ULEZ charge in 2021

[Killboy]

C70R said:

I'm sorry you weren't aware.

Consider this a free education.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21443...

Then the standards were confirmed over 4 years ago.
https://cbwmagazine.com/boris-johnson-gives-go-ahe...

But yeah, this was slipped in the back door, as a surprise.

Careful now bringing facts, you will now be accused of not being able to help yourself, not being able to do irony, being monotonous, incredibly sanctimonious hypocrisy, lack of self-awareness, and child like arguing.

[C70R]

Killboy said:

C70R said:

Tony Gamble said:

C70R said:

Obviously, as someone who cares passionately about this (along with most others in this thread), you'll doubtless be aware that the ULEZ was Boris Johnson's idea more than 6 years ago. Right?

Wrong.

I'm sorry you weren't aware.

Consider this a free education.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21443...

Then the standards were confirmed over 4 years ago.
https://cbwmagazine.com/boris-johnson-gives-go-ahe...

But yeah, this was slipped in the back door, as a surprise.

C70R said:

Tony Gamble said:

C70R said:

But yeah, this was slipped in the back door, as a surprise.

Which is my point.

You're not seeing sarcasm here...

Careful now bringing facts, you will now be accused of not being able to help yourself, not being able to do irony, being monotonous, incredibly sanctimonious hypocrisy, lack of self-awareness, and child like arguing.

And of being a Kahn fanboy.

You couldn't make it up.

[coldel]

kev1974 said:

I "voted" no in the London Borough of Richmond consultation on 20mph speed limits borough-wide ("Voted" in quotes because I'm aware it wasn't a binding referendum or anything). But despite "no" winning, the feckers are still doing it anyway; the councillors know best I guess. Makes you wonder why bother "engaging" when the politicians just do what they like anyway.

Yes the whole 20mph 'consultation' is a bit of due process and in no way gives anyone the option to consult against the idea. It's a complete farce to be honest and the consultation meetings were nothing more than an attempt to get people who were against it to change their mind than to actively listen to arguments against doing it.

[C70R]

coldel said:

kev1974 said:

I "voted" no in the London Borough of Richmond consultation on 20mph speed limits borough-wide ("Voted" in quotes because I'm aware it wasn't a binding referendum or anything). But despite "no" winning, the feckers are still doing it anyway; the councillors know best I guess. Makes you wonder why bother "engaging" when the politicians just do what they like anyway.

Yes the whole 20mph 'consultation' is a bit of due process and in no way gives anyone the option to consult against the idea. It's a complete farce to be honest and the consultation meetings were nothing more than an attempt to get people who were against it to change their mind than to actively listen to arguments against doing it.

Yet again, more distortion of the facts.

Let's present the facts from that 20mph consultation.
- 47.9% in favour and 49.7% against (no majority)
- 52% agreed that a 20mph limit should reduce the number and severity of accidents (a majority)
- It's not Borough-wide, and doesn't include the A316 or A205 (among others)

What would you have done in their place?

[coldel]

C70R said:

Yet again, more distortion of the facts.

Let's present the facts from that 20mph consultation.
- 47.9% in favour and 49.7% against (no majority)
- 52% agreed that a 20mph limit should reduce the number and severity of accidents (a majority)
- It's not Borough-wide, and doesn't include the A316 or A205 (among others)

What would you have done in their place?

The only distortion is what you present to try and pull the wool over peoples eyes with your own arguments. More people voted against it than for it, thats a win (or are you saying the 2016 referendum is not a valid result for instance) - more people voted against it than for it.

Yes 52% agreed that lower speed limits would reduce accidents, of course it would, but that wasn't the question and is irrelevant to the point, more people voted against it than for it.

It does not of course include major arterial roads but does include many which are clearly going to cause back logs of traffic because they should be 30mph.

I wonder C70R how many consultations did you actually attend or are you just pulling 'selected' numbers off internet for the purposes of suiting your own point and ignoring anything else otherwise. Lets be frank, you know pretty much close to zero about the Richmond borough, as shown when we discussed the reasons for selling my car - yet feel the need to comment as if you do, which you dont.

Edited by coldel on Tuesday 16th April 15:06

[coldel]

In terms of what I would have done? Listened to the voting populous and realising that the 20mph consultation has not resulted in a preference for implementing the rule across the borough and thought again about what was being proposed - or does that seem far too radical.

