Boris Johnson - WTF is he smoking?

[MarshPhantom]

turbobloke said:

youngsyr said:

Don't blame Boris, blame the EU - London faces £300m of fines for poor air quality, this is one measure to try to avoid having to pay them:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/11/...

Indeed as per my post ar 1132 hrs this morning

There are many ways to skin a cat, nobody forced Boris to come up with this ludicrous plan.

[youngsyr]

MarshPhantom said:

turbobloke said:

youngsyr said:

Don't blame Boris, blame the EU - London faces £300m of fines for poor air quality, this is one measure to try to avoid having to pay them:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/11/...

Indeed as per my post ar 1132 hrs this morning

There are many ways to skin a cat, nobody forced Boris to come up with this ludicrous plan.

If there are "many", let's hear a couple?

[Devil2575]

turbobloke said:

Really.

But they aren't disagreeing with me, they're disagreeing with the logical conclusions drawn by the authors I cited from the data which they cited.

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. It doesn't matter how many people are wrong.

Beyond that if you (or the authors of the material you cite) understood anything about data and causality, you would know that such opinion is nonsensical.

You have picked a side based on your previously held views and you're sticking to it. I get that

Oh and for the record, I understand exactly about correllation not equalling causation.

You patronising twunt

[turbobloke]

MarshPhantom said:

turbobloke said:

youngsyr said:

Don't blame Boris, blame the EU - London faces £300m of fines for poor air quality, this is one measure to try to avoid having to pay them:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/11/...

Indeed as per my post ar 1132 hrs this morning

There are many ways to skin a cat, nobody forced Boris to come up with this ludicrous plan.

Agreed it's a ludicrous plan. Where have I posted anything to the contrary?

As to the idea (from elsewhere) that an EU fine will make any difference to recessionary conditions, that's bizarre.

Same for any remaining notion that air pollution causes asthma. Dr Martin Stern of the British Allergy Foundation has categorically rejected that asthma is linked to outdoor air pollution. Instead, and based on research evidence, he links it to the household dust mite and enzymes in its excreta. Modern living, with central heating, draught-free doubleglazing, fitted carpets and poor diet plus lack of exercise, provide the ideal environment for the dust mite enzymes to work on our respiratory system. The proportion of homes with fitted carpets in England, France and Italy is directly proportional to the incidence of asthma in each country.

Heavily polluted eastern European and south American countries have very low incidences of asthma. Conversely, New Zealand, which is noted for its clean air, has amongst the highest incidence in the world per head of population. The idyllic ocean island of Tristan da Cunha has some of the cleanest air on the surface of the planet, yet medics there report that virtually every inhabitant has asthma.

[turbobloke]

Devil2575 said:

You have picked a side based on your previously held views and you're sticking to it. I get that

Oh and for the record, I understand exactly about correllation not equalling causation.

You patronising twunt

No, I base my views on data, evidence and sound science rather than viewpoints from others, and aim to avoid resorting to abuse. You appear to have failed on both counts.

[oyster]

Fittster said:

Devil2575 said:

MarshPhantom said:

Re. car free towns being better, I couldn't disagree more. The grimmest places I can think of have pedestrianised town centres. Cars bring people and life to a city.

Cars create danger for pedestrians, pollute and jam the place up.

People bring life to a city, not cars.

And if they can't take their cars into the city center they don't go their.

Have you ever been to central London?
Do you really think the City or the West End would be deserted of people if private cars were banned between 8-6 each weekday?

[Devil2575]

turbobloke said:

Devil2575 said:

You have picked a side based on your previously held views and you're sticking to it. I get that

Oh and for the record, I understand exactly about correllation not equalling causation.

You patronising twunt

No, I base my views on data, evidence and sound science rather than viewpoints, and aim to avoid resorting to abuse. You appear to have failed on both counts.

Really.

No, what you actually do is select the data that suits and you ignore or rubbish that which doesn't.

I'll admit you're pretty smooth at it and at times quite convincing, but not convincing enough for everyone.

Abuse?

You have a point, I just don't appreciate being patronised by someone who thought that the greenhouse effect violated the second law

[turbobloke]

Devil2575 said:

turbobloke said:

Devil2575 said:

You have picked a side based on your previously held views and you're sticking to it. I get that

Oh and for the record, I understand exactly about correllation not equalling causation.

