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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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