.
Which I totally agree is a problem (lack of Sunday buses I mean), but the optics leave a lot to be desired. It's hard to vigorously defend But My Car and then also claim to love and care for Creation. Or indeed other church members for whom air pollution causes serious illness.
Yes. How many sermons have you ever heard on "support your local church (which needs you) rather than driving to the church you like?" I've heard just one - in 1976. And even that didn't mention pollution and emissions, which weren't really talked about in those days.
Fair enough. If I go to church anywhere these days, it's to my local fane, at the top of the hill...I still have to drive to get there, but it's only a quarter of a mile away - unlike Our Place, which is five miles away.
More likely because they are "gathered" churches, taking congregations from a wide area, or because the buses don't suit/don't run on Sundays.
Which I totally agree is a problem (lack of Sunday buses I mean), but the optics leave a lot to be desired. It's hard to vigorously defend But My Car and then also claim to love and care for Creation. Or indeed other church members for whom air pollution causes serious illness.
Yes. How many sermons have you ever heard on "support your local church (which needs you) rather than driving to the church you like?" I've heard just one - in 1976. And even that didn't mention pollution and emissions, which weren't really talked about in those days.
I've heard a few. I've tried to do it too. It didn't work.
More likely because they are "gathered" churches, taking congregations from a wide area, or because the buses don't suit/don't run on Sundays.
Which I totally agree is a problem (lack of Sunday buses I mean), but the optics leave a lot to be desired. It's hard to vigorously defend But My Car and then also claim to love and care for Creation. Or indeed other church members for whom air pollution causes serious illness.
Yes. How many sermons have you ever heard on "support your local church (which needs you) rather than driving to the church you like?"
Loads of them - but then I used to attend a church whose leader was very into that, I'd agree that normally it's unusual on it's own, but I've seen it more commonly expressed in terms of being involved in the community you are located in.
I said that my mother "didn't become computer literate", not that she was physically incapable of texting etc. Her needlework suggests that her fine motor skills are still good. Her handwriting is beautiful.
As a busy woman with a range of hobbies, interests and caring responsibilites she simply didn't see a need to learn to use computers, texting etc.
I apologise.
Thank you. And I apologise for introducing my mother, who lives in an area of low density housing and poor public transport and who is, therefore, irrelevant to the topic of London Ulez.
I think it would be a good idea if everyone could get back onto the topic of the London ULEZ, and not pursue further the topics of ableism, ageism, or particular personal circumstances.
In reality, in six months most people will have probably forgotten all about it once they’ve realised it doesn’t affect them
Yes, until England is flooded by rising sea levels, or choked by the smoke from wildfires...
Um, I read that as Spike suggesting most people will calm down about it when they realise they aren't affected, so it will be fine? But thanks as ever/usual for the high opinion of your fellow English people. It's a tonic.
As I said before, we've had ULEZ for years in Central London, and I think it was brought in by Boris, quite amusing. Of course, nobody mentions it now, as far as I can see.
In reality, in six months most people will have probably forgotten all about it once they’ve realised it doesn’t affect them
Yes, until England is flooded by rising sea levels, or choked by the smoke from wildfires...
Um, I read that as Spike suggesting most people will calm down about it when they realise they aren't affected, so it will be fine? But thanks as ever/usual for the high opinion of your fellow English people. It's a tonic.
You're welcome. Your final remark was, however, unnecessary. I was merely suggesting that the folly of forgetting about ( or ignoring) the climate crisis may well be brought home - in the not-too-distant future - in a most unpleasant way
As I said before, we've had ULEZ for years in Central London, and I think it was brought in by Boris, quite amusing. Of course, nobody mentions it now, as far as I can see.
Indeed.
The irony is so obvious that it has become the elephant in the room, IYSWIM.
In reality, in six months most people will have probably forgotten all about it once they’ve realised it doesn’t affect them
Yes, until England is flooded by rising sea levels, or choked by the smoke from wildfires...
Um, I read that as Spike suggesting most people will calm down about it when they realise they aren't affected, so it will be fine? But thanks as ever/usual for the high opinion of your fellow English people. It's a tonic.
Sort of. What I meant was that most people will stop getting angry about the ULEZ charge as they have compliant vehicles. As I said upthread, the people it affects most are the owners of gas guzzling diesels, and I have little sympathy for them
Public transport, electrified (of course). So that there are zero-emission buses, trains, trams to get people around to where they need/want to go.
