Cardelia

i*Rate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Heathrow is one of those great British Cock-ups - > a major airport (biggest in Europe) built on the > wrong side of the capital city - and they ain't > gonna move it! > > Fasten your seat belts and put your earplugs in! Why is Heathrow on the wrong side of London? The plans look like they're at a consultation stage right now, so if respondents make the case that ED is disproportionately affected by approaches to Heathrow then things may change. A key part of the proposals is that both runways will be used for takeoff and landing so in theory there will be two approach paths operating simultaneously. This should mean that ED will have fewer planes per hour, although the hours of operation may be longer.

jenny pink Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > & all their drugs have side effects,which means > you have to take pills for ever,to manage said > side effects.. > if THAT is not a money spinner,I don't know what > is > > > Show me cases where people have died from > Homeopathy alone............ One of my favourite homeopathy-related stories comes from a Finnish guy on another forum I frequent. A couple of years ago he took part in a mass homeopathy overdose, to prove to people that homeopathy was completely ineffective and didn't do anything at all. He took hundreds and hundreds of the little homeopathic sleeping pills within the space of an hour or so and - obviously - nothing happened. Until the next morning that is, when he woke up with severe stomach cramps and diarrhoea. Turned out that the little sugar pills he consumed had a tiny lactose coating, and the guy had a lactose intolerance! Side effects are not the sole preserve of big pharma.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Applespider Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > One way system in and out? Are they nuts? That > > will cause worse havoc! > > Doesn't it make sense? If it means what I think it > means it's what I wrote to them suggesting a while > back - that people coming in are only allowed to > use the new stairs and people coming out use the > old ones, it would at least prevent the two > streams colliding. Ideally it would be reversed so > the new stairs were used for entrance in the > morning and exit in the evening, but that might be > rather complex and require more staff which the > powers that be would doubtless be unwilling to > fund. I quite like the one-way system as an idea in principle, but the current station layout isn't conducive to one way operation and it can't easily be made compliant. They trialled the idea a few months ago during the morning rush and it didn't work for several reasons: 1) The lifts are only on the new footbridge. If this bridge is restricted to entering passengers only, what do passengers with mobility issues do when they want to exit the station? 2) FCB is popular. Very popular. If a one-way system is in operation and I want a coffee on my way to work, then I need to enter the station and go down to the platform via the new stairs, then go up the old stairs to FCB, then back round the one-way system to the new stairs once I have my coffee. Is that sensible? 3) What happens when Network Rail pull one of their last-second-platform-change tricks? Do we all have to go up the old stairs, round the one-way system and down the new stairs? That's guaranteed to make people miss their train. It's difficult enough as it is with no restrictions, adding a one-way system will only make it harder. 4) Related to the above, some people use Denmark Hill as an interchange station and don't enter/exit. Will they have to obey the one-way system too? Anyone with a tight connection, or on a delayed incoming service, isn't going to like it very much. In my opinion the best interim solution is a temporary entrance on Champion Park with card readers. This could be entry only during the morning rush, switching to exit only in the evening rush. It would encourage more people to use the new bridge during the busiest hours of operation, hopefully taking enough pressure off the main entrance and old bridge to prevent the gross overcrowding and queues.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > EDNate Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Right but this post is specifically for those > of > > us in the lower parts of ED where walking up to > GG > > for the 37 would take us 20+ minutes and then > 30+ > > minutes on that bus to get to victoria and yet > > again we are looking at over an hour ! > > The very furthest (easternmost) end of Upland road > is almost exactly half a mile by road from the 37 > stop on LL, at what pace do you walk?! The OP said they lived on the "lower part of Upland road". Picking the Upland Road/Dunstans Road junction as an example, the distance to the Goose Green roundabout is 1.2 miles. That's easily a 20 minute walk at average pace. I occasionally have to travel to Victoria in rush hour and in my experience the quickest way is to take the Southeastern trains from Denmark Hill (or Peckham Rye if that's more convenient). My advice is to learn which entrances to the underground are kept open during the morning rush at Victoria, because it's usually possible to get down to the Victoria Line within 5 minutes of stepping off a mainline train even if the main gates to the tube are closed and the queue is back onto the station concourse. Cardinal Place is always open, for example.