ULEZ charge in 2021

[C70R]

CoolHands said:

Nearly all pushbikes are now electric and travelling around 20 anyway now.

I mean, this is a lie. No other way to say it.

[NMNeil]

CoolHands said:

Nearly all pushbikes are now electric and travelling around 20 anyway now. Makes it very awkward to pass them. Obvs no rules for them, and mostly not much sense either.

If it's a 20 mph limit and the bicycle is traveling at 20 mph, why would you need to overtake?

[fatboy18]

DodgyGeezer said:

James6112 said:

DodgyGeezer said:

fatboy18 said:

And to add to this ALL Roads (not just the residential) in London are now going to be 20mph including the A1 (according to the Evening Standard).

In fairness
20mph is quicker than now

depends where... A12 into London is frequently able to be driven at quite a reasonable clip ditto the A2. For sure a lot of 'the city' and West End is glacial but there are large tracts which are not, nor should they be. I'd also say that the blunt fixed speed-limit is surely an anachronism these days where we can change limits within minutes - 20 at (for example) 03.00 is ludicrous where it may well be reasonable at 15:00...

what you also need to add in is the time factor, sure roads may be congested at peak times but come later in the evenings doing 20mph on a road with light traffic will be like pulling teeth!

[Thankyou4calling]

The Westway (A40) is 30 MPH from where it starts at the Edgware Road for a good few miles, possibly to the White city roundabout if I remember.

It’s just daft, crawling along on a three lane road, plenty of times you’ve inched around the 501, the elevated section is clear and open and you’re limited to 30 on what IMO should be a 70mph road.

[swisstoni]

Thankyou4calling said:

The Westway (A40) is 30 MPH from where it starts at the Edgware Road for a good few miles, possibly to the White city roundabout if I remember.

It’s just daft, crawling along on a three lane road, plenty of times you’ve inched around the 501, the elevated section is clear and open and you’re limited to 30 on what IMO should be a 70mph road.

There’s absolutely no doubt that TfL would love to take the Westway away altogether.

[Laurel Green]

Sadiq Khan's ULEZ may be unlawful (High Court ruling imminent).

[BrabusMog]

Thankyou4calling said:

The Westway (A40) is 30 MPH from where it starts at the Edgware Road for a good few miles, possibly to the White city roundabout if I remember.

It’s just daft, crawling along on a three lane road, plenty of times you’ve inched around the 501, the elevated section is clear and open and you’re limited to 30 on what IMO should be a 70mph road.

If you’re coming out of town towards White City/Shepherds Bush it is a 30 and it’s fking joke, I do always wonder if I’m being a dinlo following the limit when cars are rushing past me but I need my licence so I just follow the limit, but it is ridiculous.

[anonymous-user]

Thankyou4calling said:

The Westway (A40) is 30 MPH from where it starts at the Edgware Road for a good few miles, possibly to the White city roundabout if I remember.

It’s just daft, crawling along on a three lane road, plenty of times you’ve inched around the 501, the elevated section is clear and open and you’re limited to 30 on what IMO should be a 70mph road.

Way back when, when it was a 70, I remember a lot of trips into and out of London on the westway on Friday/Sunday night, driving nose to tail at 80, feeling like I was driving NASCAR on an oval. Same on the elevated section of the M4. I’d get home and have a racing heart rate that would need an hour to come down.

30 is ridiculously slow and too slow, but when it was a 70 it was crazy. Don’t get me wrong - if it were empty and unlimited I’d happy do 100+ on both of those roads but the SWOT means that if you don’t have a limit plus enforcement you’re waiting for an almighty shunt which will collect a lot of cars.

[Teddy Lop]

swisstoni said:

Thankyou4calling said:

The Westway (A40) is 30 MPH from where it starts at the Edgware Road for a good few miles, possibly to the White city roundabout if I remember.

It’s just daft, crawling along on a three lane road, plenty of times you’ve inched around the 501, the elevated section is clear and open and you’re limited to 30 on what IMO should be a 70mph road.

There’s absolutely no doubt that TfL would love to take the Westway away altogether.

It wouldn't surprise me if they closed it tomorrow and implimented boris' "garden bridge" on it.

I think those in charge are living a different reality to put it nicely.

