3 ms·

Nice attack there, if a little ignorant. The only people being forced of the road are the under-privileged, those who can't afford electric vehicles by ULEZ, t

Nice attack there, if a little ignorant. The only people being forced of the road are the under-privileged, those who can't afford electric vehicles by ULEZ, those who can't afford maintenance with poor roads, skyrocketing insurance, high fuel prices, ever increasing taxes, unfair parking charges for those using polluting Diesels who we encouraged and subsidised to buy them a few short years ago, and those who rely on them for their work or trade. The only people who _won't_ be forced off of the road, are the privileged. We'll all by walking and cycling around outside of London where the infrastructure continues to suffer after all of the public funds have been pocketed by the privileged for improved transport that was never delivered, while the roads are lined with processions of Chelsea tractors ignoring 20mph limits.

gambiting 2y ago
>>those who can't afford electric vehicles by ULEZ I wonder if you're doing this on purpose, or if you are genuienly unaware of ULEZ compliance conditions? ULEZ only requires your car to be Euro 4 compliant for petrol cars, and Euro 6 for diesels. Most(if not all) petrol cars that are younger than 20 years old are Euro 4 compliant, and any diesel made in the last 10 years should be Euro 6 compliant too. You are making it sound like you have to buy an EV to be ULEZ compliant, which is absolutely not true. >>for those using polluting Diesels who we encouraged and subsidised to buy them a few short years ago Well, you can't reverse decisions from the past - you can only improve on them. And ULEZ is one of the best decisions made anywhere in this country, its impact on pollution within London is undeniable, I wish every single city in the UK had a ULEZ zone. >> and those who rely on them for their work or trade. Funny, but this exact same argument was being used when leaded petrol was being phased out. And yet I can't imagine anyone would look back at that time and say it was a mistake to get rid of it. >>skyrocketing insurance That is one thing I 100% agree with you on - insurance industry is just a giant cartel right now, and they keep charging more and more despite skyrocketing profits. Their own numbers about increased cost of repairs doesn't line up with the increases in premiums across the board, it's all a scam. >> high fuel prices Fuel prices have been going down every year, even if the price of fuel has increased in absolute terms. Thank inflation for that one.
- alias_neo 2y ago
  > I wonder if you're doing this on purpose, or if you are genuienly unaware of ULEZ compliance conditions? I'm well aware; I picked the extreme condition (EV) to make my point, bit naughty, I'm sorry, but sure, a Euro 6 vehicle can still cost you £10k if you want something clean and that isn't going to immediately be a maintenance burden, heck, let's say £5k, £3k, £1k? The older/cheaper you're going, the more you're subjecting yourself to in maintenance costs, and higher road tax, so let's say they opt for something about to enter MOT-requirements, 3 years, by scrapping an existing junk-car, one which they only have because they can't afford a better one, we're easily talking thousands of pounds. I assume these people aren't driving old, non-compliant cars because they can afford a better one and just choose not to. > Well, you can't reverse decisions from the past - you can only improve on them. Fair, I can't argue with that, but I hope you can see how that might be quite aggravating for someone who bought into it at that time, whose vehicle is now non-compliant because of its age, and perhaps can't afford to replace it. > its impact on pollution within London is undeniable I agree, for London, but ULEZ doesn't just affect London, it affects much of the area within the M25 now, much of which is poorly connected or subject to appalling rail operators, they're treated the same way as those living within central areas and there's nothing "equality" about that. I'm not sure if it was yourself or another commenter who mentioned NIMBYs, and I know a lot of the reasons parts particularly south of the river are poorly connected is due to NIMBYism, but this whole discussion is over not worrying about the feelings or well-being of minorities; if it was for the greater good, it should have just been done. Were people not forced out of there homes for HS2? Look where that got us. > I wish every single city in the UK had a ULEZ zone. I wish every city in the UK was as well connected as London, then it would be reasonable and fair to have a ULEZ in them. > Their own numbers about increased cost of repairs doesn't line up with the increases in premiums across the board, it's all a scam Hear hear. > Fuel prices have been going down every year, even if the price of fuel has increased in absolute terms. Thank inflation for that one Yes, alone the affects due to inflation are (perhaps) unavoidable, but it's another expense, and even if you _could_ afford an EV let's say instead, the prices to charge away from home (or if there's no possible way for you to charge at home), are ridiculous anyway. Let's also not forget greed and record profits. Back to the original commenters point, and mine, to which you replied; this isn't about privilege at all, I'm privileged, I can afford to run a car or two, buy an EV etc, have a leisure vehicle, I (we?) are the ones _not_ negatively affected by any of this, it's easy for us to sit here and say, this is better for everyone, but in the ham-fisted way it has been handled, while billions in public funds have been wasted on the likes of HS2, while not delivering, and pocketed by the privileged, in times were we're talking about a "cost of living crisis" is not. I think being _able_ to prioritise the environment, one's health, the greater good etc is itself a privilege, and being able to be ignorant of that is too (I'm not suggesting you are; just making a general comment).