Footpaths and cycle paths (and, secure places to store bikes) for those able to walk and cycle shorter distances. Also for e-bikes, e-scooters and other small electric vehicles (including mobility scooters and the like for disabled people).
Urban planning so that people don't need to travel as much - with schools, shops, cinemas, GPs and dentists etc within reasonable walking distance.
That's just some of what's needed to address the transport pollution that LEZs also address, making the impact of LEZs on people lives as small as possible. Plenty of other stuff to invest in to address the issues of CO2 pollution on the global climate.
That's the in what. Totally agreed. Where's the of what?
What else will you invest? Money, of course. It's an investment, will boost the economy and raise tax revenue, so no problem borrowing that if needed. But, redirecting the subsidies the government pays to the burning of oil and gas would cover a lot of it, as would income for LEZs and other sticks for motorists (eg: parking fees, congestion charging, VED, taxes on fuel).
Borrow?!
Shtewpid question, what subsidies?
Googlin' on the above. Fuck me! Over £40bn in 23 months, much of it (£6bn in a decade) abroad!? On production. Of 1/6th of the UK's carbon. Again. Clean energy gets less than £30bn.
So, tax carbon 100% of its sale price and give that to consumers of green energy in subsidy?
Comments
Ordering online for Mum involves hand writing a shopping list, driving to post the list and cheque to me, and then me doing the online bit when I get the list. The nearest letter box is closer than the nearest supermarket, but there's not much in it! Both letter box and supermarket are too far to walk and neither are on a bus route.
Then Tesco drive to deliver the groceries to Mum, and I drive to the next town to bank the cheque (although I'd always combine that with doing something else in town.)
Mum doesn't live in London though, so her situation is only tangentially relevant to the thread. But it's definitely more environmentally friendly for Mum to just drive to the supermarket herself.
Also such people must be in a tiny minority of older people - my grandma is in her 90s and happily on Facebook, and does all her shopping online. Many of today's older people were the ones inventing the internet in the first place!
Where have I conflated age with disability status?
You are right that a disabled 25 year old may not find things easy, of course, but I was referring to @Merry Vole 's mother, who is 86, and using that venerable lady as an example.
The fact that she didn't subsequently become computer literate doesn't mean that she can't be trusted to drive now. None of her friends are online either, they still keep in touch by phone and proper handwritten letters, in cursive script, on Basildon Bond.
I can just about make calls or read messages on my Smartphone, but texting is not something I've mastered - yet... Cognitive decline doesn't help, though.
Perhaps I should give up driving, too?
(FWIW, I'm getting a little tired of @Pomona 's digs at people, but I see that there is now a Hell thread...)
@Bishops Finger apologies for any confusion wrt the 86yo, I thought you were referring to yourself there.
I think a lot of drivers - especially those who learned at a relatively young age - often forget how incredibly dangerous cars are for other people and even themselves, even leaving aside issues of pollution. As a disabled pedestrian it is so, so easy for someone driving a car to kill me. Wanting that to be taken seriously is not at all harsh or unkind. I haven't even called for maximum age limits for driving, which is an extremely common thing in many places. However there should be annual exams for all drivers regardless of age to test things like reaction time and so on - like an MOT for drivers. I don't see how this is unreasonable. Perhaps given the reality of age-related decline - which I'm not saying would necessarily apply to anyone mentioned here - for people over 70 it could be every 6 months.
And stating that an elderly person may have difficulty getting around is not making any comment about younger people, or people of various ages with all sorts of different disabilities. It's a simple statement in itself, and it's true. I have my own disabilities and I am not elderly, but I also would say that an 86 year old might have difficulty getting around, because it is quite common for people in their 80s to struggle to get around.
In the same way I might say autistic people can have difficulties with executive functioning, or with sensory processing, and I'm not for one minute suggesting that people with other disabilities/illnesses that are not autism don't have these issues.
I don't think texting and driving and particularly comparable. Aside from the obvious fact that a skill learned over 70 years will be less subject to cognitive decline than one learned 6 months ago, texting is pretty much entirely fine motor control (couldn't avoid the pun) at short vision distances, while driving is nearly all gross motor control at long vision distances. The sort of age-related issues that make it hard to text (tremors, arthritis in wrists and fingers) are much less impactful in driving.
I wonder whether there should be an over-80 exemption or cost reduction for the ULEZ. It is, after all (without wishing to be unkind) a problem that will diminish in size quite rapidly.