[youngsyr]

Khan being taken to task on his "poorest Londoners don't own cars" claim.

https://youtu.be/HBqvDzbRPFY

Key point for me was that in outer London, the lowest earning 10% of Londoners have higher car ownership than the highest earning 10% of inner Londoners!

Interesting that his stats are for families with less than £10k p.a. household income and are wildly different to the lowest earning 10%.

Just how many London households earn less than £10k p.a. - that's around £190 per week, or £38 per day (5 day week)total for everyone in the house?

Edited by youngsyr on Tuesday 4th April 11:37

[DodgyGeezer]

youngsyr said:

Khan being taken to task on his "poorest Londoners don't own cars" claim.

https://youtu.be/HBqvDzbRPFY

Key point for me was that in outer London, the lowest earning 10% of Londoners have higher car ownership than the highest earning 10% of inner Londoners!

Interesting that his stats are for families with less than £10k p.a. household income and are wildly different to the lowest earning 10%.

Just how many London households earn less than £10k p.a. - that's around £190 per week, or £38 per day (5 day week)total for everyone in the house?

Edited by youngsyr on Tuesday 4th April 11:37

didn't one of the advocates of the ULEZ on here proclaim, rather stridently, that the poorer Londoners don't own vehicles?

[youngsyr]

DodgyGeezer said:

youngsyr said:

Khan being taken to task on his "poorest Londoners don't own cars" claim.

https://youtu.be/HBqvDzbRPFY

Key point for me was that in outer London, the lowest earning 10% of Londoners have higher car ownership than the highest earning 10% of inner Londoners!

Interesting that his stats are for families with less than £10k p.a. household income and are wildly different to the lowest earning 10%.

Just how many London households earn less than £10k p.a. - that's around £190 per week, or £38 per day (5 day week)total for everyone in the house?

Edited by youngsyr on Tuesday 4th April 11:37

didn't one of the advocates of the ULEZ on here proclaim, rather stridently, that the poorer Londoners don't own vehicles?

Yes, probably taking Kahn's stats as true.

I guess the definition of "London's poorest" is key here: if you look at the poorest 5 families in central London, I wouldn't be surprised if none of them owned cars.

However, if you look at the lowest 10% of households by income in outer London, it seems that the majority own a car.

So, Kahn's stats might be accurate, but he's using a totally unreasonable definition to try to give the opposite picture to what is actually true.

ETA: Oh, and he has repeatedly refused to give the source for his stats.

Edited by youngsyr on Tuesday 4th April 16:05

[Ice_blue_tvr]

youngsyr said:

DodgyGeezer said:

youngsyr said:

Khan being taken to task on his "poorest Londoners don't own cars" claim.

https://youtu.be/HBqvDzbRPFY

Key point for me was that in outer London, the lowest earning 10% of Londoners have higher car ownership than the highest earning 10% of inner Londoners!

Interesting that his stats are for families with less than £10k p.a. household income and are wildly different to the lowest earning 10%.

Just how many London households earn less than £10k p.a. - that's around £190 per week, or £38 per day (5 day week)total for everyone in the house?

Edited by youngsyr on Tuesday 4th April 11:37

didn't one of the advocates of the ULEZ on here proclaim, rather stridently, that the poorer Londoners don't own vehicles?

Yes, probably taking Kahn's stats as true.

I guess the definition of "London's poorest" is key here: if you look at the poorest 5 families in central London, I wouldn't be surprised if none of them owned cars.

However, if you look at the lowest 10% of households by income in outer London, it seems that the majority own a car.

So, Kahn's stats might be accurate, but he's using a totally unreasonable definition to try to give the opposite picture to what is actually true.

ETA: Oh, and he has repeatedly refused to give the source for his stats.

Isn't this the guy that also says people outside of London shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on the matter whilst simultaneously making plans to move out of London

[C70R]

DodgyGeezer said:

youngsyr said:

Khan being taken to task on his "poorest Londoners don't own cars" claim.

https://youtu.be/HBqvDzbRPFY

Key point for me was that in outer London, the lowest earning 10% of Londoners have higher car ownership than the highest earning 10% of inner Londoners!

Interesting that his stats are for families with less than £10k p.a. household income and are wildly different to the lowest earning 10%.

Just how many London households earn less than £10k p.a. - that's around £190 per week, or £38 per day (5 day week)total for everyone in the house?

