Plans for congestion charge for bikes
- Thread starter liberty
- Start date
Watches tumbleweed blow past whilst waiting for Donna's devestatingly witty reply.
nogoodboyo
New Member
On topic, I think I'd actually pay a charge if it meant avoiding buses. £8 to save an hour a day and have a much nicer time when travelling? To avoid standing at the bus stop watching packed buses go by?
I'm at work 10-12 hours a day, so that spare hour means a lot.
Cycling's an option, but takes much longer (because of having to change and shower before work). My scooter is an hour a day quicker than when I cycled.
Oh well. Maybe there'll be a credible alternative at the next mayoral election.
I'm at work 10-12 hours a day, so that spare hour means a lot.
Cycling's an option, but takes much longer (because of having to change and shower before work). My scooter is an hour a day quicker than when I cycled.
Oh well. Maybe there'll be a credible alternative at the next mayoral election.
There are also some very good quality electric scooters about now. They won't get charged whatever happens and if the crunch comes will do for me.
nogoodboyo
New Member
Good point! Or I could just get up earlier and cycle I spose, relishing the bitterness every day.
We'll see what happens I guess.
We'll see what happens I guess.
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
tobyjug said:
Pretty much this source here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,2763,1635773,00.html
If this is wrong, then fair enough, shame on the Save the Routemaster Campaign for chatting shit.
The problem with cycling for me is that I get hot so wear shorts and so on and then if you crash you leave your skin on the tarmac. Plus cars don't give you any room and hills are too much like hard work.
The electric scooters are getting better. The last one I tried at a show in manchester two years ago had a lot of pull, did 40 MPH and had a range of 40 miles and cost £2500.
The electric scooters are getting better. The last one I tried at a show in manchester two years ago had a lot of pull, did 40 MPH and had a range of 40 miles and cost £2500.
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
cherrybaby said:
What do you want, an OBE for services to Anal Retentiveness or something?
DapperDonDamaja said:
You could apologise for attampting to cover up your ignorance with insults?
nogoodboyo
New Member
cherrybaby said:
Well, yeah. It's some years since I cycled every day, I might not like it so much now. My knees are a bit dodgy too - they do indeed come off badly in any naked tarmac encounters. Maybe I could get a little motability cart or something instead.
Electric's definitely a thought though. Maybe TfL should change the name to "emmisions charge" - hybrid cars don't pay either I think?
nogoodboyo
New Member
Major Tom said:
which bit of that big bike-shaped sign in the asl did they fail to understand!!
I agree it's a pain - but it's worth pointing that cars do it too, and that violation of the advanced safety box or whatever it's called has not been enforced by the police - on policy, I believe.
I liked Sigmund Fraud's suggestion some time ago that the forward box be split left (for cycles, which typically approach from the inside) - right (for bikes). Reckon it would work better.
nogoodboyo
New Member
Major Tom said:
In those circs it would work as it does now - a bunfight.
I think it's unrealistic to expect motor vehicles to go at 5mph behind cyclists - there will always be some that just won't just are there will always be cyclists who don't use lights etc. If you had a split box, some of the problems would go away. Maybe, who knows.
nogoodboyo said:
Thats correct in that LPG cars do not pay (depending on model) and elctric cars do not pay.
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
tobyjug said:
Well maybe they don't calculate the mpg off stop-start usage... Anyway the thrust behind the point I was making was that routemasters are more fuel efficient, and hence it was a shit decision by the GLA to replace them.
DapperDonDamaja said:
But they are/were not more fuel efficient! The modern decker or indeed bendy carries more passengers for more miles for less fuel.
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
cherrybaby said:
Cool your boots love... I'll have a source before I swallow that.
citydreams
on the road again
cherrybaby said:
And strangely, neither do mini-buses.
Thats because mini buses cary more people for less fuel than cars.
citydreams
on the road again
cherrybaby said:
I see the sense in that, but there's nothing to stop you using an empty minibus.
citydreams said:
Apart from the MPG!
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
cherrybaby said:
Okay - you're right. Lesson learnt in trusting dodgy sources. Sorry.
Kisses!
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
basically it runs along the lines of one size fits all legilation like it does for cars as indivual leglistlation is costly and impossible to police.Radar said:
frankley as i have said before, i think the congestion charge needs scrapping, limiting peoples freedom of movement is always a bad thing espcially when you cannot even keep the message consistant:
for car's is congestion,
bikes pollution,
trains overcrowding,
tubes underfunding...
leaving buses for the mass working class/low income/static income workers (whatever you want to classify them as) meaning transportation choice becomes a priverlidge not a right...
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
GarfieldLeChat said:
People on low income still have a right to use the tube, but many choose not to, because of the high price. That's just how capitalism works. What else would you propose?
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
no forcing those on low incomes to subisdise an failing system of congestion charging via their ever increasing council tax or forcing and unwanted olymipics on to them meaning they are being gentrified and cleansed from london...DapperDonDamaja said:
ken livingstone stops sucking labours/big businesses cock and remebers that he is not gulliani and this is not new york...
money to spent equatably and wisely on reinvigorating the public transportation system rather than it being pissed up the wall in delayed works and yet bigger corperate bonuses to arrivia and co....
public transportation to be publiclly owned rather than big business owned therefore fairs are reduced and subsidies are not needed meaning a far more cost effective transporatation system...
the uk in general to accept that public transportation is not a profit making business and will never be and it will need appropreate taxation and we just have to accept that not everything has to earn a buck to be worht while...
we stop pouring million after million in traffic calming schemes effective privatised roads networks and congestion charging etc and spend this moeny on developement of better bike and alternative public transportation systems...
all public transportation to run on lpg and then hydrogen to provide a safe clean enviormentally sensible alternative to cars (if bloody southampton can do it then london fucking well can)...
what are you suggestions which would allow the status quo to continue...
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
GarfieldLeChat said:
In principal I agree with congestion charging - loads of people driving empty cars into the centre causing jams and pollution is completely retarded. It makes much more sense for people to be encouraged to use buses, and you can't deny that the combination of investment in buses and congestion charging has addressed these goals with considerable success. I completely agree that the way it's been costed is a shambles, but that's Ken and TfL's fault, not an inherent flaw in the system. It's not yet clear whether council tax payers will have to stump up the extra - the treasury might bail the GLA out.
GarfieldLeChat said:
I don't know how you could possibly think that a switch to public ownership would make such a difference. Yes paying companies to do things well is expensive, but the only difference with the public ownership method, is that you're effectively creating a new company to do the same, which is even more expensive, only this time the taxpayers foot all of the losses. Civil servants don't have some kind of divine insight onto how not to waste money that the private sector doesn't have. They deal with the same contractors, the same people. And of course you'd still need subsidies - the publicly owned body is still not making a profit, and the shortfall has to come from somewhere... i.e. the taxpayer, which is what a subsidy is. In fact, I might argue that private ownership is beter for the average Joe Schmoe, because in the event of a privatised company failing horribly (a la Railtrack), the losses get written off against the shareholders (usually rich) not the taxpayers.
GarfieldLeChat said:
Agree with this bit. American public transport is the appropriate horror story for people who think it's a good idea for the free market to run public transport.
GarfieldLeChat said:
Congestion charging helps you to do that. You improve buses and bike routes by taking cars off the streets. Again it's just a tragedy GLA fucked things up by so much.
GarfieldLeChat said:
Well fine, yeah, but it's going to cost an awful lot of money, and hydrogen right now has to be created using coal power=very polluting, and is an absolute fucker to store=expensive.
Similar threads
