Edinburgh to ban cars over 10 years old?
Discussion
Apologies if this is a repost or posted in the wrong place, just cam across it on another forum...
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/
Sounds like Red Ken has fans north of the border. That'll be Edinburgh off my list of places to visit then!
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/
Sounds like Red Ken has fans north of the border. That'll be Edinburgh off my list of places to visit then!
Why am I not surprised that some f*ckwit hasn't come up with this before.
They carefully plan bottlenecks to introduce congestion, allow 'out of town' developments to force local shopping centres to close, allow housing estates to built miles from where people work forcing us to use cars as no public transport is suitable and then blame US for causing the problem
Can't see me going there but if I do it could lead to some interesting arguements if I take my old motorhome. It was built before 1992, is a diesel but runs on bio-fuel which can be argued is carbon negative as it removes carbon from the cycle.
BB
They carefully plan bottlenecks to introduce congestion, allow 'out of town' developments to force local shopping centres to close, allow housing estates to built miles from where people work forcing us to use cars as no public transport is suitable and then blame US for causing the problem
Can't see me going there but if I do it could lead to some interesting arguements if I take my old motorhome. It was built before 1992, is a diesel but runs on bio-fuel which can be argued is carbon negative as it removes carbon from the cycle.
BB
god help me if this spreads to Eng-er-land.
they can't really be serious?
I can see that older cars are generally going to be more polluting at the tailpipe, but what about all the research that takes into account the whole product life cycle from manufacture to disposal? I thought there was a certain train of thought that says we should stop disposing of cars as regularly as people do because of all the scrap. It seems they haven't given this enough thought?
I take it the "10 year old" bit isn't an automatic cut off point - which is good, but it probably would mean I'll have to put the cat back in my 15 year old car
they can't really be serious?
I can see that older cars are generally going to be more polluting at the tailpipe, but what about all the research that takes into account the whole product life cycle from manufacture to disposal? I thought there was a certain train of thought that says we should stop disposing of cars as regularly as people do because of all the scrap. It seems they haven't given this enough thought?
I take it the "10 year old" bit isn't an automatic cut off point - which is good, but it probably would mean I'll have to put the cat back in my 15 year old car
It's pretty standard modern environmentalism, isn't it?
"Throw everything away and build a new one that's slightly more efficient."
So what are the odds that they'll ban all old cars, it'll become near impossible for Edinburgh businesses to hire lower income workers as they can't afford to get to the town centre, and the air quality won't improve more than a few fractions of a percent because most of the problem is buses, taxis and commercial traffic?
"Throw everything away and build a new one that's slightly more efficient."
So what are the odds that they'll ban all old cars, it'll become near impossible for Edinburgh businesses to hire lower income workers as they can't afford to get to the town centre, and the air quality won't improve more than a few fractions of a percent because most of the problem is buses, taxis and commercial traffic?
This is a joke.
Where the
do these people come from? The newest car I have ever owned was built in 1993!
Unless it is a TVR or Lotus I like my classic 70's and 80's motors. If they are going to do it in Scotland, it will happen in England. Does this mean I have to scrap it and walk?
I don't think that is going to happen without one hell of a fight.
Where the
do these people come from? The newest car I have ever owned was built in 1993! Unless it is a TVR or Lotus I like my classic 70's and 80's motors. If they are going to do it in Scotland, it will happen in England. Does this mean I have to scrap it and walk?
I don't think that is going to happen without one hell of a fight.
But this is emmissions based.
Not wanting to defend them in any way, but it is not a ban on 10 year old cars. The headline could just as well read 'Edinburgh to ban 4x4's' when it may be that some 4x4's will pass whilst others will fail the emmissions level, same as for older or classic cars, some will pass, others will not.
As ever, its not about old cars or 4x4's or SUV's, that is just incidental and not a gaurantee of exclusion or inclusion. Why cant the media just publish the emmissions levels and make it clear that this is about emmissions levels, we all know that as a general rule a small economical car is less polluting than a big uneconomical one, there is no need to point the finger at a broad group of vehicles when there are large numbers of that vehicle type that will not be affected. Instead they make these knee jerk 'Thats twice as high as the Eiffel tower or as big as three football pitches, but only if its raining' comparisons.
Not wanting to defend them in any way, but it is not a ban on 10 year old cars. The headline could just as well read 'Edinburgh to ban 4x4's' when it may be that some 4x4's will pass whilst others will fail the emmissions level, same as for older or classic cars, some will pass, others will not.
As ever, its not about old cars or 4x4's or SUV's, that is just incidental and not a gaurantee of exclusion or inclusion. Why cant the media just publish the emmissions levels and make it clear that this is about emmissions levels, we all know that as a general rule a small economical car is less polluting than a big uneconomical one, there is no need to point the finger at a broad group of vehicles when there are large numbers of that vehicle type that will not be affected. Instead they make these knee jerk 'Thats twice as high as the Eiffel tower or as big as three football pitches, but only if its raining' comparisons.
LongQ said:
That is a much more sensible and accurate thread Mr Q.
Balmoral Green said:
But this is emmissions based.
Not wanting to defend them in any way, but it is not a ban on 10 year old cars. The headline could just as well read 'Edinburgh to ban 4x4's' when it may be that some 4x4's will pass whilst others will fail the emmissions level, same as for older or classic cars, some will pass, others will not.