Edited by youngsyr on Tuesday 4th April 11:37

didn't one of the advocates of the ULEZ on here proclaim, rather stridently, that the poorer Londoners don't own vehicles?

Intriguing that you've taken "outer London's poorest" to mean "all of London's poorest", just because it supports your view.

I wonder why, if the data is so easily accessible, they weren't able to prove just how many of all London's poorest own cars?
(Hint: it's because, while the gap has closed in recent years, a very small proportion of London's poorest live in outer London)

On the face of it, without any actual numbers, this stat is absolutely meaningless anyway:
"the lowest earning 10% of Londoners have higher car ownership than the highest earning 10% of inner Londoners". It literally tells me nothing.

The two highest earners I know (both in 7-figure salaries, living in inner London) don't own a car. One can't even drive and takes Ubers everywhere, the other has only a single driveway space and the family car is her partner's name.

But sure, let's seize upon this flaky statement as a savage indictment of the ULEZ. This is pretty desperate stuff.

[C70R]

Ice_blue_tvr said:

Isn't this the guy that also says people outside of London shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on the matter whilst simultaneously making plans to move out of London

Me pointing out the inadequacies in your argument really bothers you, doesn't it?

To the point where you're making up lies to make yourself feel better.

How sad.

[NomduJour]

C70R said:

Me pointing out the inadequacies in your argument really bothers you, doesn't it?

To the point where you're making up lies to make yourself feel better.

How sad.

Have you made up a reason to support the ULEZ extension yet?

Or are we due another laughing smiley?

[Graveworm]

C70R said:

Intriguing that you've taken "outer London's poorest" to mean "all of London's poorest", just because it supports your view.

I wonder why, if the data is so easily accessible, they weren't able to prove just how many of all London's poorest own cars?
(Hint: it's because, while the gap has closed in recent years, a very small proportion of London's poorest live in outer London)

On the face of it, without any actual numbers, this stat is absolutely meaningless anyway:
"the lowest earning 10% of Londoners have higher car ownership than the highest earning 10% of inner Londoners". It literally tells me nothing.
:

it's over twice as likely and it is the majority of the poorest in outer London.

[C70R]

Graveworm said:

C70R said:

Intriguing that you've taken "outer London's poorest" to mean "all of London's poorest", just because it supports your view.

I wonder why, if the data is so easily accessible, they weren't able to prove just how many of all London's poorest own cars?
(Hint: it's because, while the gap has closed in recent years, a very small proportion of London's poorest live in outer London)

On the face of it, without any actual numbers, this stat is absolutely meaningless anyway:
"the lowest earning 10% of Londoners have higher car ownership than the highest earning 10% of inner Londoners". It literally tells me nothing.
:

it's over twice as likely and it is the majority of the poorest in outer London.

It's still meaningless. Anyone citing this as proof of anything looks a bit desperate.

[C70R]

NomduJour said:

C70R said:

Me pointing out the inadequacies in your argument really bothers you, doesn't it?

To the point where you're making up lies to make yourself feel better.

How sad.

Have you made up a reason to support the ULEZ extension yet?

Or are we due another laughing smiley?

So I'm clear, you're siding with the bloke who's openly lying, and the 5G nutters in that Facebook group?

[Graveworm]

C70R said:

Graveworm said:

C70R said:

Intriguing that you've taken "outer London's poorest" to mean "all of London's poorest", just because it supports your view.

I wonder why, if the data is so easily accessible, they weren't able to prove just how many of all London's poorest own cars?
(Hint: it's because, while the gap has closed in recent years, a very small proportion of London's poorest live in outer London)

On the face of it, without any actual numbers, this stat is absolutely meaningless anyway:
"the lowest earning 10% of Londoners have higher car ownership than the highest earning 10% of inner Londoners". It literally tells me nothing.
:

it's over twice as likely and it is the majority of the poorest in outer London.

It's still meaningless. Anyone citing this as proof of anything looks a bit desperate.

It is a charge that only impacts car owners being expanded into an area where the majority of the poorest people own cars and the person who is trying to introduce it, claimed that they don't own cars so would not be impacted. So the proof is that it is the opposite of what was claimed. It's only meaningless if you don't care about who this is going to adversely impact, which makes any assessment of if it is proportionate and necessary impossible. It's for those making the laws to show that they are proportionate and necessary.