Page 16 | Do you support the ULEZ expansion?

icecream99 · 2023-08-28T18:42:32+00:00

Just curious as it is due to start at midnight tonight and could potentially cause a lot of chaos. I don't support it. YANBU - I DON'T support ULEZ expansion YABU - I DO support ULEZ expansion

Freepo · 29/08/2023 17:34

I support bike lanes by the way, I just hate the glib way negative consequences of schemes are dismissed by saying “well it would be fine if people didn’t drive”

greengreengrass25 · 29/08/2023 17:38

grass321 · 29/08/2023 17:18

cars cause traffic jams, not bikes. If more people got out of their cars and cycled there would be no traffic jams.

As it happens, I'm a big fan of public transport but cycling isn't an option for me. Even after a recent hip replacement, it's too painful. It's also very hilly near where I live and frankly, cycling isn't going to take off amongst the population, particularly when there's heavy bags involved. And cycle lanes are undoubtedly adding to the air pollution from queuing traffic in central London.

Everyone seems happy to ignore the issue of increased air pollution for those areas bordering the ULEZ. As I said, our air quality currently fails EU standards due to the congestion on the M25. The extended ULEZ will simply drive more traffic and congestion onto the perimeter roads so those of us that live just outside it end up with a higher level air pollution. And probably those residents just inside it too.

But I guess that's ok?

Yes exactly and pushes it to the Home Counties

Anxioys · 29/08/2023 17:52

The Home Counties can surely regulate if they like! If there is any pollution, which I think their councils would have a hard time accepting and so too would their residents.

DdraigGoch · 29/08/2023 17:56

Freepo · 29/08/2023 17:33

Again, cars cause pollution, not bike lanes. If all of the people who could cycle/use public transport (which is most of them) did so, there would be no traffic jams and those of you who really need to drive will be able to move freely

this is such a bad argument. You have to make policy in line with how people will behave, not how you’d like them to. This kind of comment is like saying let’s abolish the police because if everyone stopped committing crimes we wouldn’t need them.

Loads of people will continue to drive. A scheme has to bear this in mind if it is to be realistic.

Why do you think that policies have been introduced to encourage cycling and discourage driving?

Freepo · 29/08/2023 18:00

DdraigGoch · 29/08/2023 17:56

Why do you think that policies have been introduced to encourage cycling and discourage driving?

Show quote history

Because a) air pollution is very detrimental to human health and b) due to the contribution emissions make to climate change.

DdraigGoch · 29/08/2023 18:01

Freepo · 29/08/2023 17:34

I support bike lanes by the way, I just hate the glib way negative consequences of schemes are dismissed by saying “well it would be fine if people didn’t drive”

Well I rather hate the glib way that cycling infrastructure gets blamed for congestion, when the congestion consists of a line of Chelsea tractors, each one measuring six feet wide by 13 feet long, and each carrying an average of 1.6 people.

DdraigGoch · 29/08/2023 18:03

Freepo · 29/08/2023 18:00

Because a) air pollution is very detrimental to human health and b) due to the contribution emissions make to climate change.

Show quote history

Yes, so by introducing these policies the government (local or national) reduces the number of people who continue to drive.

Freepo · 29/08/2023 18:06

DdraigGoch · 29/08/2023 18:01

Well I rather hate the glib way that cycling infrastructure gets blamed for congestion, when the congestion consists of a line of Chelsea tractors, each one measuring six feet wide by 13 feet long, and each carrying an average of 1.6 people.

Show quote history

It’s a simple question: would congestion be better or worse without the cycle lane? If the cycle lane creates a net reduction in congestion then great. If it increases it because it causes an insufficient number of people to get out of their cars to offset the reduced lanes for motor traffic, then the practical impacts have to be justified as being proportionate.

This is an LTN issue not ULEZ I am genuinely distressed at the fact my pre school kids, one of whom is asthmatic, are breathing increased levels of air pollution due to living on a now heavily congested boundary road, and all I get from people who support these schemes is to say blame the people who drive, while refusing to engage in a sensible conversation about if the scheme is in practice doing more harm than good. Policies have to be rooted in reality not idealism.

Freepo · 29/08/2023 18:08

DdraigGoch · 29/08/2023 18:03

Yes, so by introducing these policies the government (local or national) reduces the number of people who continue to drive.

Show quote history

no. Those are the aims, which are laudable. I’m talking about the practical impacts. Just because something has a stated aim it doesn’t mean that policy is a fair or effective way of achieving that aim.

My children’s health may be collateral damage to you but it isn’t to me. They are breathing more not less air pollution because of such a scheme. That needs to be part of the conversation.