__alexs 2y ago
ULEZ is a London specific thing where you have already admitted there are great alternative transport options.
- alias_neo 2y ago
  It's not though, it also affects those who live anywhere within the M25, which would be generous to call "London", particularly the more neglected parts, in public transport terms in the south and south-east.
  - harry_ord 2y ago
    What parts are you talking about? Most areas in the m25 is part of a London Borough. Watford isn't but has decent rail connections and has tfl bus routes ending there. There are some parts of rural Enfield and Barnet which aren't so great for public transport connections admittedly.
    - alias_neo 2y ago
      I mean, pick basically anywhere east of centre, or anywhere served by Southern or Southeastern, some of the worst rail operators, or anywhere more than ~20 minutes walk from a station. Being a London borough doesn't mean much in some parts, other than being subject to the will of London, despite a very different landscape.
      - __alexs 2y ago
        I live in an area served by Southeastern and have plenty of non-Southeastern transport options.
  - andrepd 2y ago
    So your conclusion is not "we should invest in transit to those neglected areas", it's "let's subsidise driving everywhere". Interesting.
andrepd 2y ago
>attack Damn, what a way to prove my point! Even opinions in an online forum are "attack" :) The simple fact is that (1) Drivers are subsidised by the state and by all of us, directly through such freebies as road construction and maintenance (which is horrendously expensive) and indirectly through such nice externalities that society must bear, such as the tens of thousands of deaths yearly (2-3 million worldwide) from crashes, pollution, etc. (2) Driving is the mode of transportation that is taken as default and that everything else must bow to: roads are first-class, then sidewalks, bus stops, cycle "lanes", etc, are an afterthought that must bend to the car traffic space, if they exist at all (3) Past a certain density it's literally physically impossible that people move around in automobiles Look I don't want to "defund roads", I'd already be happy if a tiny fraction of the money and attention that goes to driving would be devoted to other forms of transport.
- alias_neo 2y ago
  > roads are first-class, then sidewalks, bus stops, cycle "lanes", etc, are an afterthought that must bend to the car traffic space, if they exist at all I agree, and it's not right. Perhaps see some of my other points to see that we're not disagreeing with each other, I just phrased my initial point poorly due to misunderstanding of the term "war on drivers", which I don't be using again. > Look I don't want to "defund roads", I'd already be happy if a tiny fraction of the money and attention that goes to driving would be devoted to other forms of transport. I have no problem with "defund roads" as such, but I'd like to see something suitable and workable in their place before that. I don't think ploughing on with unfair costs, ICE bans and electrification in spite of it all, is the solution; we'll just be left with more expensive, less productive ways to get around that cause more damage in other ways (EVs are terrifying as a pedestrian or cyclist), the potential for lithium fires, more devastating crashes, battery lifetimes, etc, and most half decent EVs are priced in the "luxury" vehicle category. My one minor ask, if I could have one thing _now_? Update legislation to make privately owning and using e-scooters a thing on the roads.
lmm 2y ago
> The only people being forced of the road are the under-privileged, those who can't afford electric vehicles by ULEZ, those who can't afford maintenance with poor roads, skyrocketing insurance, high fuel prices, ever increasing taxes, unfair parking charges for those using polluting Diesels who we encouraged and subsidised to buy them a few short years ago, and those who rely on them for their work or trade. No, the people who are currently forced off the road are the people who are worse off than that, the people who can't afford cars at all. The mass of cars choking the streets makes life difficult or impossible for those who have to rely on cycling or buses, which is what being actually unprivileged looks like. To say nothing of the people literally dying from air pollution. > The only people who _won't_ be forced off of the road, are the privileged. There are simply too many vehicles on the roads. Some of them need to go. Either we charge a fair price and then at least the wealthy are contributing something that can be spent on helping the rest of us. Or we do something else, and the wealthy will still find a way round it but won't pay anything towards the public good. > the infrastructure continues to suffer after all of the public funds have been pocketed by the privileged for improved transport that was never delivered, while the roads are lined with processions of Chelsea tractors ignoring 20mph limits. So if investing in transport improvements is no good and taking cars off the road is no good, what do you actually want? Other than to complain on the internet, which will still be allowed in any scenario.

