Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Nov 28, 2025 06:17

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 13:30 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
TfL are just launching this:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/low-emission- ... tation.asp

It's huge... almost the entire M25 area. It's also huge - loads of large documents.

I presume that it's a Livingstone anti-car scheme. Buses will be exempt. And I say that LONG before I've opened any of the PDFs (except the map.)

Do we fight or do we let them run with it until they self-destruct?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 13:39 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:19
Posts: 1795
I'd ask them why buses are exempt when diesel exhausts are particularly responsible for the massive amounts of PM10s in the atmosphere. The air quality is crap in London as a result of the anti car attitude and deliberately holding people up everywhere. If the encouraged free flowing traffic there wouldn't be such problems. Does that mean that anyone living inside the M25 that owns a classic car wouldn't be able to use it due to this idiotic scheme?

Fight, or at least make sure the ABD get off their backsides and fight it properly....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 13:47 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
teabelly wrote:
Does that mean that anyone living inside the M25 that owns a classic car wouldn't be able to use it due to this idiotic scheme?


I asked the same question somewhere on these forums and the way I read it, is it does. you don't pay road duty on classic cars so why should we be able to drive them on the roads, and wait until this goes national and we can't drive them anywhere. Fight I say :x

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 13:57 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
We guessed wrong...

See: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/low-emission- ... eaflet.pdf

Quote:
Which vehicles would be included in the Low
Emission Zone?


As the LEZ is designed to discourage the use of the most individually
polluting vehicles in London, the scheme is targeted at older dieselengine
HGVs, buses, coaches, heavier LGVs and minibuses. Both UK
registered and non-UK registered vehicles would need to comply
with the LEZ, with vehicles being defined using European vehicle
definitions to ensure a legal basis that applies equally across the EU.
The LEZ would also apply to some private vehicles which are lorryderived
vehicles, such as some horse boxes and some motor homes.

It is not proposed that cars be included in the LEZ at this stage,
although the Mayor has asked TfL to look at the implications of
potentially including cars at a later date.

It is proposed that a small number of vehicle types would be exempt
from the scheme. These include agricultural vehicles, military vehicles,
historic vehicles not used for hire or reward, non-road going vehicles
which are allowed to drive on the highway (for example excavators)
and certain types of mobile crane. These vehicles typically use
engines certified to different standards than road-going engines.
Some of these vehicles are proposed to be exempt due to their
unsuitability for retrofitting pollution abatement equipment,
conversion to an alternative fuel, or engine replacement.


Enforcement is to be by ANPR, so maybe it's an excuse to blanket london with with ANPR.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 14:10 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:19
Posts: 1795
If it leads to a load of stinking old diesels being off the road then I'm all for it! Probably means all the routemasters would be banned, along with just about every coach used for moving school kids around (they usually use the old scrap heaps for this job). Might cause a few problems for smaller transport companies who rely on old stock. I think 80% of the buses in my area would be thrown off the road if they did this in Stoke :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 14:20 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
Quote:
It is not proposed that cars be included in the LEZ at this stage,
although the Mayor has asked TfL to look at the implications of
potentially including cars at a later date.


My bold, Lets not drop this bit, read into it what you like.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 14:59 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
I thought this had been well known for a while with bus fleets in London being renewed and the old vehicles passed down the chain to operators in the provinces.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 15:51 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
This must be an infrastructure development move. By installing cameras to police their 'low emissions zone' they have all the infrastructure required to roll out a much larger congestion charge.

It may also be intended to push private operators out of the transport market. Are there private bus operators in London?

Or do they need justification to raise money for more new buses?

It stinks to high heaven, actually, and I wouldn't trust Livingstone as far as I could throw him.

You have to read far between the lines, I reckon.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 16:03 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
SafeSpeed wrote:
and I wouldn't trust Livingstone as far as I could throw him.


“Crafty Cockney” springs to mind. (excuse the pun)

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 19:24 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:05
Posts: 1044
Location: Hillingdon
SafeSpeed wrote:
Are there private bus operators in London?


