Independent Leyton Orient Forum

greyhound wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 8:56 am how many on hear affected by this £12 charge.
FFS think its outrageous if you live in the zone just to
go to work every day will cost a bomb.

greyhound wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 8:56 am how many on hear affected by this £12 charge.
FFS think its outrageous if you live in the zone just to
go to work every day will cost a bomb.

ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 1:01 pm I have noticed that petrol cars only need to meet Euro4 to be able to come into London without charge.
This initially intrigued me, because Euro4 became Law in 2006, seventeen years ago.
Why use a 17 year old protocol, when there are more recent, more stringent Euro protocols, that produce even less pollutants?

I believe Mayor Khan knew there would be great resistance to the new ULEZ scheme, and to make life as easy as he could for himself, he didnt want to go the full hog at the beginning.
At the moment it is estimated that about 10% of cars, will fall foul of the new ULEZ regulations, and most of them will be diesels.
Imagine if he had decided that the Euro5 protocol would be the minimum criteria …..that would have meant 30% to 40% of cars would now not be eligible, and would have to be scrapped, and that would have caused him a lot more trouble, so by opting for the lowest Euro standard, the opposition would be the lowest he could get.

However, I believe within 18 to 24 months, the Euro4 criteria will be scrapped in favour of Euro5, so anyone with a petrol car registered in 2006,07,08,09, & 2010, will have to scrap it, or pay £12-50, every time they use it. ( By then the charge will almost certainly be raised to £15 or more)
This will mean thousands of perfectly good cars, will be heading to the crusher.
Probably another 2 years down the line, Euro5 will be surpassed by Euro6, and thousands more good cars will be scrapped.
Many people just cant afford to buy a new car these days. Electric cars are very pricey, so many people will be forced to live life without a car. ( Maybe thats the whole idea)

I believe this ULEZ scheme is a cash grab, partly ‘forced’ on the Mayor by this Tory government, but a cash grab nonetheless

E10EU wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 1:27 pm Seems that health and wellbeing (for children and adults) is of no interest to politicians when they see their own generous mealticket threatened.
Starmer was fully supportive of ULEZ until Labour didn't win the majority in Uxbridge byelection he had thought was 'in the bag'.

Quite ridiculous to hear people demanding that measures to reduce air pollution should be stopped. Backward - or what?

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 2:25 pm https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-envi ... 610600.amp

Fake news gshaw

faldO wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 3:15 pm More allegations of impropriety by Khan's Deputy Mayor Shirley Rodrigues, this time in relation to a study that looked at the impact of low emission zones in London on children's health.

Khan’s deputy urged scientists to alter study showing emissions scheme had no impact on child health.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/ ... r-AA1fDnoc

According to emails, Rodrigues asked Prof. Chris Griffiths of Queen Mary University whether he could "reword" the conclusion to his report on the basis that "it reads like Lez (low emissions zones) or similar have no impact at all." (on children's health)

He replied "Apologies - it’s difficult to alter the sentence you refer to as it’s what we set out to look for but didn’t find."

gshaw wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 2:48 pm

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 2:25 pm https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-envi ... 610600.amp

Fake news gshaw

BBC are doing what Khan tells them to, just repeating this one to highlight the kind of chancers we're dealing with here

faldO wrote: ↑Wed Aug 23, 2023 3:15 pm More allegations of impropriety by Khan's Deputy Mayor Shirley Rodrigues, this time in relation to a study that looked at the impact of low emission zones in London on children's health.

Khan’s deputy urged scientists to alter study showing emissions scheme had no impact on child health.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/ ... r-AA1fDnoc

According to emails, Rodrigues asked Prof. Chris Griffiths of Queen Mary University whether he could "reword" the conclusion to his report on the basis that "it reads like Lez (low emissions zones) or similar have no impact at all." (on children's health)

He replied "Apologies - it’s difficult to alter the sentence you refer to as it’s what we set out to look for but didn’t find."

ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 1:01 pm I have noticed that petrol cars only need to meet Euro4 to be able to come into London without charge.
This initially intrigued me, because Euro4 became Law in 2006, seventeen years ago.
Why use a 17 year old protocol, when there are more recent, more stringent Euro protocols, that produce even less pollutants?