gambiting 2y ago

>>those who can't afford electric vehicles by ULEZ I wonder if you're doing this on purpose, or if you are genuienly unaware of ULEZ compliance conditions? ULEZ only requires your car to be Euro 4 compliant for petrol cars, and Euro 6 for diesels. Most(if not all) petrol cars that are younger than 20 years old are Euro 4 compliant, and any diesel made in the last 10 years should be Euro 6 compliant too. You are making it sound like you have to buy an EV to be ULEZ compliant, which is absolutely not true. >>for those using polluting Diesels who we encouraged and subsidised to buy them a few short years ago Well, you can't reverse decisions from the past - you can only improve on them. And ULEZ is one of the best decisions made anywhere in this country, its impact on pollution within London is undeniable, I wish every single city in the UK had a ULEZ zone. >> and those who rely on them for their work or trade. Funny, but this exact same argument was being used when leaded petrol was being phased out. And yet I can't imagine anyone would look back at that time and say it was a mistake to get rid of it. >>skyrocketing insurance That is one thing I 100% agree with you on - insurance industry is just a giant cartel right now, and they keep charging more and more despite skyrocketing profits. Their own numbers about increased cost of repairs doesn't line up with the increases in premiums across the board, it's all a scam. >> high fuel prices Fuel prices have been going down every year, even if the price of fuel has increased in absolute terms. Thank inflation for that one.

alias_neo 2y ago
> I wonder if you're doing this on purpose, or if you are genuienly unaware of ULEZ compliance conditions? I'm well aware; I picked the extreme condition (EV) to make my point, bit naughty, I'm sorry, but sure, a Euro 6 vehicle can still cost you £10k if you want something clean and that isn't going to immediately be a maintenance burden, heck, let's say £5k, £3k, £1k? The older/cheaper you're going, the more you're subjecting yourself to in maintenance costs, and higher road tax, so let's say they opt for something about to enter MOT-requirements, 3 years, by scrapping an existing junk-car, one which they only have because they can't afford a better one, we're easily talking thousands of pounds. I assume these people aren't driving old, non-compliant cars because they can afford a better one and just choose not to. > Well, you can't reverse decisions from the past - you can only improve on them. Fair, I can't argue with that, but I hope you can see how that might be quite aggravating for someone who bought into it at that time, whose vehicle is now non-compliant because of its age, and perhaps can't afford to replace it. > its impact on pollution within London is undeniable I agree, for London, but ULEZ doesn't just affect London, it affects much of the area within the M25 now, much of which is poorly connected or subject to appalling rail operators, they're treated the same way as those living within central areas and there's nothing "equality" about that. I'm not sure if it was yourself or another commenter who mentioned NIMBYs, and I know a lot of the reasons parts particularly south of the river are poorly connected is due to NIMBYism, but this whole discussion is over not worrying about the feelings or well-being of minorities; if it was for the greater good, it should have just been done. Were people not forced out of there homes for HS2? Look where that got us. > I wish every single city in the UK had a ULEZ zone. I wish every city in the UK was as well connected as London, then it would be reasonable and fair to have a ULEZ in them. > Their own numbers about increased cost of repairs doesn't line up with the increases in premiums across the board, it's all a scam Hear hear. > Fuel prices have been going down every year, even if the price of fuel has increased in absolute terms. Thank inflation for that one Yes, alone the affects due to inflation are (perhaps) unavoidable, but it's another expense, and even if you _could_ afford an EV let's say instead, the prices to charge away from home (or if there's no possible way for you to charge at home), are ridiculous anyway. Let's also not forget greed and record profits. Back to the original commenters point, and mine, to which you replied; this isn't about privilege at all, I'm privileged, I can afford to run a car or two, buy an EV etc, have a leisure vehicle, I (we?) are the ones _not_ negatively affected by any of this, it's easy for us to sit here and say, this is better for everyone, but in the ham-fisted way it has been handled, while billions in public funds have been wasted on the likes of HS2, while not delivering, and pocketed by the privileged, in times were we're talking about a "cost of living crisis" is not. I think being _able_ to prioritise the environment, one's health, the greater good etc is itself a privilege, and being able to be ignorant of that is too (I'm not suggesting you are; just making a general comment).