[C70R]

coldel said:

The only distortion is what you present to try and pull the wool over peoples eyes with your own arguments. More people voted against it than for it, thats a win (or are you saying the 2016 referendum is not a valid result for instance) - more people voted against it than for it.

Yes 52% agreed that lower speed limits would reduce accidents, of course it would, but that wasn't the question and is irrelevant to the point, more people voted against it than for it.

It does not of course include major arterial roads but does include many which are clearly going to cause back logs of traffic because they should be 30mph.

I wonder C70R how many consultations did you actually attend or are you just pulling 'selected' numbers off internet for the purposes of suiting your own point and ignoring anything else otherwise. Lets be frank, you know pretty much close to zero about the Richmond borough, as shown when we discussed the reasons for selling my car - yet feel the need to comment as if you do, which you dont.

Edited by coldel on Tuesday 16th April 15:06

You seem very angry. I'm sorry for that.

As for the "selected numbers" thing, we've discussed two consultations and I've pulled data for both. If that's your definition of "selective", then so be it.

To reiterate what I said to you the last time you brought up the irrelevant point about selling your car (for effect)...

C70R said:

Just so that I'm completely clear.

You allowed something which is happening in two years time, a quarter of a mile away from your house, to influence your decision to sell a car now?

And you don't think that's an overreaction?

[coldel]

C70R said:

coldel said:

The only distortion is what you present to try and pull the wool over peoples eyes with your own arguments. More people voted against it than for it, thats a win (or are you saying the 2016 referendum is not a valid result for instance) - more people voted against it than for it.

Yes 52% agreed that lower speed limits would reduce accidents, of course it would, but that wasn't the question and is irrelevant to the point, more people voted against it than for it.

It does not of course include major arterial roads but does include many which are clearly going to cause back logs of traffic because they should be 30mph.

I wonder C70R how many consultations did you actually attend or are you just pulling 'selected' numbers off internet for the purposes of suiting your own point and ignoring anything else otherwise. Lets be frank, you know pretty much close to zero about the Richmond borough, as shown when we discussed the reasons for selling my car - yet feel the need to comment as if you do, which you dont.

Edited by coldel on Tuesday 16th April 15:06

You seem very angry. I'm sorry for that.

As for the "selected numbers" thing, we've discussed two consultations and I've pulled data for both. If that's your definition of "selective", then so be it.

To reiterate what I said to you the last time you brought up the irrelevant point about selling your car (for effect)...

C70R said:

Just so that I'm completely clear.

You allowed something which is happening in two years time, a quarter of a mile away from your house, to influence your decision to sell a car now?

And you don't think that's an overreaction?

Not angry so don't be sorry, its just sometimes frustrating dealing with someone who doesn't understand how to have an adult conversation, who is completely unwilling to ever change their opinion, uses semantics to make a point when the opposite point is clear and basically comes across so badly. Your tone with people is terrible, even when people point this obvious fact out to you, you ignore it, resulting in whatever you say having no credibility. There are two types of people out there, those that listen and those waiting to speak, you are latter and you will never learn or become more understanding of the world whilst you sit in your Google stats bubble ignoring people who live and breath other things. For that, I am really sorry, genuinely I am.

In terms of the 20mph zone, you never attended a consultation then, never spoke to anyone involved, never read the meeting notes, the only understanding you have of it are the numbers from the single Richmond Gov webpage which you googled. The previous poster mentioned a 'majority' which technically you are right, but thats semantics, vote against won, more people are against it. Yet the consultation ignored this despite its best efforts to convince otherwise (see second post above about what my view on it was).

And my car, you started off with the premise that 'Richmond is no where near it it goes through Kew' which shows again unless you live it you don't understand it. Half my journey's would take me into that zone, because I don't live in it, doesn't mean I wouldn't use it and wouldn't impact me and to be honest I was surprised you missed that clear fact that living outside the zone does not mean it has no impact. Clearly it made no sense to throw money at a 25 year old car that in two years time would be unusable on 50% of journey's - I think anyone with any financial acumen would make the same decision, whereas you continued to ignore those points and just continue with your opinion, again its a shame you cannot accept that sometimes others have a better view of situations, as you will continue to be so ill educated of the world.

