 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Land Rover Cars / January 2008More bad news for older cars
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7166770.stm I am not for a moment saying that German cities are the natural environment for landies, but who knows with the spread of these zones all over the place I might find myself needing to drive through one, one of these days. I guess it is mainly diesels they are gunning for, but I wonder what chance an old petrol engined series has of meeting there requirments. I guess the answer if that ever comes to a town near me would have to be an LPG conversion.  SignatureLarry Series 3 Rust and Holes In message <flg2ot$nkt$1@aioe.org>, Larry <oz@ym.andius> writes >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7166770.stm > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I guess the answer if that ever comes to a town near me would have to be an >LPG conversion. Not really. because an LPG conversion doesn't reduce CO2 emissions. What it does do is give a significantly cleaner emission because of virtually zero CO emission and no nitrous oxide, no sulphur content and reduced unburnt hydrocarbons. Signaturehugh Reply to address is valid at the time of posting I had the impression it was particulates and unburnt hydrocarbons they were concerned with not CO2 SignatureLarry Series 3 Rust and Holes > In message <flg2ot$nkt$1@aioe.org>, Larry <oz@ym.andius> writes >> > Not really. because an LPG conversion doesn't reduce CO2 emissions. What > it does do is give a significantly cleaner emission because of virtually > zero CO emission and no nitrous oxide, no sulphur content and reduced > unburnt hydrocarbons. > I had the impression it was particulates and unburnt hydrocarbons they were > concerned with not CO2 [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > - Show quoted text - There was a bit in Practical Classics that stated that following lobbying, cars over 30 years old are exempt. So, with an old Landy you'll be ok! Cheers Peter > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7166770.stm > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I guess the answer if that ever comes to a town near me would have to be > an LPG conversion. Seems to be Diesel vehicles they are gunning for this time, the particulates are a nasty pollutant that have been mostly overlooked. Some believe they have a significant role in the rise in Asthma cases. Petrol engines also produce particulates but not so much and of a different, less harmful, size. But, why does every Government refuse to do anything about Aeroplanes, especially short haul flights which cause so much pollution and high up in the atmosphere where it really hurts. Rail and even car travel is significantly better, pollution wise. SignatureRegards Bob Hobden > especially short haul flights which cause so much pollution and high up in > the atmosphere where it really hurts. I wondered why the pollution hurts higher up, and saw an article a little while ago that mentioned it's because the air up where the planes fly tends to stay there, so the pollution from planes stays up in a narrow band trapped by the layering effect of the atmosphere, so it's confined to a much smaller body of air. I think what we need is a whopping great big ceiling fan! Someone also said a while ago that planes produce less pollutant per passenger mile than cars, which is true to an extent, but when you hop on a plane you can often do more miles in one short trip than you do in a car for a whole year, so there's a concern about the miles travelled and the resulting damage rather than planes being dirtier. Plus of course the pollution stays up in the narrow stratosphere. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > Seems to be Diesel vehicles they are gunning for this time, the particulates > are a nasty pollutant that have been mostly overlooked. Some believe they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the atmosphere where it really hurts. Rail and even car travel is > significantly better, pollution wise. Except that if all those people that were going to travel by air now have to use the roads (because our so-called public transport system is useless) then we have even bigger traffic jams and increased pollution. You don't get traffic jams at 30,000 feet :-) Road and rail pollution is only better if traffic/trains can move freely. Once vehicles become part of a jam then the balance moves the other way. SignatureRegards Steve G > Except that if all those people that were going to travel by air now > have to use the roads (because our so-called public transport system is > useless) then we have even bigger traffic jams and increased pollution. > You don't get traffic jams at 30,000 feet :-) Only in the airports. The last two times I've flown to Aberdeen I could have done the journey far faster by car, due to delays in taking off. And the reason I didn't drive was to get there quicker for a short visit. The drive takes most of the day. Signature*60-year-old, one owner - needs parts, make offer Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >Except that if all those people that were going to travel by air now >have to use the roads Unless, of course, they decide not to travel so much. It's not written in stone that you have to fly half-way round the world to go on holiday. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! >>Except that if all those people that were going to travel by air now >>have to use the roads [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >It's not written in stone that you have to fly half-way round the world to >go on holiday. Er, you're not going to recommend Wales are you? Signaturehugh Reply to address is valid at the time of posting I can see them putting a toll on certain popular roads in Snowdonia. What would happen to the economy if some overzealous county in Wales decided to impose these pollution standards on rural vehicles? And there are some folks that are mad enough to do it. Hey Red Ken when your palace burns down don't complain when no fire engine comes to put it out cos you have banned them. SignatureLarry Series 3 Rust and Holes >>On or around Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:39:41 GMT, SteveG <_@_._> enlightened us > Er, you're not going to recommend Wales are you? > Hey Red Ken when your palace burns down don't complain when no fire engine > comes to put it out cos you have banned them. Not true, from my experience of sitting in jams behind buses etc, public service vehicles are exempt from all forms of pollution control. Cough, cough... SignatureRegards Bob Hobden > Not true, from my experience of sitting in jams behind buses etc, public > service vehicles are exempt from all forms of pollution control. > Cough, cough... Not in Ken's LEZ, everything, ambulances, fire engines, busses, they're even named explicity on the website as being hit by the charge. If the claims of particle pollutants are true then it's probably a good scheme (and not really Ken's idea, there are EU regulations coming into force that set maximum limits on particle pollutants in the atmosphere and London is way above the limits) but marred by the over-zealous fines and procedures. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > Not in Ken's LEZ, everything, ambulances, fire engines, busses, > they're even named explicity on the website as being hit by the > charge. Tell me about it. St John Ambulance have to set up a project to put 'green' engins in all it's vehicles. Just what a volunteer organisation needs! > Tell me about it. St John Ambulance have to set up a project to put > 'green' engins in all it's vehicles. Just what a volunteer organisation > needs! Sure but the reason for the LEZ and the EU regulations that sparked it was because of the heightened risk of lung cancer amongst the population in areas of high pollution, that needs addressing if the risks are real so it's right that all the polluters are hit by it, if they just hit the public as they usually do then it'd be a stinker. After the initial pain it won't be an issue. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > Er, you're not going to recommend Wales are you? Why not? It's a lovely place for a holiday. >>>Except that if all those people that were going to travel by air now >>>have to use the roads [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >Er, you're not going to recommend Wales are you? nothing wrong with Wales. Mind, we don't want all the riff-raff coming here. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! >> Except that if all those people that were going to travel by air now >> have to use the roads [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's not written in stone that you have to fly half-way round the world to > go on holiday. From where I sit it sodding well is - the close options here are pretty limited. >> Except that if all those people that were going to travel by air now >> have to use the roads > > Unless, of course, they decide not to travel so much. But that's a different argument altogether. > It's not written in stone that you have to fly half-way round the world to > go on holiday. In the post I replied to we were specifically discussing short-haul flights within the UK/Europe SignatureRegards Steve G > I guess it is mainly diesels they are gunning for, but I wonder what chance > an old petrol engined series has of meeting there requirments. It appears to be the same as Red Ken's LEZ in London, however being a Ken thing, the fines for straying into the zone even for a few seconds for any reason whatsoever are over £100 per day with no meaningful appeal process. Ken's charge is only aimed at diesels as it's those that produce the harmful particulate pollution. I read many years ago that children living near bus stations are growing up with up to 30 times the rate of lung cancer expected in non-smokers so if that's true perhaps there is a problem that needs tackling. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >> I guess it is mainly diesels they are gunning for, but I wonder what >> chance [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > times the rate of lung cancer expected in non-smokers so if that's > true perhaps there is a problem that needs tackling. The trouble is 85% of statistics are used to make a point despite having be discredited by rational means . Take for example genetically modified organisms the reception they recieve is close to the witch burning sessions. I will make a statement that is impossible to disprove pollution is a vehicle seized upon by politicians in order to impose taxes with the least opposition. They have no real interest in clean air just the money in your pocket remember the London tax is a congestion charge in which case my ares smells of roses. By all means let politicians vote for measures but lets have the names of the buggers that do so we can show real representation of the people is about Derek make Your politician work- sack the bugger > They have no real interest in clean air just the money in your > pocket remember the London tax is a congestion charge in which case > my ares smells of roses. Cynicism aside, the LEZ and the congestion charge are two separate things, although they look the same. I'm just checking that you are aware that there's something *new* being introduced! The congestion charge is on every vehicle (more or less), while the LEZ is only on diesels that have worse than a set level of particulate emissions. 300TDi landies will be hit with the new charge in 2009 if they want to go into the LEZ. Basically it boils down to a simple rule; don't go anywhere near London unless someone's paying you shitloads to do so! I think anyone sensible already follows that rule ;-) I just hope other cities aren't too keen to follow suit, they haven't done so with congestion charges yet. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >> They have no real interest in clean air just the money in your >> pocket remember the London tax is a congestion charge in which case [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > other cities aren't too keen to follow suit, they haven't done so with > congestion charges yet. Have you been to the LEZ web site and used their calculator thingy? I plugged the details of my 300Tdi Discovery in and got a response that it is outside of the charge because it is a car. The LEZ charges are basically for commercial vehicles (plus some others). SignatureRegards Steve G >>> They have no real interest in clean air just the money in your >>> pocket remember the London tax is a congestion charge in which case [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > is outside of the charge because it is a car. The LEZ charges are > basically for commercial vehicles (plus some others). I put mine in, 300tdi 9 seat station wagon, (car tax paid when new) and was told I have to pay after 2010. Seems they make it up as they go along. > I put mine in, 300tdi 9 seat station wagon, (car tax paid when new) and > was told I have to pay after 2010. Seems they make it up as they go along. That's because it falls into the definition of a mini-bus. You need to get a certificate from VOSA (I think) to say it's not a mini-bus. SignatureRegards Steve G > Have you been to the LEZ web site and used their calculator thingy? Not sure about the calculator, but I went to the LEZ website where it asks for your registration number and then tells you how deep the world of pain will be depending on the information they hold in the DVLA database (whoever has it these days, just about everyone I think). My 110 was a hard-top registered as a commercial originally, not sure if that makes a difference. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >> They have no real interest in clean air just the money in your >> pocket remember the London tax is a congestion charge in which case [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > other cities aren't too keen to follow suit, they haven't done so with > congestion charges yet. To quote from the LEZ web site - www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/lez : The Low Emission Zone (LEZ) will affect older, diesel-engined lorries, buses, coaches, minibuses and large vans (exceeding 1.205 tonnes unladen weight). It will also affect other specialist vehicles that are derived from lorries and vans, including motorised horse boxes, breakdown and recovery vehicles, refuse collection vehicles, gritters, sweepers, concrete mixers, tippers, removals lorries, fire appliances, motor caravans, ambulances and large hearses (over 2.5 tonnes). No mention of Land Rovers although some 109 and 110 vehicles may get caught in the "large vans" category. SignatureRegards Steve G >>> They have no real interest in clean air just the money in your >>> pocket remember the London tax is a congestion charge in which case [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > No mention of Land Rovers although some 109 and 110 vehicles may get > caught in the "large vans" category. LEZ? Landrover Exclusion Zone? SignatureWisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could remember the darn question > > To quote from the LEZ web site - www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/lez : > LEZ? Landrover Exclusion Zone? I've just done a search for my 1997 Discovery at http://lezlondon.tfl.gov.uk/lez/vehicles/default.aspx and it came up "Vehicle not found", so not sure if it's compliant or not.... SignatureUsenet replies: To contact me, visit http://www.vigay.com/feedback/ Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - http://www.vigay.com/ Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/ Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/ > I've just done a search for my 1997 Discovery at > http://lezlondon.tfl.gov.uk/lez/vehicles/default.aspx and it came up > "Vehicle not found", so not sure if it's compliant or not.... Hmm, sounds like your registration plate isn't valid, did you nick your truck? ;-) Also, the manufacture is "Land Rover", not "Tata".. Mind you, my pinz manufacturer is down as "Pinzgauer" and not "Steyr-Daimler-Puch". There's a lot of odd makes in there, Yanmar? I thought they made generators? And I wouldn't mind going into an MOT place with a car made by "White Knuckle".. Owning an "Umm" might make you seem indecisive though. I'll bet Chris Eubanks would like to own a "Thumpstar". And what kind of car is a "She Lung"? Takes your breath away. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >> I've just done a search for my 1997 Discovery at >> http://lezlondon.tfl.gov.uk/lez/vehicles/default.aspx and it came up >> "Vehicle not found", so not sure if it's compliant or not.... There's no mention of cars on the site, so they may think yours is a car. ;-) I did a search for mine, & it said "Not subject to LEZ - Based on the information you have entered and information held by Transport for London (TfL), the Low Emission Zone (LEZ) does not apply to this vehicle. As long as the vehicle remains not subject to the LEZ the daily charge does not have to be paid for this vehicle when it is used in the Zone. Not a diesel vehicle" The compliance requirement only applies to *diesel* vehicles over 3.5 tonnes at the moment, & all Historic Vehicles (pre 1973) are exempt. Mine's a 1968 petrol long wheel base. After October 2010, Euro 3 is needed if it's a commercial vehicle over 1.205 tonnes gross weight. Again, this only applies to diesels. SignatureTciao for Now! John. > The compliance requirement only applies to *diesel* vehicles over 3.5 > tonnes at the moment, & all Historic Vehicles (pre 1973) are exempt. In 2010 the net tightens to include other diesels, including the 300TDi Defender. More modern cars, including my 1997 audi 1.9TDi are fine for the forseeable. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >> The compliance requirement only applies to *diesel* vehicles over 3.5 >> tonnes at the moment, & all Historic Vehicles (pre 1973) are exempt. > > In 2010 the net tightens to include other diesels, including the > 300TDi Defender. More modern cars, including my 1997 audi 1.9TDi are > fine for the forseeable. Which brings us back to the apparent fact that it's just a tax on doing business in London. It's already cost the coach company I work for money to get their older vehicles tested, & the test gets stricter as time goes on. A number of companies with older coaches round here are just refusing to take bookings to go to London after the charge comes in, as it's not cost effective to upgrade the vehicles for a couple of jobs a year. Just wait until Birmingham & the like get hold of the idea.... Cars and spark ignition engined vehicles are not going to be affected at all. SignatureTciao for Now! John. >Cars and spark ignition engined vehicles are not going to be affected at >all. 's obvious, you need a nice big petrol V8 in the coach, then you can set it up to run on LPG and Red Ken will pay you to bring it into London... SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! >> Cars and spark ignition engined vehicles are not going to be affected at >> all. > > 's obvious, you need a nice big petrol V8 in the coach, then you can set it > up to run on LPG and Red Ken will pay you to bring it into London... That sounds like a plan :-) D'you know if I can still get a Merlin? SignatureTciao for Now! John. >>Cars and spark ignition engined vehicles are not going to be affected at >>all. > >'s obvious, you need a nice big petrol V8 in the coach, then you can set it >up to run on LPG and Red Ken will pay you to bring it into London... That's lucky, my 110 will still be OK to go to brixton :-(, horrible place, horrible journey but at least I have a parking place when I get there. AJH > Hmm, sounds like your registration plate isn't valid, did you nick your > truck? ;-) Well, I've not been stopped yet.... :-) > Also, the manufacture is "Land Rover", not "Tata".. Bagh! I put in "Land Rover" :-P SignatureUsenet replies: To contact me, visit http://www.vigay.com/feedback/ Life, the Universe, RISC OS Help and Everything - http://www.vigay.com/ Share and discuss ideas or chat about the above - http://forum.vigay.com/ Quality Internet, Domain Registration & Hosting - www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/ >>> To quote from the LEZ web site - www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/lez : > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > http://lezlondon.tfl.gov.uk/lez/vehicles/default.aspx and it came up > "Vehicle not found", so not sure if it's compliant or not.... Interesting, what does the DVLA web site say about your car? Go to their home page and then click on "vehicle enquiry" SignatureRegards Steve G >> > To quote from the LEZ web site - www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/lez : > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >http://lezlondon.tfl.gov.uk/lez/vehicles/default.aspx and it came up >"Vehicle not found", so not sure if it's compliant or not.... My minibus is listed as "not subject to" until 04/10/2010 and then "non-compliant" wonder what happens if you re-engine with a compliant engine? SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! > wonder what happens if you re-engine with a compliant engine? You can get bits of paper that say so, just like I could with my Defender, clap some kind of cyclone filter on the exhaust for example. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! >>>> To quote from the LEZ web site - www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/lez : >>> LEZ? Landrover Exclusion Zone? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > wonder what happens if you re-engine with a compliant engine? You get the emission tests done (at your expense) & send the form off, with the processing fee, probably including postage for the stuff they don't keep to be returned to you. SignatureTciao for Now! John. Accompanied by the sound of a chisel on slate Larry,<oz@ym.andius> managed to produce the following words of wisdom > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7166770.stm > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I guess the answer if that ever comes to a town near me would have to > be an LPG conversion. I've just had a dig through the regulations as I was planning on taking my Range Rover to Berlin in May. Turns out I can't. Rules are as follows - if you've got a petrol without a 3 way catalyst then you're not going to Berlin, LPG or no LPG. Verboten! If you've got a catalyst, then you're fine, no worries, pay ?10 or thereabout and welkommen! Diseasel drivers need to be able to meet Euro 2 (or Euro 1 with a particulate filter). http://www.berlin-tourist-information.de/bilder/verkehr/flyer-umweltzone-en.pdf SignaturePete M - OMF#9 "Save your breath for cooling your porridge! W&P Range Rover V8 Turbo Scorpio Ultima 24v > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7166770.stm Not sure I trust the article at all, I can't reconcile: "The stickers - green, red or yellow - are mandatory not only for locals but also for foreign drivers, including tourists." With: "Officials say the majority of cars in the affected cities qualify for the stickers." If the stickers an mandatory why is there a need to "qualify"? Is the sticker for driver or the car? And what purpose do they serve? The three colours, is this so the greenies can target high polluters with their keys? There is a fine if you don't have one but no mention of any charge for entering the zone if you do. The small fee for the sticker is hardly a significant revenue raiser. SignatureCheers new5pam@howhill.com Dave. pam is missing e-mail Accompanied by the sound of a chisel on slate Dave Liquorice,<new5pam@howhill.com> managed to produce the following words of wisdom >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7166770.stm > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > zone if you do. The small fee for the sticker is hardly a significant > revenue raiser. Once you've got the sticker there's no problem. Without the sticker you can't enter the zone without paying a fine. Unlike Kens insanity in London, this isn't meant to be a revenue raiser, it's just a way of keeping the most polluting (according to them) cars out of certain areas. SignaturePete M - OMF#9 "Save your breath for cooling your porridge! W&P Range Rover V8 Turbo Scorpio Ultima 24v > Unlike Kens insanity in London, this isn't meant to be a revenue raiser, > it's just a way of keeping the most polluting (according to them) cars > out of certain areas. Most people I know who actually live in or near the CC area don't consider it 'Ken's insanity' - after all they voted him in twice with this being perhaps the most debated point between candidates. The insanity was the traffic levels in the central area. The CC much reduced those - although of course they have crept up since. Despite living close to the CC area, I have only paid it once. I simply have no reason to want to drive into this area during the times it operates - I use the excellent PT system instead, or skirt round it if travelling north by car. I do, however, work in the area fairly regularly, and what was very noticeable was how much earlier we got to our destination when it was started, travelling in our van with equipment from the suburbs. And for business, time means money. Far more than the small CC charge. Signature*Modulation in all things * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > Most people I know who actually live in or near the CC area don't > consider it 'Ken's insanity' - after all they voted him in twice with this > being perhaps the most debated point between candidates. Don't start banging on about your beloved congestion charge again, we're not talking about that, Ken's latest scheme is the LEZ which while quite possibly a good idea, is marred by his goose-stepping attitude meaning well over £100 per day fines for violating it, no meaningful appeals process and them making it as easy as possible to accidentally violate. A good idea coupled to an over-zealous penalty system with a real mean streak is what makes it a bad thing, other countries have similar schemes without Ken's brutality. I know you're a real Ken lover but the man is an example of what local government should not be. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > > Most people I know who actually live in or near the CC area don't > > consider it 'Ken's insanity' - after all they voted him in twice with > > this being perhaps the most debated point between candidates. > Don't start banging on about your beloved congestion charge again, > we're not talking about that, Pete was, if you care to read the post I replied to... > Ken's latest scheme is the LEZ which while quite possibly a good idea, > is marred by his goose-stepping attitude meaning well over £100 per day > fines for violating it, no meaningful appeals process and them making it > as easy as possible to accidentally violate. Only if you're thick. And if there was no certainty of a large fine it would be ignored - like using a phone on the move, etc. > A good idea coupled to an over-zealous penalty system with a real mean > streak is what makes it a bad thing, other countries have similar > schemes without Ken's brutality. I know you're a real Ken lover but > the man is an example of what local government should not be. So vote him out. Signature*I'm really easy to get along with once people learn to worship me Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. Can't I'm not a Londoner so much for who owns the roads. It's not so much democracy as feudalism. SignatureLarry Series 3 Rust and Holes > So vote him out. > Can't I'm not a Londoner so much for who owns the roads. > It's not so much democracy as feudalism. So you don't believe a local council should have any control over the roads in their area? Seems to me you'll have to move to a different country if you want this. Dunno where, though. Signature*Out of my mind. Back in five minutes. Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > Pete was, if you care to read the post I replied to... He wasn't, I did, and you didn't, in that order. > Only if you're thick. And if there was no certainty of a large fine it > would be ignored - like using a phone on the move, etc. Strange how other countries don't need fines that big eh... Ken loves big fines for motorists, he's a bigot. There's not many areas where such large fines are dished out so readily for no good reason, the fines levied by the Congestion Charge and the LEZ are examples of local governance gone too far. > So vote him out. I don't live in London, but London issues still affect me as I often work there, voting isn't the answer to every political issue. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > > Pete was, if you care to read the post I replied to... > He wasn't, I did, and you didn't, in that order. Nice to know you can read his thoughts. Until he says otherwise I'll take it he was referring to the CC. Unless he has other ideas about 'Kens insanity in London'. > > Only if you're thick. And if there was no certainty of a large fine it > > would be ignored - like using a phone on the move, etc. > Strange how other countries don't need fines that big eh... Ken loves > big fines for motorists, he's a bigot. There's not many areas where > such large fines are dished out so readily for no good reason, the > fines levied by the Congestion Charge and the LEZ are examples of > local governance gone too far. Fine. Then vote to have the law changed. If fines are tiny the 'offence' gets ignored. > > So vote him out. > I don't live in London, No surprise there. As I said most who *do* live here are in favour of the restrictions. Supported by the fact that Livingston has been voted in not once but twice. > but London issues still affect me as I often > work there, Then like a good chap you should abide with the laws of that place as any visitor should. If I visit Oxford I don't expect to drive through its centre as it's car free - despite the fact I can drive through the centre of my home 'town' - Wandsworth. > voting isn't the answer to every political issue. That's a usual answer from someone who can't get their own way. Signature*If you don't pay your exorcist you get repossessed.* Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > Nice to know you can read his thoughts. Until he says otherwise I'll take > it he was referring to the CC. Unless he has other ideas about 'Kens > insanity in London'. Well, you seem to have read his thoughts and decided he was talking about the congestion charge, despite there being the LEZ and the discussion being about an LEZ-type affair overseas and he did talk about it being a pollution charge, which the LEZ is and the congenstion charge isn't. So when it comes to mind reading, I think my effort is much better than yours. > Fine. Then vote to have the law changed. If fines are tiny the 'offence' > gets ignored. Not a London resident. > No surprise there. As I said most who *do* live here are in favour of the > restrictions. Supported by the fact that Livingston has been voted in not > once but twice. And the labour party have been voted in multiple times, due to the competition being crap and the "better the devil you know" factor. Just because he's voted in doesn't mean all his ideas are good. As for most people being in favour, I've never seen evidence of that. > Then like a good chap you should abide with the laws of that place as any > visitor should. If I visit Oxford I don't expect to drive through its > centre as it's car free - despite the fact I can drive through the centre > of my home 'town' - Wandsworth. I do abide by the laws but don't have to think the punishment is proportional. I almost violated the congestion charge rules recently because as it was only the second time I was going into the zone since it was introduced I phoned the helpline for advice and was told that I wouldn't have to pay as I was going into the zone on a Sunday and leaving on Thursday. The operator was wrong, I have to