|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #235
Not seen the news and the blue van, I'll do some catching up.
On a selfish note not only do we have displaced traffic from our local LTN we get it from the last ULEZ expansion, traffic trying to avoid the the overloaded South Circular. So the proposed expansion would help us.
But what about all those people who can't afford compliant cars, people with lower paid jobs struggling to make ends meet with the cost of living and fuel price increases. I feel for those.
So called socialist Ocelot doesn't. That's why I think he's like my council, full of nimby champagne socialists.
I quote
There will always be moaners, winners and losers. Those that don't want change will have to pay more and or be inconvenienced. Like cigarettes alcohol etc
@RKB
 See above it's likely to be poorer Labour supporters that were protesting. Rich Tory supporters wouldn't own old non compliant vehicles.
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 |  | |
|
In reply to Post #230
Sounds very like brexit to me tinhead...
Although the failure there was a bit more immediate
Were you out protesting today? Was the you in the blue van?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #232
From what I’ve seen, I’d be absolutely amazed if those protestors don’t already vote Tory.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #231
Typically condescending, posting in Non carp that you are always right
|
|
|
|
Lots of anti expansion protests in London.
Opportunity for the Tories to win some more votes.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #230
When a modern society decides to change people's habits for the better of the majority eventually. There will always be moaners, winners and losers. Those that don't want change will have to pay more and or be inconvenienced. Like cigarettes alcohol etc. Hope that clears it up for you Blankalot.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #229
Not sure cigarettes, alcohol excess sugar etc has got to do with it but forcing change that only benefits a minority to the detriment of the majority will fail eventually.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #223
Champagne socialist 
Should try it instead of the self centered approach.
You know well that to force long term necessary change you sometimes have to make the status quo unpalatable. Be that cigarettes, alcohol excess sugar etc.
The direction of travel regards roads and cars in populous areas is changing. That's just advancement and yes it's the future.
|
|
|
|
Another petition, the reason they exist is that these schemes are only making life better for a only few rather than the many.
This petition is fair. It doesn't ask for all traffic schemes to be removed, all it asks is that under used schemes are voted on and a simple majority vote would mean they are either stay or be removed.
It's democracy
As I always say this may not affect you at the moment but is a safeguard for your future.
It only takes a minute, please do it.
PETITION
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #224
I agree car use should be reduced but the idea of removing road space and expecting the traffic to evaporate is simply not working, it's actually making it worse.
The problem is Rachel Aldred and Imperial College are dead set on encouraging more of it and produce doctored data to say that everything is hunky dory with no concern to people who are already finding it to make ends meet.
I'm not stinking rich but I'm not hard up either and can probably pay my way out of it, but is that fair that only the well off can drive around without worry?
As regards diesel vehicles. I don't know if this is true but someone told me some euro 5 vehicles can be converted to use Adblue and become complaint.
LINK
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #225
South east
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #223
What area do you live in London Tinhead?
|
|
|
|
It'll definitely be hard for some. I went to fish at Walthamstow Reservoirs earlier in the year; about a mile inside the zone and less than 15 mins driving in total, charge = £17.50 (more than the fishing!) My "fishing car" is a small diesel that's just a little bit older than the 2016 cut off. It'll certainly put me off doing it regularly, and really the only "loser" here is the Wetlands centre itself since it'll lose the revenue. I'd have probably bought a season ticket this year, but the ULEZ charge effectively doubles the price, and I am not changing the car.
It definitely got me thinking about how those who live inside the zone and cannot afford to change their non-compliant cars would cope - guess they've got no choice. Despite all this, I think that measures need to be in place to combat unnecessary car use and to reduce the pollution in our cities. Whether this is the right way, or fair, or can be improved, I honestly don't have the answers. I do know that the list of cars that are compliant is pretty vast in comparison to those that are not, however it's not a great deal of help for anyone that's already in possession of one that's subject to the charge and the expansion will likely impact a lot of people.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #222
I already use public transport a lot.
Probably doesn't affect champagne socialists like yourself but I don't think I'll be the only one who thinks it's wrong, what about carers and other under valued people on low wages that are already facing the ULEZ.
I don't think telling them that they holding back the future will go down well..
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #221
Or you'll have to get the bus or other transport more often Blankalot. You can't hold back the future because they drew a line and it didn't suit you.
|
|