[coldel]

...and to be honest I am out of this thread now (clicking the x or whatever it is to ignore it)

[2gins]

C70R said:

Yet again, more distortion of the facts.

Let's present the facts from that 20mph consultation.
- 47.9% in favour and 49.7% against (no majority)
- 52% agreed that a 20mph limit should reduce the number and severity of accidents (a majority)
- It's not Borough-wide, and doesn't include the A316 or A205 (among others)

What would you have done in their place?

Don't you start all this merry go round! To give you your dues at least you quote both headline results and not just the 52% figure in isolation.

I went to 5 of the consultation events.

Ahead of the consultation council meeting minutes for the draft local implementation plan contained a rudimentary 'risk register' and the top risk for the 20 mph implementation was non-acceptance by the public; the proposed mitigation for it was "public consultation material designed to encourage support" i.e. there was an open intention to present a skewed, and therefore misleading, picture from the outset. The actual public presentation used cherry picked figures from various previous studies and trials and made such errors as basing the picture on absolute casualty numbers instead of casualty rates, ignored results in London boroughs and elsewhere that do not support the 20 mph premise, used public perception data to show increasing support for 20 mph after implementation, even though the sample were different, ignored the real drivers for mode shift (sky high rail fares and hundreds of millions of pounds of investment in infrastructure), made invalid assumptions about accident causality among vulnerable road users and a financial case that was a work of fiction. Most of the public who could be bothered to turn up saw through it, including one guy who works for the county council in highway planning. The councillor promoting the scheme works professionally in a senior PR role for a major multinational, it shows.

The Atkins study was published in Early November slap in the middle of the consultation, it took 2 weeks for any mention of it to appear in the public slide deck and the report itself wasn't available on the council website until December 17 with the consultation closing on December 21. It was and is the most comprehensive review of UK 20 mph borough/area-wide schemes ever carried out and the council gave it 1 slide in a 20 slide deck, which focused on weak public perception data instead of the headline result "20 mph has not lead to significant falls in the casualty rate, emissions or mode shift" [sic]. They pinned their flag to the Brighton phase 1 result but have never explained to this day what it is about Brighton's population demographic and road network that means the result there will transfer, nor did they qualify the Brighton result with the important point that casualty rates were falling before 20 mph anyway.

After the consultation result they excluded 2 roads from the scheme and limited the reduced limit to 30 mph instead of 20 on another; the justification is that this would move some people (200 or so) to support, but we don't know this because that question has not been asked, it is simply more spin and manipulation from a PR guy. The end result is that we will now have one road with narrow carriageways, schools, care homes, pubs, restaurants, crossing points and numerous side roads with the same limit (30) as a semi-rural road with no buildings at all; while literally around the corner from that busy urban road full of real hazards there is another road twice the width with buildings down only 1 side, no high risk sites and active speed enforcement (2 truvelos) with a 20 limit. In the words of one sitting councillor at the scrutiny meeting, "It's crackers".

The scrutiny meeting itself was an exercise of pure indulgence riddled to the bone with conflict of interest, the committee itself being composed of 80% LibDem and Green councillors who are hardly going to vote to water down their own election pledge; without even considering that of the 10 speakers selected - selected - 2 were opposed and the other 8 were standing councillors speaking in favour (3), cycling 'tsars' (2), the local 20's Plenty and RoSPA co-ordinators and an A&E surgeon at the local hospital. It's pretty incongruous given that the default position was 'adopt' to have an 80/20 representation in favour both on the presentation and decision side.

What would I have done, simple, look at the accident location data and send council traffic officers (not police, the planners) down to the blackspots to assess site specific junction improvements - accidents occur at junctions and crossings, a point the council twisted nicely by zooming right out of crashmap and saying "look, all the crashes occur on major roads!" Yes, because that's where all the junctions are! Or, if I were politically or ideologically committed to 20 mph then I would have listened to the public opinion and done a residential/town centre scheme, which would actually be in line with DfT Circular 01/13, have genuine broad public support and have some credibility with respect to both actual road use, local opinion and government guidance.

So, don't grumble about people from Richmond (and indeed elsewhere) being a bit cynical about the value of local consultations.