I believe Mayor Khan knew there would be great resistance to the new ULEZ scheme, and to make life as easy as he could for himself, he didnt want to go the full hog at the beginning.
At the moment it is estimated that about 10% of cars, will fall foul of the new ULEZ regulations, and most of them will be diesels.
Imagine if he had decided that the Euro5 protocol would be the minimum criteria …..that would have meant 30% to 40% of cars would now not be eligible, and would have to be scrapped, and that would have caused him a lot more trouble, so by opting for the lowest Euro standard, the opposition would be the lowest he could get.

However, I believe within 18 to 24 months, the Euro4 criteria will be scrapped in favour of Euro5, so anyone with a petrol car registered in 2006,07,08,09, & 2010, will have to scrap it, or pay £12-50, every time they use it. ( By then the charge will almost certainly be raised to £15 or more)
This will mean thousands of perfectly good cars, will be heading to the crusher.
Probably another 2 years down the line, Euro5 will be surpassed by Euro6, and thousands more good cars will be scrapped.
Many people just cant afford to buy a new car these days. Electric cars are very pricey, so many people will be forced to live life without a car. ( Maybe thats the whole idea)

I believe this ULEZ scheme is a cash grab, partly ‘forced’ on the Mayor by this Tory government, but a cash grab nonetheless

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 5:37 pm Are you conspiraloons trying to claim that taking the most polluting vehicles off the road WONT reduce pollution? Because that sounds idiotic.

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 11:37 am So because China pollutes, London shouldn't bother trying to give it's own citizens cleaner air? Righto. I'll just tell my kid that he has to breath in emissions at their current levels because a new coal mine has opened outside Beijing and that means it'd be hypocritical of us to do anything positive.

gshaw wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 5:44 pm

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 5:37 pm Are you conspiraloons trying to claim that taking the most polluting vehicles off the road WONT reduce pollution? Because that sounds idiotic.

Here's the thing, for the cost of all the cameras, installation, data network, admin, advertising etc etc etc you could create a well funded vehicle trade-in scheme to help people into newer cleaner vehicles (or offer them multi year public transport passes as an alternative)

However it's all about ongoing fines and revenue stream hence the focus is on enforcement. Same reason we have some of the worst value public transport in Europe yet the hypocrites in Government harp on about Net Zero. All about the money, as always.

Some eye watering numbers here

Each camera 10-15k to install

https://www.google.com/amp/s/uk.finance ... 31983.html

The network now comprising 2750 cameras (big jump from that 2021 figure)

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transpo ... 96311.html

Is that a good use of £75 million if your first priority is to help people move into new vehicles? No it's a nice little earner in fines, especially once the next stage of their published plan comes in and the compliance threshold gets moved.

Loin Cloth Lenny wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 6:14 pm

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 11:37 am So because China pollutes, London shouldn't bother trying to give it's own citizens cleaner air? Righto. I'll just tell my kid that he has to breath in emissions at their current levels because a new coal mine has opened outside Beijing and that means it'd be hypocritical of us to do anything positive.

I’m more worried about breathing in second hand nicotine, vape smoke and skunk closer to home than traffic fumes. Especially on the underground these days where smoking seems to have made a comeback .

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 7:31 pm

Loin Cloth Lenny wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 6:14 pm

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 11:37 am So because China pollutes, London shouldn't bother trying to give it's own citizens cleaner air? Righto. I'll just tell my kid that he has to breath in emissions at their current levels because a new coal mine has opened outside Beijing and that means it'd be hypocritical of us to do anything positive.

I’m more worried about breathing in second hand nicotine, vape smoke and skunk closer to home than traffic fumes. Especially on the underground these days where smoking seems to have made a comeback .

Then you are not a serious person. Hope this helps.

Stowaway wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 7:47 pm I wonder how many of the foamy-mouthed gammons slagging off the policy on here actually live in London? Because I do. I’m also a car owner, an asthmatic and very definitely not wealthy, and I absolutely endorse the ULEZ zone.