You patronising twunt

No, I base my views on data, evidence and sound science rather than viewpoints, and aim to avoid resorting to abuse. You appear to have failed on both counts.

Really.

No, what you actually do is select the data that suits and you ignore or rubbish that which doesn't.

I'll admit you're pretty smooth at it and at times quite convincing, but not convincing enough for everyone.

Data is convincing, sound science is convincing, your predictably preconceived position supported by social commentary from activists is far from it. It's reassuring to see you disagree with me.

Boris's proposal will remain nonsensical as long as there is any element aimed at cars.

[Devil2575]

turbobloke said:

Data is convincing, sound science is convincing, your predictably preconceived position supported by social commentary from activists is far from it. It's reassuring to see you disagree with me.

Boris's proposal will remain nonsensical as long as there is any element aimed at cars.

So the proposal is nonsensical only as long as any of it is aimed at cars?

Come again?

You are convinced by science that suits you.

[BJG1]

Fittster said:

And if they can't take their cars into the city center they don't go their.

Quite - but this is completely irrelevant to a discussion about London.

I don't see why anyone needs to drive in central London unless it's for a business use (delivery, worksman etc). Can someone provide me with a reason please?

[NomduJour]

BJG1 said:

I don't see why anyone needs to drive in central London unless it's for a business use (delivery, worksman etc). Can someone provide me with a reason please?

How about because they want to and it's none of your business to tell them otherwise?

[Devil2575]

NomduJour said:

BJG1 said:

I don't see why anyone needs to drive in central London unless it's for a business use (delivery, worksman etc). Can someone provide me with a reason please?

How about because they want to and it's none of your business to tell them otherwise?

Well if Boris stands for re-election on this issue then Londoners will decide.

[Terminator X]

I try to stay out of the place, it's very big and unpleasant.

TX.

[DJRC]

turbobloke said:

MarshPhantom said:

DJRC said:

MarshPhantom said:

DJRC said:

I have 2 thoughts on this:

1. I kinda like the idea of a less polluted central London and a less car friendly zone. Not very ph, but true Im afraid. Frankly I fking loathe cars in the town traffic yes, private cars no. Lived around the area for 10yrs, never needed a car once in the place, in fact I always point blank resisted driving into London. Train and tube only.

2. Nobody else but me think its bloody unlikely BoJo will still be Mayor in 2020?

So you live in Central London and don't need a car so nobody should be able to drive in London.

Slightly warped logic isn't it?

Nope, I lived around the place. I do though do city living out here. Drove the car into town once here...absolute disaster and that was on a Sunday and it was deserted, dead!

Cars in the centre of cities almost never make them a better place. Actually lets turn that round, car free town/city centres are infinately better places to spend time as a human being.

Commercial traffic needs to be there, private rarely does. A decent urban transport system should be able to take care of private needs. It does elsewhere quite efficiently.

My point was that just because you don't need a car it doesn't mean other people don't. I don't need a car to get around my local area, everything I need is in walking distance, should we ban cars there too?

Re. car free towns being better, I couldn't disagree more. The grimmest places I can think of have pedestrianised town centres. Cars bring people and life to a city.

While sustaining the economic well-being of those town centres, along with the economic well-being, quality of life and health of the car occupants.

People making journeys know better than minions in officialdumb what the best mode of transport for their journeys will be.

Smoking powerful dope isn't really a sifficient explanation for the daft ideas we get from the dopes in politics.

Sorry dudes. Ive seen it done well and properly. I enjoy the fruits of this. You dont, your problem...and yes it is. You will whinge and whine and piss on the tent from outside and nobody will take a blind bit of notice. In the meantime you will do fk all to actually mitigate against the coming "disaster" instead just sitting on your arse and when it hits you will declare it a disaster and the sky falling down. It wont affect me one jot.

Zurich and Bern might be Nazi-Central, but the Hitler Youth boys certainly know how to run a city.

[BJG1]

NomduJour said:

How about because they want to and it's none of your business to tell them otherwise?

Well it is my business isn't it? I live and work in London and as such, have as much of a say as to how its transport system should be run as anyone else. If banning cars reduces pollution and eases congestion making it quicker for buses and deliveries I don't really see a downside other than billy big bks can't drive his 458 up and down Great Portland Street all day.