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Deleted as actually haven't the time or > inclination for a long debate on this. Opinion > stated, if others disagree that's fine, though no > need for the moral outrage that usually greets > those who suggest SNARL might possibly, just > maybe, have got it wrong. My next door neighbour's cat was killed a couple of years ago. She went missing on Friday and was returned on Monday evening. The body was placed outside our (shared) access point in a clear and obvious position. The body had been mutilated in a deliberate fashion, consistent with previous killings, including certain indicators whose details have never been made public. Prof. Harris may well be a world-leading expert on fox behaviour. But unless he's seen some of the recent bodies to confirm that the markings are consistent with fox behaviour (not the ones from the 1990s mentioned in the article) then his opinion is worth about as much as mine or yours.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cardelia, for some reason you've missed out the > bit where it said that the bus lane makings at the > start of the bus lane and the signage were > perfectly clear? And that the vans may not have > been part of the works and so are irrelevant? And > I can't help but think but the fact that the signs > were not obvious until "the Appellant was > virtually at the crossing" isn't much of an excuse > for not noticing them for an aware driver. You're right, I did miss those bits out. Probably for the same reason that your post conveniently missed out the bits of the adjudicator's report that corroborated my initial statement. Can't think why you did that... Part of the process for making sure that signage is adequate (from a road safety point of view as well as from a legal point of view when it comes to prosecutions for contraventions) is having suitable levels of redundancy. This means multiple metal signs; painted road markings which aren't obscured, or old and worn; multiple examples of clear lettering - that sort of thing. There are multiple metal bus lane signs on Champion Park, for instance, and it may have been the case that the sign at the beginning of the bus lane was clear but other signs further on were obscured. If the OP's contravention had taken place directly after the clear and obvious sign then the appeal likely wouldn't have succeeded. But the OP's contravention took place directly after a sign which was obscured by vans. It also took place directly after a set of roadworks which partially obscured the lane markings and completely obscured the painted 'bus lane' writing. Hence there is reasonable doubt that the bus lane was in force at the point the OP stopped to pick up their passenger because so much of the normal signage was partially or completely obscured.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you read the adjudication Ian's so helpfully > provided, the bus lane markings were visible as > were the signs. The main reason for allowing the > appeal seems to be that two vans, which may not > have been part of the works, might have been in > the way of the signs. I'm surprised the appeal > was allowed and not in the least surprised > Southwark decided to contest it. "a barrier erected which partially obscures the thick white line on the road, and completely obscures the "BUS LANE" markings on this stretch of road." And "two large white vans which obscured both the traffic lights and the bus lane sign until the Appellant was virtually at the crossing" So I was correct to say that the metal bus lane signs and 'bus lane' paint were obscured. Thanks for the confirmation. The adjudicator said that under normal circumstances the bus lane signage is adequate and I don't think anybody would argue with that. But there weren't normal circumstances on the day of the incident: it was the combination of lengthy roadworks and the position of the vans which meant that some of the signage was obscured.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And the driver knew the bus lane was there, > apparently, and knew they shouldn't have stopped > (OP please step in and correct if you had a > genuine belief that the bus lane didn't exist or > was suspended?) but wasted council money appealing > on a technicality. HTH some more. If the signs are obscured then there is a genuine reason to believe that the bus lane is suspended. That's presumably why the independent adjudicator sided with the OP and not Southwark Council. The roadworks were probably the ones around Easter which essentially took over the entire bus lane on Champion Park for several weeks. The works obscured the metal bus lane signs and they were digging up the street so also took out the 'bus lane' paint on the road. Under those circumstances I'm not surprised that the independent adjudicator sided with the OP and I'm amazed Southwark sent two people to fight their case.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Get the live bus app, then you'll be able to make > sure you arrive at the stop in time for the bus. > Give yourself a ten minute buffer for emergencies > (it doesn't take half an hour from DL to DH even > at the height of the rush hour) and you'll still > be in St.P in less than an hour. You've slightly missed the point in that the app will give you control over the time you can arrive at the bus stop, but it won't give you control over what time the bus actually turns up, nor will it give you control over the time the bus arrives at its destination. You also won't know if the bus is full hence will drive straight past. It's not an everyday occurrence but I have experienced it during the middle of the day so it does occur. If I *had* to be at St Pancras for a given time (meeting someone, connecting to another train, etc.) then I'd be leaving a lot more than 10 minutes as an emergency buffer!

