|
S80 '98-'06 / S60 '00-'09 / V70 & XC70 '00-'07 General Forum for the P2-platform S60 / V70 / XC70 / S80 models |
Information |
|
Ulez extension in LONDON - S60 Petrol- Not Compliant.Views : 2305 Replies : 37Users Viewing This Thread : |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Aug 3rd, 2021, 23:13 | #31 | |
Premier Member
Last Online: Today 18:54
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Manchester
|
Quote:
When ULEZ comes to Manchester, I certainly won’t be paying the daily congestion charge and the ULEZ fee because it simply won’t be affordable. Alternative methods of transport would have to be used, so these changes are being in a way forced upon people, even though they may not think it is. If you drive your car to the city every day with no charge, then all of a sudden you have to pay to continue to do so, I wouldn’t class that as a goodwill gesture. You are given no option… Pay for congestion, pay for ULEZ (if applicable), buy a newer car (money) or pay for public transport. The only free option is walk. So the Government are going to reduce congestion & emissions by charging people through the roof to put them off driving into a city or the outskirts of one, or essentially making you buy a newer car to be emissions compliant. That’s what’s happening, simple as that. Money money money…
__________________
2007 (P3) Volvo S80 SE 2.4D (163bhp) - 109,000 miles. Black exterior with cream leather interior. Last edited by Kev0607; Aug 3rd, 2021 at 23:32. |
|
Aug 3rd, 2021, 23:52 | #32 |
Master Member
Last Online: Feb 20th, 2024 14:53
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
|
Private cars aren't included in the proposed Manchester scheme so unless you use one commercially you have no problem surely.
Road pricing is a reasonable way to control demand as it targets drivers by use in these selected locations at a time when the other costs of motoring have trended well less than the overall cost of living. I expect you'd complain more if you were banned from driving altogether. |
Aug 4th, 2021, 00:11 | #33 |
trying to be helpful
Last Online: Today 17:51
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dagenham
|
from what I've seen in London, i'd say the majority of people who work there and live elsewhere (i.e. commuters) are already well used to doing that by train anyway
And in terms of planning the future, is it not possible that we can move away from clustering together into big cities anyway? most shopping is online now a lot of work can be done from home some companies will want to move out of cities anyway, because of ULEZ and so on in days gone by there were sensible reasons for all the offices being so close together and shops being all in one place, but now? not really, it just feels like we're clinging to the old ways for no reason if ULEZ and CC pushes people away from that then to be honest I'm not really seeing as much of a bad thing yes it's money money money, but so are traffic cameras - if you want people to stop speeding, stop selling cars that go over say 80mph, you'd think it would be that simple wouldn't you. and yet you can hop on autotrader and buy an M3, then go 160mph down the M1 if you wanted to or were stupid enough Last edited by stuart bowes; Aug 4th, 2021 at 00:13. |
Aug 4th, 2021, 13:17 | #34 | |
Premier Member
Last Online: Today 18:54
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Manchester
|
Quote:
Yes, of course I’d complain if I was banned. Who wouldn’t!? What’s done is done, what’s proposed is proposed. It doesn’t mean we have to agree with the terms of the proposals though, yet there’s nothing we can really do either apart from adapt (using public transport, or buying a newer/compliant car). Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I still say this is about lining pockets thick (money). For this country to reach net zero emissions, we’ll have to go back to the stone age… We can try of course. Driving older cars for longer isn’t as bad for the environment as people think. If everyone swaps to newer cars or even electric (which will happen in the next 10 years or so), the scrapping alone of the old cars is more harmful. What happens to all the batteries in electric cars when they go to the scrap yard (this will happen with crashes etc). You produce emissions to make batteries & the acid in them is toxic when they go to landfill. We could recycle them, but then we’ll end up with millions of batteries stock piled & that in itself is a hazard. There’s no word of this though, yet we’re “cutting emissions”.
__________________
2007 (P3) Volvo S80 SE 2.4D (163bhp) - 109,000 miles. Black exterior with cream leather interior. Last edited by Kev0607; Aug 4th, 2021 at 13:33. |
|
Aug 4th, 2021, 14:23 | #35 | |
Master Member
Last Online: Feb 20th, 2024 14:53
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
|
Quote:
In your world it seems we would never make progress on anything. You sound like the sort of person who objected to taking lead out of petrol. This isn't like curing cancer - we know what to do and the technologies to do it are mostly here or in train. |
|
Aug 4th, 2021, 17:02 | #36 | |
Premier Member
Last Online: Today 18:54
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Manchester
|
Quote:
Don’t tell me what type of person I sound like. I think you sound like you’re living on another planet to put it nicely, but I didn’t say that until now. Lets not go down that route because frankly, there’s no need to be posting snide remarks to each other. Its a forum for discussion, to offer opinions (we all have them). You clearly don’t support my view & I don’t support yours. However, I reiterate, don’t tell me “what I sound like” because to be frank, that has no relevance to the discussion. We can agree to disagree so to speak, but there’s no need for posting remarks about what you perceive what I sound like judging by my posts. You have no authority to do that & neither do I for that matter.
__________________
2007 (P3) Volvo S80 SE 2.4D (163bhp) - 109,000 miles. Black exterior with cream leather interior. Last edited by Kev0607; Aug 4th, 2021 at 17:27. |
|
Aug 4th, 2021, 21:10 | #37 |
trying to be helpful
Last Online: Today 17:51
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Dagenham
|
it seems to me he was responding to the suggestion that 'we’ll have to go back to the stone age' which came across sounding a bit resistant to change (see also: luddite lol) I don't think any real insult was intended
hence the sort of person who might have complained about removing lead, or adding catalytic convertors, both of which I remember being subjects of great consternation at the time but turned out to be fine the government makes some new declaration, engineers find ways to work with the new restrictions, it's a constantly evolving thing I've always assumed Hydrogen was the way forward to be honest, but I'm told there's difficulties with that. I'm sure they'll overcome that in time, the same way they'll eventually make batteries that last 100 years and melt down into recyclable components have more faith in science |
Aug 4th, 2021, 23:29 | #38 |
Master Member
Last Online: Feb 20th, 2024 14:53
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
|
I do take exception to people saying public authorities are 'lining pockets', which is essentially accusing them of corruption.
TFL is a public body set up by the GLA. No money 'goes to government'. The vast bulk of its income comes from fares on buses and trains, and the congestion charge is also administered by TFL and raises a relatively small part of its income. All the income is spent by TFL on transport. if you want something that does look like corruption, look at who the Tories have given huge amounts of public money to for pandemic services and equipment. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|