revtothelimit - motorbike forum

Ant wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2023 7:17 pm
Peer reviewed or not, statistical scientific opinion is just that.

I think it says a lot about their opinion, and their data, and their credibility, that they were so easily guided to a different conclusion. Like most unqualified opinion really, they should be ashamed of themselves. Experts supporting conclusions based upon unverified bollocks is even more annoying than when the YouTube bullshitters do it.

DefTrap wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2023 8:51 pm

Ant wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2023 7:17 pm
Peer reviewed or not, statistical scientific opinion is just that.

I think it says a lot about their opinion, and their data, and their credibility, that they were so easily guided to a different conclusion. Like most unqualified opinion really, they should be ashamed of themselves. Experts supporting conclusions based upon unverified bollocks is even more annoying than when the YouTube bullshitters do it.

It says the same as we all know.....ULEZ allows the traffic to continue as it always has done.

Khan has already manipulated data, then asked a scientist to lie.

I think there's robust evidence that removing / limiting some of the more polluting vehicles will improve air quality. But people will believe what they want to.

MyLittleStudPony wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2023 9:20 pm I think there's robust evidence that removing / limiting some of the more polluting vehicles will improve air quality. But people will believe what they want to.

That if they did that, but they aren't doing that, all vehicles are allowed to continue as they were.

Ant wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2023 9:31 pm

MyLittleStudPony wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2023 9:20 pm I think there's robust evidence that removing / limiting some of the more polluting vehicles will improve air quality. But people will believe what they want to.

That if they did that, but they aren't doing that, all vehicles are allowed to continue as they were.

You seem to have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about this, Ant.

Do you live in the ULEZ and have a non-eligible vehicle?

Ant wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2023 9:31 pm

MyLittleStudPony wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2023 9:20 pm I think there's robust evidence that removing / limiting some of the more polluting vehicles will improve air quality. But people will believe what they want to.

That if they did that, but they aren't doing that, all vehicles are allowed to continue as they were.

I thought it would cause some shift and that will help. Not a silver bullet but there is no silver bullet.

Ok try it this way.

People outraged at water companies pumping sewage into the rivers. But if you pay to do it, then it's ok, right?

Ant wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2023 9:31 pm

MyLittleStudPony wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2023 9:20 pm I think there's robust evidence that removing / limiting some of the more polluting vehicles will improve air quality. But people will believe what they want to.

That if they did that, but they aren't doing that, all vehicles are allowed to continue as they were.

So you'd be happy if non-ULEZ vehicles were simply banned in ULEZ areas and it's the charging that annoys you? Fair enough.

It'd cause even more of a ruck though, and this way the income from charging will eventually drop to £0 anyway.

Count Steer wrote: Thu Aug 24, 2023 7:10 am

Ant wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2023 9:31 pm

MyLittleStudPony wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2023 9:20 pm I think there's robust evidence that removing / limiting some of the more polluting vehicles will improve air quality. But people will believe what they want to.

That if they did that, but they aren't doing that, all vehicles are allowed to continue as they were.

So you'd be happy if non-ULEZ vehicles were simply banned in ULEZ areas and it's the charging that annoys you? Fair enough.

It'd cause even more of a ruck though, and this way the income from charging will eventually drop to £0 anyway.

Well you've almost got the point.

It's the authoritarian extreme dictatorship that is pushing only a tax at people, who already pay to have a car, it has nothing to do with emissions, it's a tax. Khan has lied about the cause, lied about statistics and then tried to ask a scientist to lie.

Are you ok with that?

Ant wrote: Thu Aug 24, 2023 8:32 am

Count Steer wrote: Thu Aug 24, 2023 7:10 am

Ant wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2023 9:31 pm

That if they did that, but they aren't doing that, all vehicles are allowed to continue as they were.

So you'd be happy if non-ULEZ vehicles were simply banned in ULEZ areas and it's the charging that annoys you? Fair enough.

It'd cause even more of a ruck though, and this way the income from charging will eventually drop to £0 anyway.

Well you've almost got the point.

It's the authoritarian extreme dictatorship that is pushing only a tax at people, who already pay to have a car, it has nothing to do with emissions, it's a tax. Khan has lied about the cause, lied about statistics and then tried to ask a scientist to lie.

