Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[ealingfox]

2 hours ago, Wortho said:

Is that right 😂

 

Yes?

 

https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/car-ownership-household-income

 

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

Yes?

 

https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/car-ownership-household-income

 

Well sure, but apart from the ones that do.

[Milo]

2 hours ago, Footballwipe said:

I wouldn't mind people debating ULEZ if they weren't so openly biased and misinformed.

I’m fairly well informed. 
 

As of last week I now live in the ULEZ zone. In a very leafy, green, pleasant and not at all polluted area 15 miles outside of London. Surrounded by golf courses and the South London Downs. 
 

Why the absolute fvck should anyone here pay £12.50 if they have an older car.
 

Why should parents who have to drive their younger children to our school have to pay £12.50 every day. 
 

A lot of my friends have a normal, newish family car and maybe an older car for taking the dog out/going to the tip/camping etc. 

 

Khan is odious, regardless of what party he represents. 
 

The expansion is the equivalent of say, the Mayor of Coventry, worried by the poor city centre air quality there, imposing the ULEZ zone on Hinckley. It’s nonsense. 
 

Oh, and if you forget to pay/stray into one of the chargeable streets the fine is £180.

 

 

 

 

 

[Wortho]

6 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

 

There are something like 42% of Londoners who don't have access to a car. In the inner boroughs the figure I understand is much higher and would it not be these people that suffer the most from pollution. The fact that things were worse decades ago is not much of an argument. 

In the boroughs on the outskirts the public transport is very poor. So use of a car is essential in some areas.

[Foxdiamond]

Just now, Wortho said:

In the boroughs on the outskirts the public transport is very poor. So use of a car is essential in some areas.

I agree that public transport across the country needs radical improvements.  Outside of all of London and other cities is worse still. 

[Wortho]

2 minutes ago, Milo said:

I’m fairly well informed. 
 

As of last week I now live in the ULEZ zone. In a very leafy, green, pleasant and not at all polluted area 15 miles outside of London. Surrounded by golf courses and the South London Downs. 
 

Why the absolute fvck should anyone here pay £12.50 if they have an older car.
 

Why should parents who have to drive their younger children to our school have to pay £12.50 every day. 
 

A lot of my friends have a normal, newish family car and maybe an older car for taking the dog out/going to the tip/camping etc. 

 

Khan is odious, regardless of what party he represents. 
 

The expansion is the equivalent of say, the Mayor of Coventry, worried by the poor city centre air quality there, imposing the ULEZ zone on Hinckley. It’s nonsense. 
 

Oh, and if you forget to pay/stray into one of the chargeable streets the fine is £180.

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for backing up my point of view. At last someone who knows what’s going on.

[ealingfox]

6 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Well sure, but apart from the ones that do.

 

I didn't think it would need clarifying that I wasn't speaking in absolute terms.

 

But thank you for confirming that a clear majority of people in all of the bottom 5 income brackets don't have access to a car, and that car access increases consistently with income.

 

Add to this that 9 out of 10 vehicles are compliant, and many polls demonstrate support for the expansion and you get a different picture based on that assumed on the basis that the reactionary right has been bleating incessantly about it.

[Milo]

10 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

Add to this that 9 out of 10 vehicles are compliant

Is this the same number claimed in the TfL report, or independent? 

[leicsmac]

I can understand people being annoyed about the methods here, but as per above I cannot understand being annoyed about the motives unless one really doesn't care about air pollution or its effects.

[SpacedX]

29 minutes ago, Milo said:

As of last week I now live in the ULEZ zone. In a very leafy, green, pleasant and not at all polluted area 15 miles outside of London. Surrounded by golf courses and the South London Downs.

 

Where? If you don't mind me asking? 

[Strokes]

41 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

I didn't think it would need clarifying that I wasn't speaking in absolute terms.

 

But thank you for confirming that a clear majority of people in all of the bottom 5 income brackets don't have access to a car, and that car access increases consistently with income.

 

Add to this that 9 out of 10 vehicles are compliant, and many polls demonstrate support for the expansion and you get a different picture based on that assumed on the basis that the reactionary right has been bleating incessantly about it.