Twenty minutes in the middle of the day. Not during rush hour. But anyway, you have to walk to the bus stop (couple of minutes), wait for the bus (pot luck how long this takes!) then hope the bus doesn't get stuck in traffic, or at traffic lights, or have lots of people getting on/off, or some other reason why the timetabled 20 minutes suddenly turns into 30. Because if it does, you've missed the train you were aiming for and have a long wait for the next one. If everything goes smoothly and according to timetable, you might be able to get from Dulwich Library to St Pancras in under an hour. But the point is, if everything goes smoothly, you've been exceptionally lucky.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It always takes me that long, there's a direct > train from Peckham Rye at 04 and 34, it takes 24 > minutes. Isn't this a good example of the general point that if you live close to a well-connected train (or tube) station then it can be quick and easy to get around London? Whereas if you don't live close to a train/tube station it is difficult? Imagine living by Dulwich Library: if you can get to St Pancras in under an hour from there then you're exceptionally lucky.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Days are the same length throughout the year - 24 > hours! Except for the occasional December 31st > when they have to add a quarter second or > whatever. Otherwise, all days are 24 hours, > otherwise all the clocks would have to be reset > every day... Well, strictly speaking this isn't true. The length of a day depends what your definition of a "day" is. If you define a day as 'one complete rotation of the Earth's axis' then every day is the same length: 23 hours and 56 minutes. But then we get into trouble with defining other time periods like years and, over the course of centuries, things get seriously out of kilter. This is partly why the Julian calendar was abandoned in the 18th century in favour of the Gregorian calendar. It's also one of the reasons why Easter and Christmas are on different dates in Orthodox countries. If you define a day as 'the time between consecutive high noons' then it (mostly) solves the problems with defining other time periods. But the Earth's orbit around the sun is slightly elliptical, therefore the speed at which it orbits the sun varies slightly. It also wobbles on its axis a bit, hence the period between consecutive high noons does actually vary by +/- 30 seconds every day. It also causes problems with clocks and watches because noon is supposed to be when the sun is at its highest position in the sky, but it almost always isn't. Today (22nd June), the time we define as noon (12:00:00 on a watch) is not the point at which the sun is at the highest point in the sky. That time is actually 13:02 on a watch. If you ignore the daylight savings, this means that the sun is actually at its highest position in the sky 2 minutes later than the watch says it should be. In October the discrepancy is about 17 minutes, so a noticeable difference. We don't correct our watches for this, we just live with it. We now define a day as lasting exactly 24 hours, which is the time period between consecutive noons averaged across a whole year (hence the historical adoption of Greenwich Mean Time). Which is fine, but in the UK the last Sunday in March only lasts 23 hours and the last Sunday in October is 25 hours long. Plus, as you mentioned, we add leap seconds occasionally. So we can't actually say that all days are the same length because they're not.

dirac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > >So it's really 35% above the speed limit before > they do anything. > > That's ridiculous. What is the point of a 20mph > speed limit if it's actually 27mph where you start > to receive a warning letter? The fact it's not a > fine and points is ludicrous. Because law enforcement have to take into account the possibility of error. Calibration errors on the speed gun, poor use of the speed gun by the operator, improperly calibrated speedometers on cars, poor sight lines between car and speed gun: lots of factors can cause an inaccurate reading on a speed gun. This is why the ACPO guidelines for prosecuting speeding drivers are 10% + 2 mph (35 in a 30, 46 in a 40 and so forth) so that the risk of operator error is effectively negated. Hence in a 20 mph zone, the prosecution threshold should be a minimum of 24 mph. The other thing to bear in mind is the law of unintended consequences. If the margin of error over the posted speed limit is very small, most drivers' eyes will be glued to their speedometer trying not to travel faster than the limit rather than watching where they're going. The police have to balance the risks of people travelling a little bit over the limit vs. the risk of people not watching where they're going and accidentally hitting someone.