[NomduJour]

BJG1 said:

Well it is my business isn't it? I live and work in London and as such, have as much of a say as to how its transport system should be run as anyone else. If banning cars reduces pollution and eases congestion making it quicker for buses and deliveries I don't really see a downside other than billy big bks can't drive his 458 up and down Great Portland Street all day.

What if I don't want to get on a bus? Are you suggesting that buses (which already have their own lanes) don't cause congestion and pollution?

[DJRC]

turbobloke said:

Devil2575 said:

What's wrong with public transport?

In general or in one city full of people with the usually narrow metropolitan perspective who rarely need to travel more than a few miles other than in a chauffeured limo? In general then:

According to an Audit Commission report 'All Aboard' it's a costly, unreliable and inflexible shambles.

According to the former Warren Springs laboratory and research from Lancaster uni it's more polluting than private transport.

According to the Medical Research Council’s social and public health sciences unit in Glasgow, using public transport is worse for your health than driving.

And according to researchers such as Dr Hitomi Suzuki and Dr Mersch-Sundermann, looking at the health effects of 3-NBA and 1,8-DNP, it's a prolific source of these two chemicals, the most mutagenic carcinogens known to science.

Apart from that, it's rarely a pleasant experience.

Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 14th February 12:45

It is. And efficient. And cheap.

Oh sorry, I forgot you were talking about the UK and not a place where its done properly. Carry on, Im sure your research will be noted with great care and attention over here in the 1st world Actually, you might have a point. I had to wait 15 extra minutes at Geneva the other week when my train stopped in town instead of carrying on the airport. People were saying it might even have been quicker to go by car...Unthinkable...there was nearly a riot I tell you!

[BJG1]

NomduJour said:

BJG1 said:

Well it is my business isn't it? I live and work in London and as such, have as much of a say as to how its transport system should be run as anyone else. If banning cars reduces pollution and eases congestion making it quicker for buses and deliveries I don't really see a downside other than billy big bks can't drive his 458 up and down Great Portland Street all day.

What if I don't want to get on a bus? Are you suggesting that buses (which already have their own lanes) don't cause congestion and pollution?

I'm not suggesting that at all. If you don't want to get a bus you can walk or get a tube. Central London isn't very big.

[NomduJour]

BJG1 said:

I'm not suggesting that at all. If you don't want to get a bus you can walk or get a tube. Central London isn't very big.

I'm suggesting you mind your own business and stop trying to tell people what to do. The proportion of people who commute into Central London by car is small in any case compared to those who travel by train and tube, and is ultimately limited because of the parking situation. Instead of banning, why not make the alternative more appealing?

[turbobloke]

BJG1 said:

NomduJour said:

How about because they want to and it's none of your business to tell them otherwise?

Well it is my business isn't it? I live and work in London and as such, have as much of a say as to how its transport system should be run as anyone else. If banning cars reduces pollution and eases congestion making it quicker for buses and deliveries I don't really see a downside other than billy big bks can't drive his 458 up and down Great Portland Street all day.

Banning cars won't do anything for air quality whereas banning buses and HGVs would.

As to congestion, taking a 1969-1970 baseline there were 147,000 people travelling by car in central London in an area corresponding to the con charge zone. Following a peak of 197,000 in 1982-1983 the total had fallen below 114,000 by 2003-2004 due mostly to a reduction in accessible road space and road user controls and parking restrictions i.e. various measures designed to make private transport use as difficult and costly as possible.

To reduce congestion and pollution try banning those buses you appear to want to see speeded up. Great Portland St may be relevant to somebody, but taking Oxford St in the rush hour it's possible to see 50 metres of stationary and nearly empty (up to half empty) buses approaching the Regent St cross from either side at the lights. That's quite a ridiculous state of affairs.

The silly billy point about a mythical 458 driver and the size of his cojones was very amusing, thanks for that.

NomduJour said:

BJG1 said:

I'm not suggesting that at all. If you don't want to get a bus you can walk or get a tube. Central London isn't very big.

I'm suggesting you mind your own business and stop trying to tell people what to do. The proportion of people who commute into Central London by car is small in any case compared to those who travel by train and tube, and is ultimately limited because of the parking situation. Instead of banning, why not make the alternative more appealing?

Or make city centres car-friendly so fewer buses are needed.