JenniferBooth · 29/08/2023 18:10

Accessiblity of properties is something of people take in to consideration when they buy or rent them

Yet on social housing threads prospective tenants are told they cant be choosy Make your minds up!

Comedycook · 29/08/2023 18:19

Ginmonkeyagain · 29/08/2023 15:21

@Comedycook the smoking ban was a massive benefit to tbe government - It was one of the most successful public health interventions in decades.

Smoking and smoking related diseases cost the NHS millions as sell as the related productivity issues caused by long term ill health from smoking.

You need to adjust you tinfoil hat.

If you read my comment carefully you will see I said direct financial benefit.

Comedycook · 29/08/2023 18:23

DdraigGoch · 29/08/2023 15:23

You haven't got a clue what a 15 minute neighbourhood is, have you?

It's one where all basic facilities (shops, public transport, doctor's, primary schools etc.) are available within easy walking distance of one's home. If you want to go further then you simply walk the short distance to the bus stop and travel to where you want to go. What's wrong with any of that?

Show quote history

Because what they put in first is not the amenities that people need...it's the cameras.

But regardless...it is not the government's business where I carry out my lawful business and activities.

DdraigGoch · 29/08/2023 18:27

Freepo · 29/08/2023 18:06

It’s a simple question: would congestion be better or worse without the cycle lane? If the cycle lane creates a net reduction in congestion then great. If it increases it because it causes an insufficient number of people to get out of their cars to offset the reduced lanes for motor traffic, then the practical impacts have to be justified as being proportionate.

This is an LTN issue not ULEZ I am genuinely distressed at the fact my pre school kids, one of whom is asthmatic, are breathing increased levels of air pollution due to living on a now heavily congested boundary road, and all I get from people who support these schemes is to say blame the people who drive, while refusing to engage in a sensible conversation about if the scheme is in practice doing more harm than good. Policies have to be rooted in reality not idealism.

Show quote history

So your complaint os that traffic that used to be split down two roads is now concentrated into one road? Presumably the road we're talking about is also some kind of residential or shopping street and now being used as a rat-run, please correct me if the situation I'm imagining isn't what you're talking about.

In which case my answer would be to impose restrictions on the rat-run too. Doesn't have to be a total ban, access can still be maintained for buses, vehicles loading and blue badges.

Basically force the cars out until they can only use the trunk roads if they need through-routes. Where trunk roads are closely-bounded by housing (didn't the recent coroner's case involve the South Circular?) then remove the nearside lanes, building both active travel routes and tree lines to provide a barrier between the traffic and the housing.

One way or the other, cars are the problem and the solution is to discourage them.

DdraigGoch · 29/08/2023 18:29

Comedycook · 29/08/2023 18:23

Because what they put in first is not the amenities that people need...it's the cameras.

But regardless...it is not the government's business where I carry out my lawful business and activities.

Show quote history

That's nothing to do with 15-minute neighbourhoods. The scheme in Oxford you are thinking of was about stopping rat-running.

LakieLady · 29/08/2023 18:29

I feel very sorry for people living in the very outer parts of Greater London, which are really quite rural and don't have air quality issues. Many areas, especially the south-east of London, have poor public transport links as well. Not everyone can afford to get a newer car.

I was resigned to spending £12.50 every time I went to visit MIL in my 22 year old Audi, and was astonished to find it is actually ULEZ compliant.

Freepo · 29/08/2023 18:35

DdraigGoch · 29/08/2023 18:27

So your complaint os that traffic that used to be split down two roads is now concentrated into one road? Presumably the road we're talking about is also some kind of residential or shopping street and now being used as a rat-run, please correct me if the situation I'm imagining isn't what you're talking about.

In which case my answer would be to impose restrictions on the rat-run too. Doesn't have to be a total ban, access can still be maintained for buses, vehicles loading and blue badges.

Basically force the cars out until they can only use the trunk roads if they need through-routes. Where trunk roads are closely-bounded by housing (didn't the recent coroner's case involve the South Circular?) then remove the nearside lanes, building both active travel routes and tree lines to provide a barrier between the traffic and the housing.

One way or the other, cars are the problem and the solution is to discourage them.

Show quote history

If that could be realistic, and air pollution on those trunk roads homes was monitored and showed to be reduced I’d be on board with that, as it’s making things better for everyone air pollution wise. This is also as long as the net effect on emissions was a downwards reduction.

That isn’t the current situation where I am (we live on such a “trunk” road and it’s a single carriage residential street, with every road inside this boundary being one way). It’s a total nightmare since the LTN and no one cares, they just say more people should cycle and leave my kids to choke on the increased smog.