PK36 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is fitting in all the extra Cinderella Line stops, > part of the reason why the morning rush hour > trains from Denmark Hill to Blackfriars are going > to be a lot less frequent with the new timetable? Yes. It's also the reason why Denmark Hill has lost a few rush hour trains to Victoria, plus there's now a huge 22 minute gap between services at 08:20. If it wasn't for the fact that I only have a couple of months left on this particular journey I'd be a lot more pissed off about it.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I absolutely detested the way my last vote for > Labour was used by Theresa May as an endorsement > of Brexit - disgusting. Well, what do you expect when you vote for a party that backs Brexit? I understand that not everyone who voted for Labour wanted to leave the EU. But if you felt that strongly about Brexit, why did you vote for a party which was committed to leaving the EU?

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Same way that if you had failed to pay for you > third-party insurance and the company cancelled > it, I suspect. If you don't pay the premiums and the insurance company cancels the policy then you are driving uninsured. The MIB 'uninsured driver' protocol comes into effect in the event of any accident. But until the insurance company formally cancels the policy, you are insured. If you have an accident before the policy is cancelled then your third party liabilities are still covered even if you are in arrears on the payment schedule. > Possibly, but there is still no *contract* > established between the insurance company and the > third party. That's where flocker spotter is > wrong. Motor insurance works by creating a contract between the first party (policyholder) and second party (insurer). The contract is for the insurer to cover liabilities for damage to third parties caused by the policyholder. Until the contract between policyholder and insurer is formally annulled, that third party cover exists. A contract between the insurance company and the third party is established when the third party (or policyholder) instigates a claim AND a valid contract between policyholder and insurer is in place. If the policyholder does not keep to their side of the bargain (fails to maintain the payment schedule, fails to maintain their car in a roadworthy state, etc.) then the contract can be cancelled by the insurer. The insurer can also seek to recover costs from the policyholder. However, it is illegal for the insurer to retrospectively annul its responsibilities to any third parties which were in place before the contract was formally cancelled. That's why Flocker Spotter is right.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "It is the duty of the owner to maintain the > vehicle in roadworthy condition and ensure it has > a valid current MOT certificate. All > modifications to the vehicle which significantly > affect its performance and/or value should be > reported to your broker. If you do not tell your > broker about any relevant changes, or fail to keep > the vehicle roadworthy, we may: > > - reject or reduce your claim. > - cancel the policy and/or treat it as though it > never existed, or > - do both of the above." Assuming that's a direct copy and paste from the policy document, note that they're quite careful in their use of language surrounding what may cause invalidation of the policy. The key term is that a vehicle has to be maintained in a roadworthy condition, not whether it has a valid MOT certificate. Many insurance companies use the presence of a valid MOT certificate as a proxy for roadworthiness, but this is a lazy approach because it's perfectly possible for a roadworthy vehicle to not have an MOT certificate, but equally it's perfectly possible for an unroadworthy vehicle to have a valid MOT certificate. Both scenarios are illegal, but it's only the latter case which risks having the insurance policy invalidated. Also, for what it's worth, Flocker Spotter is right about this. The point of everybody taking out motor insurance is to ensure that third parties are not penalised in the event of an accident which they're not responsible for. If the insurance company refuses to pay the third party because you haven't maintained your vehicle in a roadworthy condition, how do you think the third party would feel? So the insurance company will pay the third party, not least because these are part of the terms and conditions it signs up to when it registers with the MIB. Once it has covered the third party's costs, there are two possible scenarios: (1) the insurance company swallows the cost (that's what premiums are there for...) or (2) the insurance company seeks to recover its costs from you. In both cases, the third party's liabilities are taken care of and this third party right cannot be taken away even if your vehicle is in an unroadworthy condition. That's what Flocker Spotter means when the insurance company cannot invalidate your policy.