The reality is that every driver is a potential killer - it's impossible to eliminate the risk that drivers pose to pedestrians and other road users, but it is possible to reduce that risk. And that means that people should not be able to drive if they are less able to drive safely.
Well, that depends whether you mean all 80+ or 80+ at the point of introduction of the ULEZ.
There are exemptions for disability; given that some 80 year olds are lucky enough to still be able to run marathons and whatnot, the argument is presumably that if your age makes you that infirm you'd qualify as disabled. That may or may not be a valid argument.
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/discounts-and-exemptions#on-this-page-0
No, of course it's not, and no one suggested it was. It is, however, ableist to say 'If someone can't text I'm not sure I would trust them to drive!' Because, as I said, there are many different reasons why a person might not be able to text, and you are dismissing and reducing them all into one massive assumption. This is exactly how ableism works.
I meant the latter, an almost-literal "grandfather clause". Those younger and not disabled should be able to use technology sufficiently to place online orders and communicate via text or email as needed.
I'm quite aware that there are various reasons for not being able to text, I just would have thought that all of them would impact on someone's ability to drive safely. I am surprised that according to @Arethosemyfeet fine motor skills are less important for driving, because I was imagining fine motor skills to be important for eg gearstick control. I apologise if I was incorrect on that subject.
Meanwhile where I live various churches are protesting Sunday car parking charges, because Jesus loves air pollution I guess.
As a busy woman with a range of hobbies, interests and caring responsibilites she simply didn't see a need to learn to use computers, texting etc.
Which I totally agree is a problem (lack of Sunday buses I mean), but the optics leave a lot to be desired. It's hard to vigorously defend But My Car and then also claim to love and care for Creation. Or indeed other church members for whom air pollution causes serious illness.
I apologise.
Gear stick is very much a gross movement.
There are still a lot of elderly people who don’t have mobile phones, and many of those who do have never bothered learning how to use the text function as they’ve never felt the need to do so. Many of these people are still mentally and physically able to drive Ever heard of automatic transmission? 😜
I’m a driving instructor and over the years have taught a lot of people with both physical and neurodiverse disabilities (I’ve attended training courses at QEF Mobility) who have turned out to be safe and responsible drivers. I currently have a lady with dyspraxia. It took longer to cover the basics, but she’s made really good (if slow) progress and I fully expect her to pass her driving test with flying colours.
If you don't see that saying that someone who can't text shouldn't drive is harsh and unkind, especially when a particular person is being referred to, then there is no point in discussing the matter further on this thread.
I see that, on the Hell thread, this attitude has been described as *ableist*.
Yes. How many sermons have you ever heard on "support your local church (which needs you) rather than driving to the church you like?" I've heard just one - in 1976. And even that didn't mention pollution and emissions, which weren't really talked about in those days.
I've heard a few. I've tried to do it too. It didn't work.
Loads of them - but then I used to attend a church whose leader was very into that, I'd agree that normally it's unusual on it's own, but I've seen it more commonly expressed in terms of being involved in the community you are located in.
Thank you. And I apologise for introducing my mother, who lives in an area of low density housing and poor public transport and who is, therefore, irrelevant to the topic of London Ulez.
BroJames, Purgatory Host
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/28/sadiq-khan-says-climate-crisis-more-important-than-party-politics-after-ulez-victory
He is IMHO quite right to say that the climate crisis transcends party politics, but the gas-guzzlers beg to disagree...
As do the populist politicians for whom the only important thing is gaining votes, irrespective of the consequences.
Yes, until England is flooded by rising sea levels, or choked by the smoke from wildfires...
Um, I read that as Spike suggesting most people will calm down about it when they realise they aren't affected, so it will be fine? But thanks as ever/usual for the high opinion of your fellow English people. It's a tonic.
You're welcome. Your final remark was, however, unnecessary. I was merely suggesting that the folly of forgetting about ( or ignoring) the climate crisis may well be brought home - in the not-too-distant future - in a most unpleasant way
Indeed.
The irony is so obvious that it has become the elephant in the room, IYSWIM.
Sort of. What I meant was that most people will stop getting angry about the ULEZ charge as they have compliant vehicles. As I said upthread, the people it affects most are the owners of gas guzzling diesels, and I have little sympathy for them
So, tax carbon 100% of its sale price and give that to consumers of green energy in subsidy?