My concern is that people are not realistic about the reasons people drive, and it not being that simple for everyone to just get out of their car. Traffic has a huge amount of negatives but there’s no denying cars are convenient and there are valid reasons for plenty (not all) journeys being by car. I don’t know whether your solution leaves road traffic as a viable option for those who need to do it (and there are many journeys that do need to be by car). But I agree with you in principle, if it could work in practice.

DdraigGoch · 29/08/2023 18:50

That isn’t the current situation where I am (we live on such a “trunk” road and it’s a single carriage residential street, with every road inside this boundary being one way). It’s a total nightmare since the LTN and no one cares, they just say more people should cycle and leave my kids to choke on the increased smog.

Yeah, that's not what I would have done. Ironically the Oxford scheme a different PP was ranting about was designed to avoid such rat-running.

Comedycook · 29/08/2023 19:25

DdraigGoch · 29/08/2023 18:29

That's nothing to do with 15-minute neighbourhoods. The scheme in Oxford you are thinking of was about stopping rat-running.

Show quote history

I'm not thinking of any particular scheme.

Oh and I really hate the term 'rat running'. Driving down a road to get to particular destination is not rat running...it's called driving down the road. Where I live in SE London we have these absolutely pathetic low traffic neighbourhoods where the supporters of these seem to have an issue with people driving down residential roads utterly ignoring the fact that virtually every road in London has residential property on it.

dutysuite · 29/08/2023 20:00

DdraigGoch · 29/08/2023 15:23

You haven't got a clue what a 15 minute neighbourhood is, have you?

It's one where all basic facilities (shops, public transport, doctor's, primary schools etc.) are available within easy walking distance of one's home. If you want to go further then you simply walk the short distance to the bus stop and travel to where you want to go. What's wrong with any of that?

Show quote history

So naive

LittleBearPad · 29/08/2023 20:16

Maybe…

LittleBearPad · 29/08/2023 20:18

Comedycook · 29/08/2023 19:25

I'm not thinking of any particular scheme.

Oh and I really hate the term 'rat running'. Driving down a road to get to particular destination is not rat running...it's called driving down the road. Where I live in SE London we have these absolutely pathetic low traffic neighbourhoods where the supporters of these seem to have an issue with people driving down residential roads utterly ignoring the fact that virtually every road in London has residential property on it.

Show quote history

Driving down a road to get to particular destination is not rat running...it's called driving down the road

Quite right. That’s not rat running.

Rat running is driving a less direct through residential streets to avoid traffic on the main roads. Usually done at too high a speed too

Jumpingthruhoops · 29/08/2023 20:22

Thebestwaytoscareatory · 29/08/2023 13:09

You know the "Own nothing; be happy" thing stems from an essay submitted to the WEF by a Danish politician that was meant to instigate debate about tech development and goods / materials as a service, right? It is not, and has never been, an official view or part of the WEF.

It's amazing how many people focus in on a tiny, insignificant part of something and decide that must be the sole focus of the whole organisation. I mean there's also essays on there called "Sir Elton John: 5 leadership lessons from my darkest hours" and "Why art has the power to change the world". Do you also think the WEF are also secretly working to make us all buy Elton's autobiography and take up art classes?

There are also essays called "Five changes for sustainable health systems that put people first", "Prioritizing Racial and Ethnic Equity in Business", and "Women's economic empowerment is the right and smart thing to do". Why haven't you picked up on any of those as a "specific agenda" of the WEF? Why is it only ever "Own nothing; be happy" that gets attention?

On the topic of the thread, support ULEZ in principle but not in the way it is being implemented i.e., it's a good thing to work on improving air quality but not if it disproportionately impacts poorer people in society or if it can be circumnavigated by rich people.

Show quote history

Why do people focus on that? Maybe because people object to being controlled? The other examples you cite don't.

The fact remains, this is definitely part of a wider agenda to stop people moving freely under the guise of saving the planet. If he really wanted to do that, he would just ban vehicles from certain parts of London. But he won't do that because it doesn't make anyone any money.

Oblomov23 · 29/08/2023 20:26

No. It won't make air quality better. Just penalises normal people. Diesels are ok, but my cleaner hybrid isn't?

LittleBearPad · 29/08/2023 20:29

Oblomov23 · 29/08/2023 20:26

No. It won't make air quality better. Just penalises normal people. Diesels are ok, but my cleaner hybrid isn't?

Which hybrid car isn’t ok?

Comedycook · 29/08/2023 21:18

LittleBearPad · 29/08/2023 20:18

Driving down a road to get to particular destination is not rat running...it's called driving down the road

Quite right. That’s not rat running.

Rat running is driving a less direct through residential streets to avoid traffic on the main roads. Usually done at too high a speed too

Show quote history

Rat running is a nonsense term. Most people will drive the quickest route. As for driving down residential roads, virtually every road in London has residential property on it.