The only compulsory questions are your address (which they have already) and the first three questions, which are the key point of the survey. If you don't want to give additional details then you don't need to.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Two cases with contrasting opinions on this, one > lost and one won: > > http://www.appealnow.com/parking-tickets/Missing-T > -Bar-Minier-case/ > > http://www.appealnow.com/parking-tickets/Missing-T > -Bar-Case-Win/ > > End of the day though, we all know a double yellow > line means don't park there, don't we! The 'de minimis' argument was incorrectly applied by the adjudicator in the first example. Precedent was set in Davies v Heatley [1971] R.T.R. 145: "Because by s.64(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation, if a sign the contravention of which is an offence contrary to s.36 is not as prescribed by the regulation, no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind." But as you say, double yellows mean don't park there so even if they're unenforceable on a technicality, don't park there.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I doubt it - I remember seeing an appeal a few > years back where a new drain grating had been > installed which broke a yellow line and it hadn't > been repainted and someone appealed a ticket; as I > recall the basis of rejection was that whether a > part was missing or not there was enough line > there to show that there were restrictions. An > appeal claiming a driver didn't think double > yellows meant they couldn't park there because > there wasn't a bar at the end would get short > shrift, I'd imagine. All road markings have to comply with TSRDG 2002 (Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions). It doesn't matter if the relevant TMO is in place and up to date, the physical markings on the road have to conform to the standard. If they don't, they may as well not be there because they're unenforceable. The document is extremely pedantic. It specifies line width, colour, end bars, interactions with other markings, distances from kerbs, maintenance and a whole lot more as well. A break in the lines where a grating has been replaced by a contractor is absolutely a reason to invalidate the whole section of lines because it is the responsibility of the LA to keep road markings in compliance with TSRDG. If they don't, too bad. There is no recourse in law to 'common sense'; if the lines do not conform to TSRDG - for whatever reason - then they are invalid. Having said all that, LAs will often wrongly reject appeals in order to put people off from taking things further. They'll drag things out for as long as possible and try their best to just get you to pay up. It will take months, possibly years. If you don't want to risk the stress and hassle of a lengthy legal process just to save ?60 on a parking ticket, don't park on the yellow lines.

micromacromonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In short, no, it doesn't count. There is only so > much water on the planet, and it's been cycling > around in and out of the atmosphere and oceans for > hundreds of thousands of years. 'Anthropogenic' > water vapour might have small short term effects > (e.g. clouds near cooling towers) but they will > dissipate. While water vapour is a greenhouse gas > (accounts for 90% of the greenhouse effect or > something like that) any particular effects are > short term and relatively localised. > > Conversely most CO2 that we emit has been trapped > underground for AGES, and so is effectively a new > addition to the atmosphere, hence considered a > pollutant. It won't disappear in a rain shower > like water vapour will. Most water vapour that we emit has similarly been trapped underground for ages. When we burn natural gas (methane), two molecules of water vapour are emitted for every one molecule of CO2. The ratio for refined petroleum (diesel/petrol) is closer to 1:1 but still, all that water vapour has been trapped underground as crude oil and would still be there if we hadn't dug it up and burnt it. We have added to the amount of water on this planet just as we've added to the amount of CO2. I accept the premise that the water cycle runs on a different timescale to the carbon cycle, hence the effects of the additional water vapour may not be as long-lived as the extra CO2. But my point was that both gases, when emitted by human activities, are pollutants.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The thing is, water vapour does not > control the earth's temperature, it is controlled > by the temperature; as anthropogenic gases (CO2, > methane, NOx and methane) are released into the > atmosphere they cause temperatures to rise, which > increases the amount of water vapour, which > increases the greenhouse effect. Remove the > anthropogenic pollutants and (eventually) water > vapour levels will rebalance. Water vapour is > much loved by climate change deniers because they > can claim it's nature, not humans, causing global > warming - which is like claiming it was the wall > that caused the crash, not the fact that I drove > my car into it. Water vapour does both. It both controls and is controlled by the temperature. For example, increased cloud cover increases the proportion of solar radiation reflected back into space and has a net cooling effect. But that's besides the point. Water vapour has an effect on Earth's climate, and the science behind this is as solid as the science behind CO2 having an effect on Earth's climate. When we burn (for example) petrol, we release one molecule of water into the atmosphere for every molecule of CO2 which also gets released. Without the combustion engine, neither the CO2 nor the water would be in the atmosphere. Both gases are greenhouse gases, with water being worse than CO2. I'm being deliberately picky here, but you criticised Penguin for saying the Nat Geo statement was wrong. It is wrong, mainly because both gases - provided they come from anthropogenic sources - are pollutants. They shouldn't be there, but human activities have put them there. And they are affecting the Earth's climate.