Fooking "Low Emission" zone in London....
04-02-2008, 11:39 AM
#1
Fooking "Low Emission" zone in London....
Just watched that twat Mayor Ken on Sky News spouting off about the low emission zone in London that comes into effect today.....
I don't get it - whats the point in having a low emmision zone in london "to protect people's heath" and lower the "shocking asthma rate in kids" if you still let em drive in London on a daily basis, albeit for a "small charge" ???
Makes perfect sense to ban vehicles with bad emissions, but to let em in as long as they pay - how is that helping anyone?!?!?
"Buses, lorry's and coaches will have to meet strict emission targets or pay a daily rate to enter the zone. It's designed to clean up London's air and protect people's health"
How does charging them help people's health!?!?!?!?
Fucking money grabbing cunt that Ken
Notice it don't stop the fucking London red buses from driving round town spewing out more noxious fumes than anything else on the road now does it?
I don't get it - whats the point in having a low emmision zone in london "to protect people's heath" and lower the "shocking asthma rate in kids" if you still let em drive in London on a daily basis, albeit for a "small charge" ???
Makes perfect sense to ban vehicles with bad emissions, but to let em in as long as they pay - how is that helping anyone?!?!?
"Buses, lorry's and coaches will have to meet strict emission targets or pay a daily rate to enter the zone. It's designed to clean up London's air and protect people's health"
How does charging them help people's health!?!?!?!?
Fucking money grabbing cunt that Ken
Notice it don't stop the fucking London red buses from driving round town spewing out more noxious fumes than anything else on the road now does it?
04-02-2008, 11:43 AM
#2
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Poole
Posts: 4,033
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smokey old diesels are far less harmful to lungs than newer diesels with their small particulates, so I believe.
A charge will encorage people to use newer cleaner vehicles I suppose.
Dunno how many of our lorries will pass, certainly not the old P reg
People should boycott the fucking place.
A charge will encorage people to use newer cleaner vehicles I suppose.
Dunno how many of our lorries will pass, certainly not the old P reg
People should boycott the fucking place.
04-02-2008, 11:53 AM
#4
Point is no it won't! It won't do shit except line Kens pocket some more!
The idea behind it, when we were led to belive these vehicles would just be banned, was good - less harmfull fumes in London. But then they reveal you CAN still drive in London but you will have to pay! So it's obviously not in the best interests of health, but rather in the best interests of Kens bank account!
Hypocritical fucknuts!
The idea behind it, when we were led to belive these vehicles would just be banned, was good - less harmfull fumes in London. But then they reveal you CAN still drive in London but you will have to pay! So it's obviously not in the best interests of health, but rather in the best interests of Kens bank account!
Hypocritical fucknuts!
04-02-2008, 11:56 AM
#6
Originally Posted by Thrush
Point is no it won't! It won't do shit except line Kens pocket some more!
The idea behind it, when we were led to belive these vehicles would just be banned, was good - less harmfull fumes in London. But then they reveal you CAN still drive in London but you will have to pay! So it's obviously not in the best interests of health, but rather in the best interests of Kens bank account!
Hypocritical fucknuts!
The idea behind it, when we were led to belive these vehicles would just be banned, was good - less harmfull fumes in London. But then they reveal you CAN still drive in London but you will have to pay! So it's obviously not in the best interests of health, but rather in the best interests of Kens bank account!
Hypocritical fucknuts!
04-02-2008, 11:58 AM
#7
10K+ Poster!!
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only downside to us is that our old HGV's have been given away to the tight arses oop norf as no fucker can buy them down here in our business (as they all run into London!)..............
But its hard on the smaller businesses as these new vehicles and engines AINT cheap!
I wouldnt like to run a small haulage business in London at the moment.
But its hard on the smaller businesses as these new vehicles and engines AINT cheap!
I wouldnt like to run a small haulage business in London at the moment.
Trending Topics
04-02-2008, 11:59 AM
#8
10K+ Poster!!
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chip-3Door
Originally Posted by Thrush
Point is no it won't! It won't do shit except line Kens pocket some more!
The idea behind it, when we were led to belive these vehicles would just be banned, was good - less harmfull fumes in London. But then they reveal you CAN still drive in London but you will have to pay! So it's obviously not in the best interests of health, but rather in the best interests of Kens bank account!
Hypocritical fucknuts!