People under £25k in London are going to be struggling to upgrade their cars.

That 1 out of 10 is likely to be entirely them. Given that it’s poor people suffering to keep up, I would have thought our usual defenders of the poor to be a tad more sympathetic but shows what I know hey?

[Wortho]

49 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

I agree that public transport across the country needs radical improvements.  Outside of all of London and other cities is worse still. 

Well imagine it being imposed on the town/city where you live. 
Some people on night shifts get caught for £25 a day.

[Wortho]

Just now, Strokes said:

People under £25k in London are going to be struggling to upgrade their cars.

That 1 out of 10 is likely to be entirely them. Given that it’s poor people suffering to keep up, I would have thought our usual defenders of the poor to be a tad more sympathetic but shows what I know hey?

An electric Vauxhall Corsa a very small and basic car costs £34 thousand. But with Chairman Khan’s generous scrappage scheme of £2 thousand it’s £32 thousand over 5 years. By the time you’ve paid it off the battery will be ****ed.

[Wortho]

42 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I can understand people being annoyed about the methods here, but as per above I cannot understand being annoyed about the motives unless one really doesn't care about air pollution or its effects.

There was a FOI request about pollution in London. I can’t find it atm.

It found that one person (questionable) has died from pollution in the last 20 years.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Wortho said:

There was a FOI request about pollution in London. I can’t find it atm.

It found that one person (questionable) has died from pollution in the last 20 years.

If this is true (and I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand), there are multiple other costly consequences of air pollution than simply death. Additional healthcare costs and infrastructure costs being two.

 

People do not take anthropogenic environmental issues seriously enough. That's possibly an unpopular opinion right there, though it annoys me and scares me in equal measure that it is so.

Edited 14 September 2023 by leicsmac

[marbles]

4 minutes ago, Wortho said:

There was a FOI request about pollution in London. I can’t find it atm.

It found that one person (questionable) has died from pollution in the last 20 years.

I’m sure Mac is talking long term affects on the environment.  

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, marbles said:

I’m sure Mac is talking long term affects on the environment.  

In part, but also in terms of the more direct consequences of air pollution (as opposed to carbon emissions) as explained above.

[Zear0]

Sure those deploring the socialist agenda of "chairman Khan" would agree this is a problem easily solved by those affected to just work a bit harder? 

[Wortho]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If this is true (and I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand), there are multiple other costly consequences of air pollution than simply death. Additional healthcare costs and infrastructure costs being two.

 

People do not take anthropogenic environmental issues seriously enough. That's possibly an unpopular opinion right there, though it annoys me and scares me in equal measure that it is so.

I can’t answer that but Khan now claims we will now live another 13 minutes due to his actions!!!

[ealingfox]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

People under £25k in London are going to be struggling to upgrade their cars.

That 1 out of 10 is likely to be entirely them. Given that it’s poor people suffering to keep up, I would have thought our usual defenders of the poor to be a tad more sympathetic but shows what I know hey?

 

I'm guessing those people have decided that their sympathy for the majority of poor people wanting to breathe cleaner air outweighs it.

[Wortho]

13 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

I'm guessing those people have decided that their sympathy for the majority of poor people wanting to breathe cleaner air outweighs it.

What if drivers of non compliant cars drive in the Ulez area, how does that improve the toxic air?

[Strokes]

43 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

I'm guessing those people have decided that their sympathy for the majority of poor people wanting to breathe cleaner air outweighs it.

Have you asked the poor people what they want? 

[Izzy]

2 hours ago, Milo said:

 I live in a very leafy, green, pleasant and not at all polluted area 15 miles outside of London. Surrounded by golf courses and the South London Downs. 

[ealingfox]

26 minutes ago, Wortho said:

What if drivers of non compliant cars drive in the Ulez area, how does that improve the toxic air?

 

We'll have to see what the impact of the scheme is, it's only been going a week and I dont believe it was supposed to be a magic trick.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, ealingfox said:

 

We'll have to see what the impact of the scheme is, it's only been going a week and I dont believe it was supposed to be a magic trick.

With any luck blade runner will have taken most of the cameras down by next week.