Are you ok with that?

So you'd be happy if non-ULEZ vehicles were simply banned in ULEZ areas and it's the charging that annoys you? Fair enough.

Count Steer wrote: Thu Aug 24, 2023 8:53 am

Ant wrote: Thu Aug 24, 2023 8:32 am

Count Steer wrote: Thu Aug 24, 2023 7:10 am

So you'd be happy if non-ULEZ vehicles were simply banned in ULEZ areas and it's the charging that annoys you? Fair enough.

It'd cause even more of a ruck though, and this way the income from charging will eventually drop to £0 anyway.

Well you've almost got the point.

It's the authoritarian extreme dictatorship that is pushing only a tax at people, who already pay to have a car, it has nothing to do with emissions, it's a tax. Khan has lied about the cause, lied about statistics and then tried to ask a scientist to lie.

Are you ok with that?

So you'd be happy if non-ULEZ vehicles were simply banned in ULEZ areas and it's the charging that annoys you? Fair enough.

Well it would certainly make more sense - as otherwise, people can simply carry on as they were, just paying to do so

Pirahna wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2023 7:02 pm My brother-in-law has COPD, it's his own fault for smoking, he's given up long ago but hey ho. Anyway, during lockdown his COPD got better, not a little bit, it vanished. As soon as the traffic was back so was the COPD. He lives in Dulwich. There are many similar stories of people with respiratory problems getting better in lockdown, ulez can't happen fast enough in my opinion.

I have LOA (late onset asthma) which the consultant attributed to my smoking (20 years ago) and riding in heavy traffic for 30 years. He mentioned some well known report about childrens asthma and how the significant rise in it was notably localised to schools on busy traffic routes. My asthma is almost non existant when I go abroad and holiday by the beach. Clean sea air?

If ULEZ works then I'm fine with it, and I should benefit from cleaner air. But in central London the daily charge will just be put on expenses and like the congestion charge will probably make fook all difference to traffic levels. If they were serious about clean air you wouldn't be able to bypass ULEZ by paying £12.50. If they really wanted to stop it, ban single occupancy cars (with exemptions) as that is what causes congestion and the resulting poor air quality.

Pirahna wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2023 7:02 pm My brother-in-law has COPD, it's his own fault for smoking, he's given up long ago but hey ho. Anyway, during lockdown his COPD got better, not a little bit, it vanished. As soon as the traffic was back so was the COPD. He lives in Dulwich. There are many similar stories of people with respiratory problems getting better in lockdown, ulez can't happen fast enough in my opinion.

Wouldn't that be the day you move somewhere outside of towns/cities... or even the country you're in to somewhere with a lot less cars/traffic ?

Gremlinette went out for a leaving do last night for one if her Halfords colleagues. He has an non-compliant car, earns a retail hourly rate so can't afford a new one, so can't afford to carry on working.
He's applied for an out of zone transfer, but apparently so have many others.

gremlin wrote: Tue Aug 29, 2023 10:03 am Gremlinette went out for a leaving do last night for one if her Halfords colleagues. He has an non-compliant car, earns a retail hourly rate so can't afford a new one, so can't afford to carry on working.
He's applied for an out of zone transfer, but apparently so have many others.

Or he could spend £100 on a Halfords bike and cycle in ?

With a £270 per month tax, we really are going to see the poor pushed down even deeper and probably lose a lot of businesses.

gremlin wrote: Tue Aug 29, 2023 10:03 am Gremlinette went out for a leaving do last night for one if her Halfords colleagues. He has an non-compliant car, earns a retail hourly rate so can't afford a new one, so can't afford to carry on working.
He's applied for an out of zone transfer, but apparently so have many others.

Reason #7,645 to not want to live in that shithole London

It's heartwarming to see an uprising in concern for poor people and white van man. It gives a chap hope that all those voters out there will be demanding fairness, equity, levelling up and increased wages for all the McJobs roles and more funding for those that have been left behind as the tide of wealth went out. Makes one proud.

Certainly more heart warming than the gullible who have been taken in by this.