www.pistonheads.com/news/article.asp?storyId=6737
You may not fancy driving into London any more now that you\'ll be charged for the privilege. If your car was built before 1992 then you may not be allowed to in future.
|
in that case most London buses should be off the road as well.
madf
|
True. The good old Routemaster celebrates it's 50th birthday next year (admittedly, most left running are not that old) but considering that the last one entered service in 1968, it is almost unbelievable that they are still running.
However, they will be phased out from this autumn although I can't recall why. I should point out, though, that most of them have been given newer, more efficient engines over the years.
But, madf, some of the buses on London's (and indeed Britain's) roads are an absolute disgrace. And that includes some of the delightful machines that I drive on a daily basis. I once was driving an 'M' reg Volvo single decker that, for some reason best known to itself, dropped most of it's air pressure. I pulled into a layby to rev the scallops off it to build the pressure back up and someone actually stopped to make sure I was ok as they genuinely thought that the bus was on fire it was kicking out so much black smoke! It really is embarrassing sometimes!
|
So no more London to Brighton runs ?
What about the Queen's stable of old Rolls-Royces and Daimlers?
No more old-style taxis?
|
A 'low emission zone' sounds reasonable but I guess it depends on the extent to which it applies. I suspect it may another reason to get rid of the Renault though... No doubt there'll be exceptions for a. the government b. buses and c. taxis (maybe even minicabs) as there are for the congestion charge. This would pretty much defeat the object
Rob, unless you know different, I don't think the Routemaster is going to be phased out. In fact, I think they recently decided to keep them going for another five years and then review the situation. I live at the outer end of the 14 bus route and lately there seem to be a lot fewer Routemasters on it, but this may be because they have been moved to other routes or because they've bought brand new buses and so the RMLs
I much prefer them to the driver only buses, not particularly because it's quicker to get on, but because you can get off at junctions (not necessarily safe, but people seem to manage) and when the bus is stuck in traffic.
|
David
The Routemasters are on the way out. The Disability Discrimination Act (2004) states that all public transport MUST be fully accesible by wheelchair users. Therefore, unfortunately*, Mr Livingstone (I presume) has stated that all RMs will be phased out, starting this autumn.
This is rather ironic, as TfL has spent hundreds of thousands recently re-commissioning RMs that have previously been in museums, preservation or private collections. Typical, eh?
Anyway, to return to the thread subject. Like thebouncingbunny, I fail to see how they can ever stop a legally taxed, insured and MoT'd car from driving anywhere. Although some countries do have an "odd/even reg no" system, don't they? Either way, it will be a massive vote loser and most people who drive pre-1992 cars simply cannot afford anything newer. Or is this a further step towards pricing the plebs off the road?
*but not unfortunate for the wheelchair users, of course
|
My car is pre-1992 and I could buy something with a cat on it for a few hundred quid now, certainly less than I have paid in maintenance on my current car. By the time this scheme comes in the prices and numbers of pre '92 cars will be even lower - so I don't think there's an issue of social exclusion. £500 will get you any number of Rover 200s, ZXs, Cavaliers and so on that would be okay to drive - and when you consider that against the cost of insurance, petrol and so on, that's not the big issue.
I do think it is about posturing though; within a few years of the scheme's introduction, virtually the only cars on the road from before that date will be low mileage ones driven by old people to the shops, or well preserved classics. A more cynical person could see it as a prelude to introducing legislation that systematically forces old cars off the road - which may in the future mean anything with an internal combustion engine or that doesn't drive itself.
As for the legality point; you might be able to argue that proportionality is a ground for judicial review but otherwise, tough. Parliament could certainly legislate for it even if Ken or a minister couldn't. In any case, there are already precedents along the lines of weight and width limits even when the road is physically passable.
One final point - ten years ago my father drove a 1991 Audi 80 with a catalytic convertor. He replaced it with a 1992 (K reg) Rover 214 that was one of the last built without one. I'm sure the Audi would cause much less HC and SO2 pollution, etc., than the Rover.
|
|
|
|
|
When do we get to vote this idiot out? I'd rather have Steven Norris TBH.
|
|
i pay my car tax,my car passed mot gas test,surely this couldnt be legal?
|
|
|
|
As the article says: "The great irony here is that cars are banned from Oxford Street and yet it is clogged daily by buses and taxis - often some of the most gross polluting vehicles."
So what are they after, the cars or the pollution?
|
It's your mind they want. Emigrate or in 20 years they'll have the lot.
|
The Philippine jeepney. Loosely based on the old GP's the US forces left behind, now with ancient Isuzu diesels, all hand-built, capable of carrying 20 passengers (although 40 is not unknown), frequently no lights, well-loved by dexterous pickpockets, average ride cost about 2p, totally oblivious to all other road users (6 stopping abreast to pick up/unload not uncommon), will race in groups to get the next set of passengers, up to 30% driven by unlicensed drivers and unregistered (cops do well out of "taxing" these).
Note bald spare, this is a badge of honor signifying driver of skil and many years of experience (anyway if had any tread it would get nicked).
Pollution? We invented the stuff, all others are cheap imitations :-)
www.phil-star.com.ph/images/ad-versace.jpg
|
I was way ahead of the game here. Put a self imposed ban on going to London 15 years ago so no stress that they don't want our well maintained "classic" cars.
Not quite sure what London is for anyway.
MM
|
|
This new polution stuff? What was that stuff around in the 1950's then? Wasnt that far worse? Methinks people are inventing problems to promote a favoured "cure"
|
oh, arr Oi remember the great Smog of '52 where people were going down like ninepins. Couldn't even see the 114 bus to get on it till it was an arm's length away. Brought new meaning to the phrase "there'll be another one along in a minute". Never did us kids any 'arm. We've just been through a war, what's a bit of smog, then? Don't make such a fuss and eat your greens as my Mum would have said.
Greenies=political agendas. Any old vehicle (excuse the pun) will do to advance the power base, pollution's as good as any ..
....must have been a blow though to find out that all those Californian (CaliFORNian of all people!) non-smoking docs say the other day that passive smoking doesn't kill after all....the old spin machine will have to give that one a whirl this week in case people start believing it.
|
|
|
RF
Exactly. Pollution is not a new 'problem'. It's very much an old problem getting better. Even the Government's own statistics conclude this. Have you seen the paintings of 18th century industrial areas? Huge numbers of low chimneys emitting smoke from poorly combusted coal. More recently, the big bonus was the 1956 Clean Air Act, creating smokeless zones where coal could not be used. This legislation was driven by the 1950's smogs. (Yes, like Growler, I can remember them!). These smogs were caused by a combination of mist collecting on particulates from coal fires. Plenty of sulphur in there too, so it was acidic as well. This coal fire smoke was released at low level, so air quality was awful. The adoption of gas for most domestic uses has further improved the situation.
Yes, cars emit NOx but the air quality, especially in towns, is unimaginally better now than even in the 1950's. Attempting to ban the small proportion of pre-cat cars from London would make absolutely no measureable difference to roadside air quality.
Regards
John S
|
|
|
|
|
|