The idea behind it, when we were led to belive these vehicles would just be banned, was good - less harmfull fumes in London. But then they reveal you CAN still drive in London but you will have to pay! So it's obviously not in the best interests of health, but rather in the best interests of Kens bank account!
Hypocritical fucknuts!
04-02-2008, 12:04 PM
#9
PassionFord Post Whore!!
The ridiculous thing is, on yesterdays Politics Show they had the man from Transport For Laandan on trying to justify it.
When tackled on the impact to business he claimed it wouldnt be a problem as two thirds of the lorries coming into the city were registered after 2001 and were therefore already compliant.
SO they've brought this policy in to tackle 1 third of the lorries coming into Laandan
Just another Stealth Tax by Mad Ken to help fund his mate Lee Jasper the Equality man and all his chronies
Paul I know what you are saying but small firms who are running older lorries are being penalised, even though they have paid the same road tax as the larger operators and the same amount of fuel duty etc etc etc this should entitle them to use the roads of the land and not have to pay a further penalty that more modern lorries dont pay.
Unless of course the road tax on a lorry over 7 years old is reduced.
Its all wrong like most things that nutter Livingstone gets up to.
I'm sure once people who live in the capitals everyday goods go up in price putting more and more strain on the residents people will see the light and Livingstone will be off to Baghdad to act a special envoy there.
When tackled on the impact to business he claimed it wouldnt be a problem as two thirds of the lorries coming into the city were registered after 2001 and were therefore already compliant.
SO they've brought this policy in to tackle 1 third of the lorries coming into Laandan
Just another Stealth Tax by Mad Ken to help fund his mate Lee Jasper the Equality man and all his chronies
Paul I know what you are saying but small firms who are running older lorries are being penalised, even though they have paid the same road tax as the larger operators and the same amount of fuel duty etc etc etc this should entitle them to use the roads of the land and not have to pay a further penalty that more modern lorries dont pay.
Unless of course the road tax on a lorry over 7 years old is reduced.
Its all wrong like most things that nutter Livingstone gets up to.
I'm sure once people who live in the capitals everyday goods go up in price putting more and more strain on the residents people will see the light and Livingstone will be off to Baghdad to act a special envoy there.
04-02-2008, 12:04 PM
#10
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Saving the planet
Posts: 5,749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Thrush
Point is no it won't! It won't do shit except line Kens pocket some more!
The idea behind it, when we were led to belive these vehicles would just be banned, was good - less harmfull fumes in London. But then they reveal you CAN still drive in London but you will have to pay! So it's obviously not in the best interests of health, but rather in the best interests of Kens bank account!
Hypocritical fucknuts!
The idea behind it, when we were led to belive these vehicles would just be banned, was good - less harmfull fumes in London. But then they reveal you CAN still drive in London but you will have to pay! So it's obviously not in the best interests of health, but rather in the best interests of Kens bank account!
Hypocritical fucknuts!
I know what I'd do.
04-02-2008, 12:06 PM
#11
Originally Posted by RichardPON
Mate, you REALLY need a girlfriend!
Chip - it probably will, but my point is, yet again Ken has come up with a way to make money, thinly disguised as a plan to save peoples health by banning cars with unacceptable emissions from driving in the city. Point is he's hardly banned them if he's allowing them in for a fee now is he?
04-02-2008, 12:07 PM
#12
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Saving the planet
Posts: 5,749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by neilm
The ridiculous thing is, on yesterdays Politics Show they had the man from Transport For Laandan on trying to justify it.
When tackled on the impact to business he claimed it wouldnt be a problem as two thirds of the lorries coming into the city were registered after 2001 and were therefore already compliant.
SO they've brought this policy in to tackle 1 third of the lorries coming into Laandan
Just another Stealth Tax by Mad Ken to help fund his mate Lee Jasper the Equality man and all his chronies
Paul I know what you are saying but small firms who are running older lorries are being penalised, even though they have paid the same road tax as the larger operators and the same amount of fuel duty etc etc etc this should entitle them to use the roads of the land and not have to pay a further penalty that more modern lorries dont pay.
Unless of course the road tax on a lorry over 7 years old is reduced.
Its all wrong like most things that nutter Livingstone gets up to.
I'm sure once people who live in the capitals everyday goods go up in price putting more and more strain on the residents people will see the light and Livingstone will be off to Baghdad to act a special envoy there.
