Jump to content

Recommended Posts

natty01295 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> BIKE PROTEST

> 28 FEB2018

> NO TO THE ULEZ

> REGENTS PARK


That's a protest organised by the Motorcycle Action Group and others, on the grounds that charging older motorbikes would penalise the working poor that need them to get to work. I don't have an opinion as I don't know how much older bikes pollute more than modern ones (the charge would apply to bike solder than 10-11 years), nor how much bikes as a whole contribute to pollution in London (as in bikes vs cars vs buses etc).

2-stroke engines are horrendously bad. They burn oil as part of the fuel, so PMs galore, plus they actually dump unburnt fuel (and oil) to atmosphere in every power cycle. A load of it just blows straight past the combustion chamber and out of the exhaust port when it is being sucked in through the intake port. They should be banned ASAP, or at least taxed very heavily.


But they are cheap (mechanically much simpler) so 'the poor' may use them more, dunno.

Yes, but neither the Mayor/TFL nor the Motorcycle Action Group has, AFAIK, presented any data supporting their point - which is why I said I do not have an opinion on this.


The only thing I have found in TFL's impact assessment is a table showing that motorcycle journeys would account for 1-2% of total journeys in London. The questions are (should be):


how much more than a modern motorcycle does an old one pollute?


how many old motorcycles are there in London and what is the impact of these? If the total impact is very very small then I can kind of see MAG's point.

scooter pollution:


https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4749


tl;dr: They are 'asymmetric polluters' i.e. disproportionately bad. It doesn't answer your question as to how newer scooters and other 2 strokes differ from older ones, but interestingly it notes that there are fewer iterations of the regulations for scooters (and possibly therefore other motorbikes), which would seem to indicate that the regulations are less stringent.


The commentary below seems to suggest that the newer EUROn restrictions for scooters DO make a big difference though. EURO4 for scooters halves the amount of certain pollutants compared to EURO3:


https://www.scooterlab.uk/euro-4-old-scooters-better-new-ones-editorial/

Interesting, thanks. It sounds like yet another Taliban and rather unfounded campaign by the MAG, which was, after all, founded to protest against the new laws which made helmet compulsory. One thing they're right on, though, is that TFL's move to make many roads less wide and therefore prevent filtering will worsen congestion and pollution for all

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car



The carbon footprint of a new car:

6 tonnes CO2e: Citroen C1, basic spec

17 tonnes CO2e: Ford Mondeo, medium spec

35 tonnes CO2e: Land Rover Discovery, top of the range

The carbon footprint of making a car is immensely complex. Ores have to be dug out of the ground and the metals extracted. These have to be turned into parts. Other components have to be brought together: rubber tyres, plastic dashboards, paint, and so on. All of this involves transporting things around the world. The whole lot then has to be assembled, and every stage in the process requires energy. The companies that make cars have offices and other infrastructure with their own carbon footprints, which we need to somehow allocate proportionately to the cars that are made.


GOOGLE

A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.7 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. This assumes the average gasoline vehicle on the road today has a fuel economy of about 21.6 miles per gallon and drives around 11,400 miles per year. Every gallon of gasoline burned creates about 8,887 grams of CO2.


So I'm being forced to replace my ancient land rover that's quite happy to run on old chip fat - with Zero impact on the environment - for a new one with a initial carbon footprint of 35 tonnes + a yearly carbon footprint in excess of 5 tonnes


makes sense

What you have described above is CO2 considerations only, which as I mentioned previously are very worthy but not what the ULEZ is trying to address. The ULEZ is concerned with localised particulate emissions and NOx etc, for which your old landy is probably one of the worst offenders, spewing PM10-sized bits of battered saveloy all over ED.
  • 2 weeks later...

natty01295 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> PROTEST SUPPORT!!!!

> Motorcycle Scooter Riot Protest

> No to ULEZ


Bollocks. Pay your charge, buy a newer/cleaner bike or get your crappy little pollution machine off the road. And while we are at it, since the rate of tampering with emissions devices is vastly higher with scooters, let's make sure that the MOT includes steps to force transgressors to return the vehicle to a compliant position.

  • 3 months later...

internetz fury aside, if you are looking at buying a vehicle in the near future & expect to live in ED/ Environs, make sure you check it is ULEZ compliant, else you may find it costing more than you considered.


There are going to be a lot of vulgar 4x4s that are going to be utterly toxic and unsellable in London soon - don't get caught out if you intend splurging on new wheels. Obviously this is a tax that is disproportionately impacting the poor, but this is London, cleaning out of the poor is a way of life.

"There are going to be a lot of vulgar 4x4s that are going to be utterly toxic and unsellable in London soon - don't get caught out if you intend splurging on new wheels."


There are going to be a lot of ordinary cars that are going to be [deemed] utterly toxic and unsellable in London soon. People carriers, hatchbacks, saloons, crossovers. Anything diesel registered before 2015, generally.


Shockingly, you'll still be able to drive up to a 15-year-old Euro3/4/5 black cab, which won't even be fitted with a DPF.

Not only diesel cars but petrol cars.


Well maintained and pristine cars scrapped because of Khans Ill thought out idea and not thought all the way through.


Bann from city centres but not travel within the South and North Circular road. Many people will just not be able to buy new cars.


Which render them house bound. Ever tried carrying shopping on any London bus route?

lets not get into this chuckle brother to me/ to you death match please. it belittles whatever considered position you hold. I resurrected this moribund and deservedly expired thread only to remind people that you need to ensure the implications of a new/different car acquisition are fully understood.
Please can we have some improvements in public transport. A tube, secure bike parking at tube stations at least. Extension of hire bike scheme. A cycle super highway? a reliable and regular train service? Something. Then I'll happily accept the 'stick' of car scrapages etc.

Anything late c2015+ EURO6 diesel or otherwise petrol EURO3, roughly 2006. If it takes AdBlu, it'll be compliant as a diesel.


Or hyrbid/EV, but good luck finding a cheap hybrid/EV MPV.




mikeb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Which people carriers will be compliant?

sally buying Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Many people will

> just not be able to buy new cars.

>

> Which render them house bound. Ever tried carrying

> shopping on any London bus route?


46% of London households do not possess a car at all. Are 46% of Londoners housebound?

46% of London households do not possess a car at all. Are 46% of Londoners housebound?


It would be interesting to know what proportion of this 46% either (a) do not have a qualified driver living there, or (b) cannot afford to run a car of whatever vintage or ©live close to decent tubes, buses or trains so that they can get easily across London. Or if you wish to put it this way (d) don't live in SE London!

flocker spotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> stop


No. I believe it's been pointed out to you before that you are not the moderator of this forum, much as you seem to believe you have a right to tell everyone else what not to post whilst posting whatever you like yourself.

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 46% of London households do not possess a car at

> all. Are 46% of Londoners housebound?

>

> It would be interesting to know what proportion of

> this 46% either (a) do not have a qualified driver

> living there, or (b) cannot afford to run a car of

> whatever vintage or ©live close to decent tubes,

> buses or trains so that they can get easily across

> London. Or if you wish to put it this way (d)

> don't live in SE London!


I have no idea. The point is that 46% of Londoners are not housebound despite not having cars.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> flocker spotter Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > stop

>

> No. I believe it's been pointed out to you before

> that you are not the moderator of this forum, much

> as you seem to believe you have a right to tell

> everyone else what not to post whilst posting

> whatever you like yourself.


i do this to give you an opportunity to avoid making a fool of yourself. it is advice not an instruction.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...