For some balance, here is the Lib Dem's election manifesto from 2018.

https://www.trlibdems.org.uk/manifesto

I would highlight the really juicy bits and post screenshots because it is deliciously duplicitous and embarrassing but frankly it's been a long day and I CBA! Suffice to say they pledged among other things some real local democracy and an end to lip service consultations, that pledge died inside 6 months so God help us until 2022.

[swamp]

Now that the Hammersmith bridge has shut indefinitely, you'll be very lucky to reach 20mph anywhere in Richmond.

[anonymous-user]

coldel said:

Not angry so don't be sorry, its just sometimes frustrating dealing with someone who doesn't understand how to have an adult conversation, who is completely unwilling to ever change their opinion, uses semantics to make a point when the opposite point is clear and basically comes across so badly. Your tone with people is terrible, even when people point this obvious fact out to you, you ignore it, resulting in whatever you say having no credibility.

It's not C70R though, it's just everyone else who is wrong

[anonymous-user]

Killboy said:

C70R said:

First the angry name-calling, then the descent into arguing an opinion.

This is shaping up to be one of your classic contributions.

Now all we need is some 12 year old's findings to try lend some credibility to his arguments.

You stated that London is better than three of the other places in the world that I have lived, your words said you knew for certain that London was better.

I asked you why you are stating opinion as fact, you won't answer. And then you start babbling on about credibility. You can't make this up! You and C70R are hewn from the same cloth frankly, both self entitled and smug! Just the sort of people London seems to attract frankly!

[C70R]

cb1965 said:

Killboy said:

C70R said:

First the angry name-calling, then the descent into arguing an opinion.

This is shaping up to be one of your classic contributions.

Now all we need is some 12 year old's findings to try lend some credibility to his arguments.

You stated that London is better than three of the other places in the world that I have lived, your words said you knew for certain that London was better.

I asked you why you are stating opinion as fact, you won't answer. And then you start babbling on about credibility. You can't make this up! You and C70R are hewn from the same cloth frankly, both self entitled and smug! Just the sort of people London seems to attract frankly!

And there's the anti-Londoner rant - we've got the hat-trick, folks.

Time to pack up and head home.

For what it's worth, London's transport system appears in the top 5 or top 10 in the world on most impartial lists. That's pretty good, all things considered.

[C70R]

coldel said:

Not angry so don't be sorry, its just sometimes frustrating dealing with someone who doesn't understand how to have an adult conversation, who is completely unwilling to ever change their opinion, uses semantics to make a point when the opposite point is clear and basically comes across so badly. Your tone with people is terrible, even when people point this obvious fact out to you, you ignore it, resulting in whatever you say having no credibility. There are two types of people out there, those that listen and those waiting to speak, you are latter and you will never learn or become more understanding of the world whilst you sit in your Google stats bubble ignoring people who live and breath other things. For that, I am really sorry, genuinely I am.

In terms of the 20mph zone, you never attended a consultation then, never spoke to anyone involved, never read the meeting notes, the only understanding you have of it are the numbers from the single Richmond Gov webpage which you googled. The previous poster mentioned a 'majority' which technically you are right, but thats semantics, vote against won, more people are against it. Yet the consultation ignored this despite its best efforts to convince otherwise (see second post above about what my view on it was).

And my car, you started off with the premise that 'Richmond is no where near it it goes through Kew' which shows again unless you live it you don't understand it. Half my journey's would take me into that zone, because I don't live in it, doesn't mean I wouldn't use it and wouldn't impact me and to be honest I was surprised you missed that clear fact that living outside the zone does not mean it has no impact. Clearly it made no sense to throw money at a 25 year old car that in two years time would be unusable on 50% of journey's - I think anyone with any financial acumen would make the same decision, whereas you continued to ignore those points and just continue with your opinion, again its a shame you cannot accept that sometimes others have a better view of situations, as you will continue to be so ill educated of the world.

Parklife.

The bolded bit was the coup de grace.

[DonkeyApple]

CousinDupree said:

One of the four buses I used quite often is a hybrid. It's a joke really, the engine cuts out just before it stops, then fires up just after pulling away. It's running almost all of the time, more like a half-arsed stop/start system. They still pummel put the emissions and then there is the additional weight / cost / materials used to make one.

I agree with the ULEZ charge, if not it's implementation. But the millions of extra planes that now fly from City Airport directly over central London each year, that our dismal crime loving mayor immediately allowed, is heading in the wrong direction. A320 family planes are big noisy polluting planes.