When tackled on the impact to business he claimed it wouldnt be a problem as two thirds of the lorries coming into the city were registered after 2001 and were therefore already compliant.
SO they've brought this policy in to tackle 1 third of the lorries coming into Laandan
Just another Stealth Tax by Mad Ken to help fund his mate Lee Jasper the Equality man and all his chronies
Paul I know what you are saying but small firms who are running older lorries are being penalised, even though they have paid the same road tax as the larger operators and the same amount of fuel duty etc etc etc this should entitle them to use the roads of the land and not have to pay a further penalty that more modern lorries dont pay.
Unless of course the road tax on a lorry over 7 years old is reduced.
Its all wrong like most things that nutter Livingstone gets up to.
I'm sure once people who live in the capitals everyday goods go up in price putting more and more strain on the residents people will see the light and Livingstone will be off to Baghdad to act a special envoy there.
04-02-2008, 12:12 PM
#13
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Deep in the underground
Posts: 5,489
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The company I work for sends between 3 and 5 trucks into the very centre of London EVERY day from Northamptonshire, they have had to buy new ones to replace them all.
They were smokey heaps of shit that have near enough clocked up 1m KM's each.
So if alot of companies have had to do this too, I cant see how that is a bad thing?
Yes, techincally they could use the old ones and pay the charge, but I cant see many companies wanting to throw away a grand a week per truck!
They were smokey heaps of shit that have near enough clocked up 1m KM's each.
So if alot of companies have had to do this too, I cant see how that is a bad thing?
Yes, techincally they could use the old ones and pay the charge, but I cant see many companies wanting to throw away a grand a week per truck!
04-02-2008, 01:11 PM
#15
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Land of Nod
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We also put around about a dozen or so lorries into London on a daily basis. Our lorries are never more than 3 years old at any time so we are pretty much up to date with the new regs.
But what other option is there if you have an older fleet. Londoners need fed and clothed so lorries will always need to enter the city. Why doesn't he invest in a couple of freight terminals on the outskirts of the city so that we don't have to go in there. Believe me we don't go in through choice, it's a daily fucking nightmare that I (and many others)could do without.
Either that or let the fuckers starve
SMG
But what other option is there if you have an older fleet. Londoners need fed and clothed so lorries will always need to enter the city. Why doesn't he invest in a couple of freight terminals on the outskirts of the city so that we don't have to go in there. Believe me we don't go in through choice, it's a daily fucking nightmare that I (and many others)could do without.
Either that or let the fuckers starve
SMG
04-02-2008, 02:25 PM
#18
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Saving the planet
Posts: 5,749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by C4llyT
Soon grind to a halt and something have to be done....
It will never go away and only go up in cost so I'd advise small businesses to plan for it which TBH they should have been already. It's not like they announce these things overnight...........
I'm not defending Ken, although it appears I am, more pointing out that times are a changing and a lot of people are going to be hit in the pocket with higher energy costs and green taxes. It's only going to get worse in the short term.
04-02-2008, 02:25 PM
#19
20K+ Super Poster.
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 23,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Thrush
Originally Posted by RichardPON
Mate, you REALLY need a girlfriend!
As far as I know, this issue doesn't affect you directly in the slightest. So in your tirade, on whose behalf are you whinging..... again?
04-02-2008, 02:35 PM
#22
Originally Posted by RichardPON
Originally Posted by Thrush
Originally Posted by RichardPON
Mate, you REALLY need a girlfriend!
As far as I know, this issue doesn't affect you directly in the slightest. So in your tirade, on whose behalf are you whinging..... again?
But thats not the question I asked you - I asked you wtf your statement "You REALLY need a girlfriend" has to do with this topic? Cos last time I checked, that was completely irrelevant to the topic at hand?
So I repeat;
1) wtf does that have to do with this topic?
2) how in the fuck would you know anyway considering you have never met me and don't in fact know me?
....again
04-02-2008, 02:41 PM
#23
20K+ Super Poster.
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 23,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well maybe if you had a girlfriend, she might relieve some of that tension, so that you're not on here every day posting up another "thrush's daily rant".
She also might be able to help educate you a little but so that you are able to see the wider picture. You seem to barrel in without thinking, much like your "why should I pay for the NHS" rant the other day.
So I'm hoping, for your sake as well as ours, that you get on the case with this situation sharpish!
She also might be able to help educate you a little but so that you are able to see the wider picture. You seem to barrel in without thinking, much like your "why should I pay for the NHS" rant the other day.