As ever, its not about old cars or 4x4's or SUV's, that is just incidental and not a gaurantee of exclusion or inclusion. Why cant the media just publish the emmissions levels and make it clear that this is about emmissions levels, we all know that as a general rule a small economical car is less polluting than a big uneconomical one, there is no need to point the finger at a broad group of vehicles when there are large numbers of that vehicle type that will not be affected. Instead they make these knee jerk 'Thats twice as high as the Eiffel tower or as big as three football pitches, but only if its raining' comparisons.
Not wanting to defend them in any way, but it is not a ban on 10 year old cars. The headline could just as well read 'Edinburgh to ban 4x4's' when it may be that some 4x4's will pass whilst others will fail the emmissions level, same as for older or classic cars, some will pass, others will not.
As ever, its not about old cars or 4x4's or SUV's, that is just incidental and not a gaurantee of exclusion or inclusion. Why cant the media just publish the emmissions levels and make it clear that this is about emmissions levels, we all know that as a general rule a small economical car is less polluting than a big uneconomical one, there is no need to point the finger at a broad group of vehicles when there are large numbers of that vehicle type that will not be affected. Instead they make these knee jerk 'Thats twice as high as the Eiffel tower or as big as three football pitches, but only if its raining' comparisons.
True, but then I think the media assume - probably rightly - that most people will have no clue at all how any emissions based argument related to them. On the other hand they probably know the age of their car.
Likewise I can't see individual cities setting up their own DVLA type operation to keep tabs on which cars are or are not allowed into their environs. Much easier simply to ban based on age, the objective being as much to stop people using cars as to simply reduce alleged pollution.
The odd thing about this of course is that if the emission level constraint is the important thing and 1996 levels are the target, by the time they put anything in place most of the vehicle stock would already be compliant (in theory as at point of manufacture). So they would have a lot of cost and effort for very little result. Thus the rolling 10 year cut off would be more meaningful and in most cases, absent personalised number plates, much easier to enforce on the streets.
It is amazing how many ostensibly 'green' related issues probably cause more ecological damage (in this case shortening the useful life of something that is relatively high profile as a polluting manufacturing process in the world of the eco-nuts) than they are ever likely to 'save'. Sometimes people can't see the woods for the trees.
All just my opinion of course.
Balmoral Green said:
Why cant the media just publish the emmissions levels and make it clear that this is about emmissions levels, we all know that as a general rule a small economical car is less polluting than a big uneconomical one
in that case they should publish the emissions of building a new car and scrapping the old one and thus how many hundred thousand miles one must drive a marginally more efficient new car to break even. or they could just be retards
LongQ said:
Likewise I can't see individual cities setting up their own DVLA type operation to keep tabs on which cars are or are not allowed into their environs. Much easier simply to ban based on age, the objective being as much to stop people using cars as to simply reduce alleged pollution.
I think council's will set up there own ANPR system to police it,put your car Reg. into the DVLA site & it will tell you what its emission's are/should be. The ANPR cameras are already in some citys for security (we have them in Reading),so its easy to for them to send a fine out to you if you transgress.
ANPR cameras in conjunction with in the road weigh strips are being set up nationwide to weigh trucks on the move (on M/ways), data from dvla = 7.5t ,weight 7.6t = automatic fine in post, would be the same for any high emission car in a low emission town centre.
Anpr make it so simple to automatically fine you for any law they think up.
KB_S1 said:
They would need to take most of their own buses off the road if they introduce this plan.
That's exactly what I thought.
Unfortunately (and not unsurprisingly) the article says that buses will be exempt - they are obviously sufficiently environmentally-friendly whatever their emissions might be.
martind said:
LongQ said:
Likewise I can't see individual cities setting up their own DVLA type operation to keep tabs on which cars are or are not allowed into their environs. Much easier simply to ban based on age, the objective being as much to stop people using cars as to simply reduce alleged pollution.
I think council's will set up there own ANPR system to police it,put your car Reg. into the DVLA site & it will tell you what its emission's are/should be. The ANPR cameras are already in some citys for security (we have them in Reading),so its easy to for them to send a fine out to you if you transgress.
ANPR cameras in conjunction with in the road weigh strips are being set up nationwide to weigh trucks on the move (on M/ways), data from dvla = 7.5t ,weight 7.6t = automatic fine in post, would be the same for any high emission car in a low emission town centre.
Anpr make it so simple to automatically fine you for any law they think up.
Ah, that's interesting.
It fits rather well with the Scamerati speed monitoring needs where they work out whether a road "needs to be targetted" based on speed monitoring sessions. The choices are either to put people on site for an hour or so, deploy a monitoring device for a few days or use sensors embedded in the road.
Now, given that Local Authorities are starting to use embedded sensors to monitor traffic flows and that the LS'a are usually partners in the Scamera business one can put two and two together and see which way the numbers play out.
The sensor systems can, approxiamtely enough, differentiate between a motorbike, a car, and LGV, a coach or bus and an HGV. There may be some interesting analysis to be done at the speed limit break points (which seem to be ever changing) such as the 7.5 ton mark but ostensibly it seems that it would be entirely possible to set up complete system of speed measurement and ANPR tracking based on the embedded traffic flow sensors.
So the only questions then are:
Does that make the RFID tagged number plate requirement obsolete? (Or will there be multiple expensive systems in place doing the same thing?)
and
Will the 'partners' ever be able to agree who takes which costs and how to split the tax proceeds?
That's the trouble with technology. It regularly creates as many problems as it solves.
Los Angeles said:
It's a fools agenda: how is the council going to replace all its decrepit vans, buses, and coaches?
15 minutes ago tvrgit said:
Unfortunately (and not unsurprisingly) the article says that buses will be exempt - they are obviously sufficiently environmentally-friendly whatever their emissions might be.
Easy!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff