Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Congestion Charge Go Live

speed humps are a bad idea.

Because; they force cars to slow down and speed up again repeatedly, which leads to way more pollution.

Also, it's bad for the suspension and other parts of the car, which means more money spent on repairs, newer cars and the industry generally

It's also just a generally expensive thing to implement as pointed out by Errols Son.

My thoughts are inclined towards a general strong support for speed cameras. As a driver, I have no probs with speed cameras. I've never been caught on one because....I slow down on stretches where they exist.
It's proven that speed cameras work...they reduce the ave speeds of the majority of cars. The ones that don't get clobbered - funds to the state.

Everyone's a winner. I prefer speed cameras to humps any day. It's overall a much better idea and doesnt have the pitfalls that cameras have.

Also....the 16 mile drive to work I do has precisely zero cameras and zero humps, so I'm laughin'.

:)
 
You don't need to shower after a 4 minute bike ride. It takes 30 seconds to lock up. If you don't like the rain, then you are living in the wrong country. Just how pampered are you that a quick walk in the rain is too difficult.

Before we get too carried away with this argument, could I just ask whether you're in favour of an overall reduction in the number of cars on the roads, and a reduction in the number of miles driven in them?
 
There should be less cars...loads of people have second and third cars now, when it's a bit of a luxury really.

But the miles thing is bollocks, because most people tend to drive the distances they need to drive and that's it. We all know we have one of the highest petrol price rates in the world, only daft people drive needlessly out of the sheer hell of it, when even simple return journeys can cost a fiver if you're packing more than a 1.6 under the bonnet.
 
Gixxer1000 said:
Yeah usually traveling greater distances though, what do you think the average length of bus journey in London is? (dont expect the man from TfL will divulge that)

Some journeys ae longer in more rural areas, sure.
But in an urban environment there are fairly likely to be similar.

London minimum bus fare: a quid.
Four stops into town in Somerset: one sixty.

In a way that's one of the beauties of Oyster is that you cake make the journey you want to and it will always work out the cheapest fare combo.
So sit on the bus for two stops home from the station if its raining. It probably won't cost you more
 
Crispy said:
I moved house, I can't directly compare. Public transport is still really good. Especially when compared to the rest of the UK. If you live inside zone 3-4 (ish) and use a car as your main mode of transport you either
a) Need a car for your job (eg. a plumber)
b) Have a disability that prevents you using public transport
or
c) Are a selfish nobber who'd rather take up loads of road space, fill the air with shit and make it difficult for everyone else than take public transport, ride a bike or walk.

Sorry, I should have qualified this with "driving into central London"
 
Gixxer1000 said:
What you will actually find happening is the reverse of what you suggested (funny that)disproportionate longer green for minor roads.

There's a road junction near me where a minor road wthin our area crosses a major radia route into town. Obviously the radial route gets more green time.
That makes sense during the day but night times there is more traffic on the other road, let alone more pedestrians not making ther journeys along the radial route.

So I'd say lights should work on a plan worked out to reflecting trends in demand with the proviso that mtorists do not have a monpopoly on the space or time available in the lights equence.

That TfL deliberately set lights to piss drivers off is an allegation which I'd like to see backed up.
 
If I ruled the world I would ban all cars from Central London unless a permit was applied for and the motorist had a very good reason for needing it.

I think the congestion charge is a wonderful thing but I'm concerned that it's going to become horribly elitist and fashionable to drive to work in London and it'll just be the nob-ends in 4x4s who can afford it:

"Found a simply mahvellous parking place by the Strand, Dahling! Wouldn't catch ME on a bus, tut tut!"

Just a thought, albeit a silly one.
 
True Poot, one of the reasons I'm 50 50 on the extension is it grants a 90% reduction on the charge to the RK&C set.......
 
Poot said:
If I ruled the world I would ban all cars from Central London unless a permit was applied for and the motorist had a very good reason for needing it.

I think the congestion charge is a wonderful thing but I'm concerned that it's going to become horribly elitist and fashionable to drive to work in London and it'll just be the nob-ends in 4x4s who can afford it:

"Found a simply mahvellous parking place by the Strand, Dahling! Wouldn't catch ME on a bus, tut tut!"

Just a thought, albeit a silly one.

I think it's a good point....it could well be the exclusive domain of the very rich.
 
superkev said:
Already is effectively.

Yep, true enough, although on visiting the shit hole that was once my former home, there are still a few white vans punting about here and there.
Wait till their business is squeezed to the hilt and they take their trade elsewhere and it will become the land of the good ol' Chelsea Tractor.

Ken will never be able to price em off the road. All the tax in the world cant do it.
 
Pete the Greek said:
Yep, true enough, although on visiting the shit hole that was once my former home, there are still a few white vans punting about here and there.
Wait till their business is squeezed to the hilt and they take their trade elsewhere and it will become the land of the good ol' Chelsea Tractor.

Ken will never be able to price em off the road. All the tax in the world cant do it.

Well exactly - you get the most polluting vehicles off the road by taxing those vehicles - not taxing every vehicle the same. Reminds me of the poll tax.
 
superkev said:
Well exactly - you get the most polluting vehicles off the road by taxing those vehicles - not taxing every vehicle the same. Reminds me of the poll tax.

Thing is, if 4x4s are inately more polluting than other vehicles, which I understand they are, then what difference does it make if they pump shit out in Hammersmith or Heckmondwike? Surely wherever they are in the UK, they are putting the same crap up there as any other location.

In which case, the rational solution would be to levy a higher car tax on such beasts, rather than a congestion charge zone...on the basis that the car is the polluter and its size is irrelevant as the length of a 4x4 aint that much more imposing or congestion making than a hatchback.

See what I mean?
 
Pete the Greek said:
Thing is, if 4x4s are inately more polluting than other vehicles, which I understand they are, then what difference does it make if they pump shit out in Hammersmith or Heckmondwike? Surely wherever they are in the UK, they are putting the same crap up there as any other location.

In which case, the rational solution would be to levy a higher car tax on such beasts, rather than a congestion charge zone...on the basis that the car is the polluter and its size is irrelevant as the length of a 4x4 aint that much more imposing or congestion making than a hatchback.

See what I mean?

That's what I just said.
 
Well the pollution thing is covered my seperate legislation, this is about pure congestion.

The CC is a flat rate and not based on income and therefore regressive.
Even more so when you think that some of London's richest residents get a 90% discount that they didn't before.

But I've yet to come across a genuine case of being seriously put ou by the charge though I'm Cobbles will have a single case up his sleeve provided by the AA or the Conservatives about a poor ickle Oliver twist who needed to get to University College Hospital was too ill to use the tube but not ill enought to get an ambulance....... :rolleyes:
 
Pete the Greek said:
Thing is, if 4x4s are inately more polluting than other vehicles, which I understand they are, then what difference does it make if they pump shit out in Hammersmith or Heckmondwike? Surely wherever they are in the UK, they are putting the same crap up there as any other location.

On a global (and probably national) scale it probably doesn't make a huge amount of difference where they are.

However, there are rather more people and cars in central London, so they'll have a relatively greater effect on local air quality, compounded somewhat by the fact that London sits in the Thames basin, which means pollutants tend to sink toward the centre, especially when the atmospheric pressure is high.

Similarly, smog over LA is one of the reasons that California is so keen on promoting electric cars. It spreads emissions more evenly.
 
Good points...but...public transport is shit and overcrowded so where's the alternative for current car users?

Personally, I'd never drive in London. I always lived in zone 4, ya see, so when I lived in town I trained it in. If I lived between 1 and 3, I'd cycle.

I'm a cheapskate, I do anything to save a few quid. Wont find me driving unless I have to, or anything for that matter.

But I'm not most people...other have their lives and if they need a car or a van or whatever, how can they do their shit when public transport is a no-go?

eta: how is LA getting on with them electric cars?
 
Poot said:
I think the congestion charge is a wonderful thing but I'm concerned that it's going to become horribly elitist and fashionable to drive to work in London and it'll just be the nob-ends in 4x4s who can afford it:

"Found a simply mahvellous parking place by the Strand, Dahling! Wouldn't catch ME on a bus, tut tut!"

I doubt you've experienced the cost of parking in central London recently then... a day at the NCP in Soho will set you back something like £36.

I suspect if that kind of snobbery were going to happen, it already would have :)
 
Pete the Greek said:
they need a car or a van or whatever, how can they do their shit when public transport is a no-go?


Where is public transport shit in inner London so that you "need" to travel by car?
 
Well seeing as something like 70% of journey or summat are under 2 miles could well be.

I'd put it that the proportion of K'ton and Chelseaites who drive to a place of employment that they couldn't reach by public transport to be marginal.
 
Isambard said:
Well seeing as something like 70% of journey or summat are under 2 miles could well be.

I'd put it that the proportion of Kingston and Chelseaites who drive to a place of employment that they couldn't reach by public transport to be marginal.

but how can they get to their bolt holes in the country?!?!?!?! :eek: :eek: :eek:
 
Pete the Greek said:
but how can they get to their bolt holes in the country?!?!?!?! :eek: :eek: :eek:

_40879462_natex203.jpg
 
Pete the Greek said:
JAHA!! yeah fuckin' right,

It'll be holiday homes for workers then anyway. Ruling class scum having had neckshots and being dumped down salt mines with the carcassses of their yappy little dogs! ;)
 
Isambard said:
It'll be holiday homes for workers then anyway. Ruling class scum having had neckshots and being dumped down salt mines with the carcassses of their yappy little dogs! ;)

aw, poor rich people, what have they ever done to you?

:p :p
 
Yeeeeee Hawwwwww - Ekaterinaberg revisited; a big barrel full of fis, or cellar full of 'ruling class scum' and yappy dgs; a few machine guns; and, rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat..........

Oh happy days, oh happppppppppppyyyyyy daaaaaaaaaaays.......
 
Irenick said:
Yeeeeee Hawwwwww - Ekaterinaberg revisited; a big barrel full of fis, or cellar full of 'ruling class scum' and yappy dgs; a few machine guns; and, rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat..........

Oh happy days, oh happppppppppppyyyyyy daaaaaaaaaaays.......

?

troll alert
 
Back
Top Bottom