So I'm hoping, for your sake as well as ours, that you get on the case with this situation sharpish!
04-02-2008, 02:46 PM
#24
10K+ Poster!!
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gingeRS
its good for us, means more people will need euro 4 and 5 trucks 
keeps me in beer
keeps me in beer
04-02-2008, 03:36 PM
#26
Pon;
1) NHS "rant" was weeks ago. Please post links to the "daily" rants I have
2) Since you seem to know me so well, I'd be entertained how you know I haven't got a girlfriend, since I haven't mentioned if I do or don't
3) Prey tell exactly why having a girlfriend would relieve this "tension" ? I pressume you mean by having sex, thus removing tension. Why would I need to have a girlfriend for that? You might not pull when you are out, doens't mean the rest of us can't. You can have sex with people that aren't your "girlfriend" you know - we don't live in biblical times!
1) NHS "rant" was weeks ago. Please post links to the "daily" rants I have
2) Since you seem to know me so well, I'd be entertained how you know I haven't got a girlfriend, since I haven't mentioned if I do or don't
3) Prey tell exactly why having a girlfriend would relieve this "tension" ? I pressume you mean by having sex, thus removing tension. Why would I need to have a girlfriend for that? You might not pull when you are out, doens't mean the rest of us can't. You can have sex with people that aren't your "girlfriend" you know - we don't live in biblical times!
04-02-2008, 03:48 PM
#27
20K+ Super Poster.
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 23,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Thrush
Pon;
1) NHS "rant" was weeks ago. Please post links to the "daily" rants I have
2) Since you seem to know me so well, I'd be entertained how you know I haven't got a girlfriend, since I haven't mentioned if I do or don't
3) Prey tell exactly why having a girlfriend would relieve this "tension" ? I pressume you mean by having sex, thus removing tension. Why would I need to have a girlfriend for that? You might not pull when you are out, doens't mean the rest of us can't. You can have sex with people that aren't your "girlfriend" you know - we don't live in biblical times!
1) NHS "rant" was weeks ago. Please post links to the "daily" rants I have
2) Since you seem to know me so well, I'd be entertained how you know I haven't got a girlfriend, since I haven't mentioned if I do or don't
3) Prey tell exactly why having a girlfriend would relieve this "tension" ? I pressume you mean by having sex, thus removing tension. Why would I need to have a girlfriend for that? You might not pull when you are out, doens't mean the rest of us can't. You can have sex with people that aren't your "girlfriend" you know - we don't live in biblical times!
How do I know?
Trust me mate, it's obvious!
04-02-2008, 03:57 PM
#28
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Poole
Posts: 4,033
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kind of set himself up for that reply!
Is like that green tax on the planes, nothing to do with lowering emissions or protecting the environment, just another tax.
Is like that green tax on the planes, nothing to do with lowering emissions or protecting the environment, just another tax.
04-02-2008, 04:00 PM
#31
20K+ Super Poster.
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 23,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Thrush
Get a life Pon, it ammuses me how you slate me for posting a rant on here, yet you spend your time posting on peoples rants about them ranting.... I think you REALLY need a girlfriend 
I'm seriously impressed with how pro-active you are about these issues! Were you planning on just whinging on car forums about this stuff, or should we expect to see you taking to the streets?
04-02-2008, 04:01 PM
#32
Originally Posted by C4llyT
Kind of set himself up for that reply!
Is like that green tax on the planes, nothing to do with lowering emissions or protecting the environment, just another tax.
Is like that green tax on the planes, nothing to do with lowering emissions or protecting the environment, just another tax.
It's actually no-ones business at all, but last time I had sex was on Saturday just gone, so thats THAT theory out the window isn't it?
Pon's fishing, thinking he is making himself look big, but fails to realise it's the internet! Leik omFG!!!!1 !!
wtf 1337 and all that.....
04-02-2008, 04:02 PM
#33
PassionFord Post Whore!!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Poole
Posts: 4,033
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He said you need a girlfriend, not a shag, big difference! 
Still, that's way off the topic of this thread.
It's a shame Dave Courtney wasn't allowed to run, he'd have been voted in
Still, that's way off the topic of this thread.
