Independent Leyton Orient Forum

ULEZ wouldn’t be a thing if the Tories didn’t scrap the grant to TFL in 2018. They’ve absolutely hamstrung London since Khan has taken over.

But it's about saving lives, not money...

If folks decided to get shot of their smoke belching old grids then Khan wouldn’t make a penny would he.

Maybe that’s the aim here? As Spike has already pointed out, a blanket ban on old grids would bring hellfire down on Khan’s head. Surcharging the worst polluters is currently a reasonable way to encourage owners of such cars to get shot. As another poster has already mentioned, it doesn’t cost a fortune to get an Ulez compliant car.

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 9:09 pm

ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 8:37 pm

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 6:40 pm Do you not think he should be addressing climate change and pollution?

Good question.
This will have such little effect ( if any), on pollution, it really isnt worth the cost to the poorer people of our city. As Ive said, it doesnt affect me personally, as my car is Ulez complient ( at the moment),
Its just gesture politics." Oh look at me, Im doing something about dirty air", when he's not really
This is just honest opinion

Why do you think that taking the most polluting vehicles off the road will have only a "little effect" on pollution?

Its not what i think, its what people who know what their talking about, and Ive read a few accounts from these people saying it wont make much difference.
Even the most polluting cars are not that polluting, as they were say 30 years ago. Cars are cleaner than they have been in recent history.
I genuinely believe the amount of pollution removed will be minimal, and the cost is astronomical

ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 10:10 pm

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 9:09 pm

ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 8:37 pm

Good question.
This will have such little effect ( if any), on pollution, it really isnt worth the cost to the poorer people of our city. As Ive said, it doesnt affect me personally, as my car is Ulez complient ( at the moment),
Its just gesture politics." Oh look at me, Im doing something about dirty air", when he's not really
This is just honest opinion

Why do you think that taking the most polluting vehicles off the road will have only a "little effect" on pollution?

Its not what i think, its what people who know what their talking about, and Ive read a few accounts from these people saying it wont make much difference.
Even the most polluting cars are not that polluting, as they were say 30 years ago. Cars are cleaner than they have been in recent history.
I genuinely believe the amount of pollution removed will be minimal, and the cost is astronomical

Then you genuinely have no idea what you are talking about.

BiggsyMalone wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 9:24 pm ULEZ wouldn’t be a thing if the Tories didn’t scrap the grant to TFL in 2018. They’ve absolutely hamstrung London since Khan has taken over.

Khan was using the grant to offer free transport to the lazy louts in uni instead of using it to improve or maintain services

ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 10:10 pm

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 9:09 pm

ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 8:37 pm

Good question.
This will have such little effect ( if any), on pollution, it really isnt worth the cost to the poorer people of our city. As Ive said, it doesnt affect me personally, as my car is Ulez complient ( at the moment),
Its just gesture politics." Oh look at me, Im doing something about dirty air", when he's not really
This is just honest opinion

Why do you think that taking the most polluting vehicles off the road will have only a "little effect" on pollution?

Its not what i think, its what people who know what their talking about, and Ive read a few accounts from these people saying it wont make much difference.
Even the most polluting cars are not that polluting, as they were say 30 years ago. Cars are cleaner than they have been in recent history.
I genuinely believe the amount of pollution removed will be minimal, and the cost is astronomical

https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute ... sion-zone/

You've been misled, again.

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 7:34 am

ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 10:10 pm

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 9:09 pm
Why do you think that taking the most polluting vehicles off the road will have only a "little effect" on pollution?

Its not what i think, its what people who know what their talking about, and Ive read a few accounts from these people saying it wont make much difference.
Even the most polluting cars are not that polluting, as they were say 30 years ago. Cars are cleaner than they have been in recent history.
I genuinely believe the amount of pollution removed will be minimal, and the cost is astronomical

https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute ... sion-zone/

You've been mislead, again.

I'm sorry - unless you genuinely believe that COYOs has been misled it's very hard to believe you. As for the so-called facts and information that you've linked to, if you think that trumps someone's genuine beliefs - garnered from LBC, DailMail expert opinion pieces - then you are sorely mistaken my friend. Opinion (especially when genuinely held) always > facts.

my van is none compliant.
it passes M.O.T every year which includes emission test.
and responding to it does not cost much to by a car or van
that meets the requirements. £100 pounds is a lot to some people
let alone thousands to by another vehicle.

greyhound wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:54 am my van is none compliant.
it passes M.O.T every year which includes emission test.
and responding to it does not cost much to by a car or van
that meets the requirements. £100 pounds is a lot to some people
let alone thousands to by another vehicle.

Scrap the old banger mate.

As previously discussed, the M.O.T emissions test is totally different, unless you'd like the test changed so your van cant pass an MOT?

Type high wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 3:53 am

BiggsyMalone wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 9:24 pm ULEZ wouldn’t be a thing if the Tories didn’t scrap the grant to TFL in 2018. They’ve absolutely hamstrung London since Khan has taken over.

Khan was using the grant to offer free transport to the lazy louts in uni instead of using it to improve or maintain services

That didn’t happen

ChorizO wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 1:26 am

ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 10:10 pm

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 9:09 pm
Why do you think that taking the most polluting vehicles off the road will have only a "little effect" on pollution?

Its not what i think, its what people who know what their talking about, and Ive read a few accounts from these people saying it wont make much difference.
Even the most polluting cars are not that polluting, as they were say 30 years ago. Cars are cleaner than they have been in recent history.
I genuinely believe the amount of pollution removed will be minimal, and the cost is astronomical

Then you genuinely have no idea what you are talking about.