__alexs 2y ago

ULEZ is a London specific thing where you have already admitted there are great alternative transport options.

alias_neo 2y ago
It's not though, it also affects those who live anywhere within the M25, which would be generous to call "London", particularly the more neglected parts, in public transport terms in the south and south-east.
- harry_ord 2y ago
  What parts are you talking about? Most areas in the m25 is part of a London Borough. Watford isn't but has decent rail connections and has tfl bus routes ending there. There are some parts of rural Enfield and Barnet which aren't so great for public transport connections admittedly.
  - alias_neo 2y ago
    I mean, pick basically anywhere east of centre, or anywhere served by Southern or Southeastern, some of the worst rail operators, or anywhere more than ~20 minutes walk from a station. Being a London borough doesn't mean much in some parts, other than being subject to the will of London, despite a very different landscape.
    - __alexs 2y ago
      I live in an area served by Southeastern and have plenty of non-Southeastern transport options.
- andrepd 2y ago
  So your conclusion is not "we should invest in transit to those neglected areas", it's "let's subsidise driving everywhere". Interesting.

andrepd 2y ago

>attack Damn, what a way to prove my point! Even opinions in an online forum are "attack" :) The simple fact is that (1) Drivers are subsidised by the state and by all of us, directly through such freebies as road construction and maintenance (which is horrendously expensive) and indirectly through such nice externalities that society must bear, such as the tens of thousands of deaths yearly (2-3 million worldwide) from crashes, pollution, etc. (2) Driving is the mode of transportation that is taken as default and that everything else must bow to: roads are first-class, then sidewalks, bus stops, cycle "lanes", etc, are an afterthought that must bend to the car traffic space, if they exist at all (3) Past a certain density it's literally physically impossible that people move around in automobiles Look I don't want to "defund roads", I'd already be happy if a tiny fraction of the money and attention that goes to driving would be devoted to other forms of transport.

alias_neo 2y ago
> roads are first-class, then sidewalks, bus stops, cycle "lanes", etc, are an afterthought that must bend to the car traffic space, if they exist at all I agree, and it's not right. Perhaps see some of my other points to see that we're not disagreeing with each other, I just phrased my initial point poorly due to misunderstanding of the term "war on drivers", which I don't be using again. > Look I don't want to "defund roads", I'd already be happy if a tiny fraction of the money and attention that goes to driving would be devoted to other forms of transport. I have no problem with "defund roads" as such, but I'd like to see something suitable and workable in their place before that. I don't think ploughing on with unfair costs, ICE bans and electrification in spite of it all, is the solution; we'll just be left with more expensive, less productive ways to get around that cause more damage in other ways (EVs are terrifying as a pedestrian or cyclist), the potential for lithium fires, more devastating crashes, battery lifetimes, etc, and most half decent EVs are priced in the "luxury" vehicle category. My one minor ask, if I could have one thing _now_? Update legislation to make privately owning and using e-scooters a thing on the roads.

lmm 2y ago

> The only people being forced of the road are the under-privileged, those who can't afford electric vehicles by ULEZ, those who can't afford maintenance with poor roads, skyrocketing insurance, high fuel prices, ever increasing taxes, unfair parking charges for those using polluting Diesels who we encouraged and subsidised to buy them a few short years ago, and those who rely on them for their work or trade. No, the people who are currently forced off the road are the people who are worse off than that, the people who can't afford cars at all. The mass of cars choking the streets makes life difficult or impossible for those who have to rely on cycling or buses, which is what being actually unprivileged looks like. To say nothing of the people literally dying from air pollution. > The only people who _won't_ be forced off of the road, are the privileged. There are simply too many vehicles on the roads. Some of them need to go. Either we charge a fair price and then at least the wealthy are contributing something that can be spent on helping the rest of us. Or we do something else, and the wealthy will still find a way round it but won't pay anything towards the public good. > the infrastructure continues to suffer after all of the public funds have been pocketed by the privileged for improved transport that was never delivered, while the roads are lined with processions of Chelsea tractors ignoring 20mph limits. So if investing in transport improvements is no good and taking cars off the road is no good, what do you actually want? Other than to complain on the internet, which will still be allowed in any scenario.