It's a shame Dave Courtney wasn't allowed to run, he'd have been voted in
04-02-2008, 04:04 PM
#34
Originally Posted by RichardPON
Originally Posted by Thrush
Get a life Pon, it ammuses me how you slate me for posting a rant on here, yet you spend your time posting on peoples rants about them ranting.... I think you REALLY need a girlfriend I'm seriously impressed with how pro-active you are about these issues! Were you planning on just whinging on car forums about this stuff, or should we expect to see you taking to the streets?
I;m not being pro-active at all - I don't see why you think I am. I was actually, innocently sat here bored while the gas man fixed my boiler watching Sky news and was annoyed at Red Ken's blatent money making ploy, and innocently posted it on here. It wouldn't have had been an issue had you not come on and posted something completely a) unfounded and b) completely off topic....
04-02-2008, 04:04 PM
#35
by making abigger hole in the pocket it will make the lorry firms think about using more "envoromentaly friendly" vehicles which will reduce the amount of polution there is in london
they alreayd have to do it for black cabs and in a few years time buses and smaller vans will also have to be compliant so it's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg mate
they alreayd have to do it for black cabs and in a few years time buses and smaller vans will also have to be compliant so it's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg mate
04-02-2008, 04:05 PM
#36
Originally Posted by C4llyT
He said you need a girlfriend, not a shag, big difference!
Still, that's way off the topic of this thread.
It's a shame Dave Courtney wasn't allowed to run, he'd have been voted in
Still, that's way off the topic of this thread.
It's a shame Dave Courtney wasn't allowed to run, he'd have been voted in
04-02-2008, 04:09 PM
#37
Originally Posted by dojj
by making abigger hole in the pocket it will make the lorry firms think about using more "envoromentaly friendly" vehicles which will reduce the amount of polution there is in london
they alreayd have to do it for black cabs and in a few years time buses and smaller vans will also have to be compliant so it's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg mate
they alreayd have to do it for black cabs and in a few years time buses and smaller vans will also have to be compliant so it's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg mate
Thing is Dojj, whilst it's all well and good making the haulage firms and cab drivers pay out of their pockets to convert their vehicles to meet the new emission laws, who's gonna pay for the London buses to be converted? The tax payer? Hardly fair is it? One might hope that any money generated by the pay as you go scheme in this emission fasard might be put into converting the buses but I highly highly doubt it. I means it's not like the millions and millions of pounds generated by raod tax actually fixes the majority of the roads Seems that private coaches have to pay this or stay out of london, but the decrepid London buses we have seem to be excempt
04-02-2008, 04:09 PM
#38
20K+ Super Poster.
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 23,377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, well if we must get back on topic, surely you recognise simple economics?
There is a charge, because it is the most simple and practical way to force change. You cannot make the charge nearly unpayable, as you are removing what little freedom of choice you have, so you have to make it a compromise between being manageable, and also enough of a deterrent to force the issue.
If you simply banned polluting vehicles, what do you think would happen?
Also, since Ken is such a money-grabber, what do you think he does with appropriated funds that come from these schemes? Do you think he pockets the cash, or that the budget including income has to be spent within a fiscal year?
There is a charge, because it is the most simple and practical way to force change. You cannot make the charge nearly unpayable, as you are removing what little freedom of choice you have, so you have to make it a compromise between being manageable, and also enough of a deterrent to force the issue.
If you simply banned polluting vehicles, what do you think would happen?
Also, since Ken is such a money-grabber, what do you think he does with appropriated funds that come from these schemes? Do you think he pockets the cash, or that the budget including income has to be spent within a fiscal year?
04-02-2008, 04:13 PM
#40
I don't think he pockets the cash no At least not all of it - I wonder how many payrises ol Ken has had thanks to these schemes? And do I think it gets spent within the fiscal year? I would say most of it does yes, and of what does get spent, I'd bet my house on it not being ploughed 100% back into sorting the problem! Sure some of it will go into it, but see my comment on the revenue being used to make sure London buses meet the new "strict" requirements - cos you can bet your ass half of them don't, and you can bet mine that revenue from this scheme won't pay for them to be made to meet them.
At least not all of it - I wonder how many payrises ol Ken has had thanks to these schemes? And do I think it gets spent within the fiscal year? I would say most of it does yes, and of what does get spent, I'd bet my house on it not being ploughed 100% back into sorting the problem! Sure some of it will go into it, but see my comment on the revenue being used to make sure London buses meet the new "strict" requirements - cos you can bet your ass half of them don't, and you can bet mine that revenue from this scheme won't pay for them to be made to meet them.