Presumably by "private" you mean operators who don't receive TfL funding? There are several companies operating non-TfL routes through parts of TfL territory - local bus companies operating in the areas bordering London have some routes which pass through or terminate within the TfL area, and some coach companies (e.g. Green Line) have routes which behave more like limited stop express buses. I can't think of any operators with routes entirely within the TfL area who are independent of TfL though.

_________________
Chris


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 20:14 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
Depending on how you read the info because they don't seem to know themselves, they're talking of charging £200 for an HGV registered before 2002. (the bumf says £200 for a HGV and £100 for a heavy LGV - no one seems to have told them that they are the same)...

There is no way operators are going to be able to afford to pay that without transfering it straight onto the customers (Like Londoners are going to pay a surcharge on EVERYTHING they buy), so they are left with 2 options. Either upgrade the entire fleet or not go into London. Three guesses what most will do?

I get the feeling that the RHA will have something to say about this....

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 00:08 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Well as you've probably now all reaslised cars are NOT included...

...yet.

My feeling is that this doesn't seem that bad - except for the extent of the area covered. The main polluters have been targeted. My gut feeling, is that he's stuffed for including cars for a good 10 years. He can't include cars for a long time yet because the thousands of filthy black cabs would then be included. As it is, he's putting a 20p per ride surcharge on all cab fares to pay for the conversion work to bring the old sheds up to "Euro III" standards - even though Euro IV will be the applicable standard for new cars after Christmas.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 02:59 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
SafeSpeed wrote:
This must be an infrastructure development move. By installing cameras to police their 'low emissions zone' they have all the infrastructure required to roll out a much larger congestion charge.

It may also be intended to push private operators out of the transport market. Are there private bus operators in London?

Or do they need justification to raise money for more new buses?

It stinks to high heaven, actually, and I wouldn't trust Livingstone as far as I could throw him.

You have to read far between the lines, I reckon.


And I'd add that it's part of a 'divide and conquer' anti-road transport strategy. Start by ringfencing older heavy vehicles then widen the net. It sounds reasonable enough, which in itself I see as a danger signal. Tomorrow, just a bit more will seem reasonable, and so on.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:13 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 16:12
Posts: 1040
Location: West Midlands
Salami Tactics.

It is a historical phrase dating back to the 1940s, and describes how opposition was defeated and/or sidelined both in the creation of the East European Communist states, and in Adolf Hitlers rise to power. So you can see were Red Ken got the idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_tactics

I remembered it from "Yes Prime Minister", but as pointed out above there was a historical source.

http://www.yes-minister.com/ypmseas1a.htm


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 15:00 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 18:41
Posts: 893
Sixy_the_red wrote:
... they're talking of charging £200 for an HGV registered before 2002. (the bumf says £200 for a HGV and £100 for a heavy LGV - no one seems to have told them that they are the same)...

I heard on usenet that they also intend charging motorhomes £100 per day (link). Being that most motorcaravans have a life-expectancy much longer than that of a car, a lot of these vehicles would get "hit". So, how are all the camper van owners who live within the area going to cope?

Sixy_th_red wrote:
There is no way operators are going to be able to afford to pay that without transfering it straight onto the customers (Like Londoners are going to pay a surcharge on EVERYTHING they buy), so they are left with 2 options. Either upgrade the entire fleet or not go into London. Three guesses what most will do?

Hopefully, they'll either boycott London or make sufficiently large surcharges that helps decentralisation.

FWIW, Red Ken's policies are already costing London-based business. Because of those policies, many service companies no longer offer on-site work to London-based "clients", some of which have relocated just to get the "right people".

Perhaps Red Ken should change is name to "Nero" ...

... after all he seems intent on fiddling while city disintegrates around him. :roll:

_________________
Will


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 16:28 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
willcove wrote:
Hopefully, they'll either boycott London or make sufficiently large surcharges that helps decentralisation.


I don't know a single HGV driver that LIKES going into London, so I can't see that many complaints from non-Londoners! :twisted:

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.038s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]