Or maybe its you who have no idea what your talking about?

Judging by your litany of conspiraloon posts, it's probably you tbh.

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 7:34 am

ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 10:10 pm

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 9:09 pm
Why do you think that taking the most polluting vehicles off the road will have only a "little effect" on pollution?

Its not what i think, its what people who know what their talking about, and Ive read a few accounts from these people saying it wont make much difference.
Even the most polluting cars are not that polluting, as they were say 30 years ago. Cars are cleaner than they have been in recent history.
I genuinely believe the amount of pollution removed will be minimal, and the cost is astronomical

https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute ... sion-zone/

You've been misled, again.

It's interesting that page ignores the Queen Mary / Imperial study that showed no impact (mentioned a few pages back)

Follow the science... but only when it suits the agenda?

As for what ComeOnYouOs mentioned about the shifting goalposts, yup it's in the strategy document. Will be interesting on here what people say when their Euro4, Euro5, then Euro6 petrols get put onto the non-compliant list

Its called progress.

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 12:56 pm Its called progress.

If you call having your personal freedom of movement taken away progress, the kind of thing you'd expect from Communist China not a Western democracy

gshaw wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 1:05 pm

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 12:56 pm Its called progress.

If you call having your personal freedom of movement taken away progress, the kind of thing you'd expect from Communist China not a Western democracy

Paying extra for a sh*t car isn’t having your freedom taken away

BiggsyMalone wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 1:07 pm

gshaw wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 1:05 pm

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 12:56 pm Its called progress.

If you call having your personal freedom of movement taken away progress, the kind of thing you'd expect from Communist China not a Western democracy

Paying extra for a sh*t car isn’t having your freedom taken away

When they define your car as one of those "sh*t cars" it'll be a different tune

researchers used publicly available air quality data to measure changes in pollution in the twelve-week period from 25 February 2019, before the ULEZ was introduced, to 20 May 2019, after it had been implemented

One problem with the study is that the study period isnt long enough. Many would have changed their car well in advance of the introduction, others may have been influenced by the policy to change their car later, so they should have looked at data over a longer time period.

Just accept that less polluting vehicles on the road is a good thing.

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 9:05 am

greyhound wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:54 am my van is none compliant.
it passes M.O.T every year which includes emission test.
and responding to it does not cost much to by a car or van
that meets the requirements. £100 pounds is a lot to some people
let alone thousands to by another vehicle.

Scrap the old banger mate.

As previously discussed, the M.O.T emissions test is totally different, unless you'd like the test changed so your van cant pass an MOT?

let me no when you have posted a cheque to help me out,
sounds like money is no object to you.

greyhound wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 1:31 pm

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 9:05 am

greyhound wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 8:54 am my van is none compliant.
it passes M.O.T every year which includes emission test.
and responding to it does not cost much to by a car or van
that meets the requirements. £100 pounds is a lot to some people
let alone thousands to by another vehicle.

Scrap the old banger mate.

As previously discussed, the M.O.T emissions test is totally different, unless you'd like the test changed so your van cant pass an MOT?

let me no when you have posted a cheque to help me out,
sounds like money is no object to you.

This is the part of the move to reducing pollution that bothers me.

As usual the lowest earners are being asked to pay the price whilst the polluters (oil companies, car manufacturers, tyre companies etc) dump their external costs on society get off Scotch free.

An easy solution would be to levy a windfall tax on big oil who have been profiteering at our expense since time began (I note fuel prices are on the rise again, Why?).

The tax money could be used to fund a proper scrappage scheme to help people like greyhound buy a Ulez compliant van/car.

Cleaner air is the goal here not some yaboo misdirection by the Tories to have a go at Khan.

The problem is not car emissions it is the particles from tyres and brakes that cause the most pollution.

Add in the fact that Khan is trying to make London a 20mph zone and you know that this is about raising money not emissions. The initial cost of expansion is £250m and rising. The next step which is documented by tfl is to charge cars by the mile.

It was Boris who thought of this in 2015, however, even for him this has gone too far.

gshaw wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 1:09 pm

BiggsyMalone wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 1:07 pm

gshaw wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 1:05 pm

If you call having your personal freedom of movement taken away progress, the kind of thing you'd expect from Communist China not a Western democracy

Paying extra for a sh*t car isn’t having your freedom taken away

When they define your car as one of those "sh*t cars" it'll be a different tune

I don’t agree with it but isn’t akin to being under communist rule. There are far too many cars on the road now, something needs to be done about it.

BiggsyMalone wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 2:10 pm

gshaw wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 1:09 pm

BiggsyMalone wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 1:07 pm
Paying extra for a sh*t car isn’t having your freedom taken away

When they define your car as one of those "sh*t cars" it'll be a different tune

I don’t agree with it but isn’t akin to being under communist rule. There are far too many cars on the road now, something needs to be done about it.

Long as its someone elses car thats taken off the road, youll be ok with that?
Also whats 'too many cars'?

ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 2:14 pm

BiggsyMalone wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 2:10 pm

gshaw wrote: ↑Fri Sep 15, 2023 1:09 pm

When they define your car as one of those "sh*t cars" it'll be a different tune

I don’t agree with it but isn’t akin to being under communist rule. There are far too many cars on the road now, something needs to be done about it.

Long as its someone elses car thats taken off the road, youll be ok with that?
Also whats 'too many cars'?

Do you actually live or work in London?

You can’t, because you can’t seriously think that if you did.