Ten year old Black cabs that just sit nose to tail by the dozen with the engines idling. This could have been tackled a long time ago.

That is what the hybrid buses are meant to do. It’s the repeated pulling away from stops that generates the most pollution due to the high load and the electric motors are absolutely ideal to fix that. The batteries are then recharged during normal running when the diesel motor is doing much less work.

It’s step 1 and anyone who has waited at a bus stop at KingsCross on a hot summers day will happily attest to this being a fantastic first step.

Step 2 is that they will go all electric. That has to happen slowly and over time so that infrastructure, technology and the funding is there for it to be viable.

The same is now happening with cars. The first step being taken next year is that all cars must be as clean as possible, yet leaving a lot of leeway so as to ensure as few people as possible are inconvenienced. This is the step that buses went through a decade ago when they were fitting filters and trying biofuels to cut the pollution. The same with black cabs.

Step 2 for cars and vans will be to push them all towards hybrid in the coming years unless step 3, full EV is available.

We’ve had 20 years of this so it’s hardly surprising that they are finally getting around to private cars.

[NomduJour]

From the research so far, it appears that the major benefit will be from the bus fleet being made compliant - natural attrition means the number of older cars in everyday use is tiny, and becoming tinier. Any legislation should be equitable and proportionate.

[Killboy]

cb1965 said:

Killboy said:

C70R said:

First the angry name-calling, then the descent into arguing an opinion.

This is shaping up to be one of your classic contributions.

Now all we need is some 12 year old's findings to try lend some credibility to his arguments.

You stated that London is better than three of the other places in the world that I have lived, your words said you knew for certain that London was better.

I asked you why you are stating opinion as fact, you won't answer. And then you start babbling on about credibility. You can't make this up! You and C70R are hewn from the same cloth frankly, both self entitled and smug! Just the sort of people London seems to attract frankly!

What? You have a long history of distorting the truth. I have asked you, and let me ask you again: where have you lived.

Let me quote you again:

cb1965 said:

Killboy said:

Try answer this honestly. Did you live in these places? And if so, can you tell us how they are better than London?

I know for certain 3 of them are not, so would be good to see,or is this must more hot air from you again?

How can you know for certain, it's opinion not fact! What is fact is that London's transport infrastructure is crap in absolute terms. Yes there are mitigating circumstances, but it's still crap!

And yes of course I lived there, it is possible to live somewhere other than London you dolt!

I said 3 of them I know for a fact have nowhere near the public transport infrastructure that London does. I wanted you to commit to discussing them, rather than weasel out of it like you usually do. You have stated Manchester, Aus, USA, Indonesia, Malaysia. I'd like to know where in those (besides laughable Manchester) you think somehow beat London.

So please give me the low down, not the run around. Have your partners daughter research if you must.

[DonkeyApple]

NomduJour said:

From the research so far, it appears that the major benefit will be from the bus fleet being made compliant - natural attrition means the number of older cars in everyday use is tiny, and becoming tinier. Any legislation should be equitable and proportionate.

It is really. Some compliant cars can be nearly 20 years old so in effect all the ULEZ is doing is just chivvying up the process that you outline from the bottom up.

I completely agree with you that the real shame is that it also targets Londoners cars that just sit there doing nothing and are either used to leave London at the weekend or for very short and infrequent journeys.

In an ideal world there would be a way for those of us who would fall into that group to have some form of exemption. My personal issue was going to be that on a Friday night I would be taking a car out of the garage in NW3 and heading straight to GL56 but suddenly have to pay £25 each way for the luxury of owning older cars. For the times that I did drive in London I didn’t see a big issue as I could have a car with driver outside in 3 minutes or have any goods delivered.

[Killboy]

C70R said:

And there's the anti-Londoner rant - we've got the hat-trick, folks.

Time to pack up and head home.

For what it's worth, London's transport system appears in the top 5 or top 10 in the world on most impartial lists. That's pretty good, all things considered.

Exactly. World wide it is renown by tourists, and the underground is basically an attraction. 5 million journeys a day and we are supposed to take someone that is butthurt that London spat them out as an authority on it's stness. Lol. It may not be perfect, but its pretty fantastic.

I still dont get how he comes here so often when he hates it so.