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To be honest there is little tangible difference > from all day to 2hr. A lot of people were worried, > but we have found that the big parking pressure > was from commuters parking all day, not people > nipping in and out. > > You will see a huge drop in traffic as commutters > stop parking, and it will get better - you have > nothing to worry about, and actually its easier if > you have tradesmen or visitors as outside those 2 > hours, you don't need to get a permit for them. I used to live in Southampton which is full of CPZs. Most were fine precisely because they were large and had the same hours of operation as neighbouring CPZs, but one or two were particularly badly managed which included the one I used to reside in. It covered one single street (about 50 metres long) and the hours were more lax than the surrounding CPZs. The parking pressures were partially from commuters but also partially from schools and local churches, and the hours in which our CPZ operated were seemingly designed to stop commuters but still allow parking for these institutions. On certain days, notably weekends, we had to time our trips out to make sure we would not return at a time when all our road was full of churchgoers parking for free yet we couldn't park in a neighbouring CPZ because they were still operational. It was stressful, frustrating and incredibly time-consuming to arrange our lives around our parking availability which is the complete opposite of what the CPZ is supposed to do. I know that not all CPZs are the same and ours was particularly badly managed. But they are not the answer to every parking problem. What worked for you may not work for everyone else, especially when it comes to the difference between all day restrictions vs. 2 hour restrictions. Imagine living in a zone with 2 hour restrictions and you're surrounded by all day restrictions - what do you think your parking availability will be like compared to the surrounding zones? So don't tell people it will be wonderful and they'll have nothing to worry about because you just don't know that.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do you understand the feedback relationship > between water vapour and manmade CO2 in increasing > global temperatures? If not it's easily googled. > Briefly, water vapour is not a "pollutant" as it > is part of the natural self-regulation of the > biosphere. When you inject artificially created > CO2 from industry, transport etc, that's where the > problems arise (and surely you're not going to > keep banging on that tired old trope that because > animals emit CO2 then manmade CO2 is no > different?). But then as you know better than the > National Geographic, perhaps you don't need to > bother... > > P.S. Straight question Penguin, do you accept that > manmade global warming exists? I'm curious. CO2 is also part of the "natural self-regulation of the biosphere" (see GCSE chemistry, the carbon cycle etc.) but obviously human activities have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. So anthropogenic CO2 is a pollutant, which as a definition is fine with me. However, if you consider anthropogenic CO2 to be a pollutant, where do you stand on anthropogenic water vapour? Is that a pollutant as well?

El Presidente Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I firmly believe in the science (though it is just > scaremongering to say 'it is choking London to > death'). A phased approach that increased > penalties on heavy vehicles and gave some kind of > exemption for residents would be a much more > sensible approach than this blanket tax on people > who through no fault of their own have the wrong > type of car. We already have "a phased approach that increased penalties on heavy vehicles". The existing LEZ has been going strong for 10 years now and the requirements were made more stringent as time passed, but it has only ever applied to heavy vehicles. The central zone T-charge which was introduced last year applies equally to all vehicles which do not meet modern emissions standards, but only in central London. Now the expanded ULEZ will target cars and other light vehicles in inner London. This has been coming for many years and people have had plenty of time to get used to the idea that driving highly polluting vehicles in a city like London is not a good thing. > And are you saying lower income people don't need > cars? That's just arrogant and out of touch with > reality for working people. Those on lower incomes > (of which i would include people earning beyond > ?25k in London) do have cars, often use them for > work and are more likely to have the old cars > which this will hit. By the time the ULEZ comes to Dulwich in 2021, the oldest compliant petrol cars will be 16 years old. Those are not going to be expensive, are they? There will be plenty of choice of compliant cars which cost less than ?1000. > p.s my car will be fine before you ask Well, my car won't be fine and I'll have to change it. Or give it up and rely on hiring a car, I haven't decided what to do yet. But I still wholly support introducing the ULEZ.