Extension to ultra-low emission zone to north/south circulars

[DulwichLondoner]

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).

[micromacromonkey]

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.

[DulwichLondoner]

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.

[micromacromonkey]

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/

[DulwichLondoner]

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

[kford]

Check whether your vehicle will be compliant here:

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/check-your-vehicle

[fredfrog]

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

[micromacromonkey]

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.

[natty01295]

PROTEST SUPPORT!!!!

Motorcycle Scooter Riot Protest

No to ULEZ

[micromacromonkey]

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.

[flocker spotter]

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.

[flocker spotter]

and no, before the usual suspects start, this is not a green light to google your way to an internetz victory.

[kford]

"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.

[sally buying]

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?

[BrandNewGuy]

Car club? Minicab? Both cheaper than buying a new car. Or even carshare with others.

[flocker spotter]

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.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[mikeb]

Which people carriers will be compliant?

[kford]

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?

[rendelharris]

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?

[flocker spotter]

stop

[Penguin68]

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!

[rendelharris]

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.

[rendelharris]

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.

[flocker spotter]

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.