pay if leaving the zone too. I only found this out because when I was leaving I was skirting the zone around Victoria station, avoiding the "C" zone signs but ended up on a main route outside the zone that briefly took me into it so phoned them up and told them what had happened. I mentioned that I almost didn't have to pay because I came in on the Sunday and was told that I wouldn't have to pay coming out, this other operator said that was wrong and they'd try and track down who sold me the bum information. If I hadn't accidentally strayed into the zone I'd have been hit by a penalty with no option to appeal despite being mis-informed by Ken's own staff. >> voting isn't the answer to every political issue. > > That's a usual answer from someone who can't get their own way. You just don't get it do you? I can't try and vote ken out if I don't live in London. Also the LEZ and congestion charge aren't my main issue, it's the over-heavy penalty and the laughable appeals process. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > > Nice to know you can read his thoughts. Until he says otherwise I'll > > take it he was referring to the CC. Unless he has other ideas about > > 'Kens insanity in London'. > Well, you seem to have read his thoughts and decided he was talking > about the congestion charge, despite there being the LEZ and the > discussion being about an LEZ-type affair overseas and he did talk about > it being a pollution charge, which the LEZ is and the congenstion charge > isn't. So when it comes to mind reading, I think my effort is much > better than yours. Sigh. Here is the quote since you seem to have trouble remembering it:- 'Once you've got the sticker there's no problem. Without the sticker you can't enter the zone without paying a fine. Unlike Kens insanity in London, this isn't meant to be a revenue raiser, it's just a way of keeping the most polluting (according to them) cars out of certain areas'. Now just which parts of 'once', 'unlike' and 'isn't meant to be' do you have trouble understanding? > > Fine. Then vote to have the law changed. If fines are tiny the > > 'offence' gets ignored. > Not a London resident. > > No surprise there. As I said most who *do* live here are in favour of > > the restrictions. Supported by the fact that Livingston has been voted > > in not once but twice. > And the labour party have been voted in multiple times, due to the > competition being crap and the "better the devil you know" factor. Just > because he's voted in doesn't mean all his ideas are good. As for most > people being in favour, I've never seen evidence of that. But as you said you don't live in London. Nor does the fact you think it a bad idea make it one - anymore than my thinking the opposite. > > Then like a good chap you should abide with the laws of that place as > > any visitor should. If I visit Oxford I don't expect to drive through > > its centre as it's car free - despite the fact I can drive through the > > centre of my home 'town' - Wandsworth. > I do abide by the laws but don't have to think the punishment is > proportional. I almost violated the congestion charge rules recently [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > leaving on Thursday. The operator was wrong, I have to pay if leaving > the zone too. Not if you left before or after it was in operation. > I only found this out because when I was leaving I was > skirting the zone around Victoria station, avoiding the "C" zone signs > but ended up on a main route outside the zone that briefly took me into > it so phoned them up and told them what had happened. There are no 'main routes' that take you briefly into it then out again. > I mentioned that I almost didn't have to pay because I came in on the > Sunday and was told that I wouldn't have to pay coming out, this other [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > penalty with no option to appeal despite being mis-informed by Ken's own > staff. So you say. But since you appear to have problems understanding written English perhaps the sane applies with verbal communication. > >> voting isn't the answer to every political issue. > > > > That's a usual answer from someone who can't get their own way. > You just don't get it do you? I can't try and vote ken out if I don't > live in London. Also the LEZ and congestion charge aren't my main > issue, it's the over-heavy penalty and the laughable appeals process. Quite simple, then. Don't risk the penalty. Stay well away from London with your vehicle. Signature*If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > Now just which parts of 'once', 'unlike' and 'isn't meant to be' do you > have trouble understanding? I'd say that supports me more than you, but given your inability to read before flapping your gums I think we won't bother arguing that point any more. I see from the rest of your post that similar applies, but I'll soldier on.. > But as you said you don't live in London. So? > Not if you left before or after it was in operation. You might want to phone up the operator who told me I was fine.. The point, which you dodge as usual, is that it's too easy to violate even if you phone them to ask for advice, and the appeals process is laughable. The new LEZ (which I'll remind you is what this thread is about until you hijacked it with your hobby horse) is even worse, hundreds of pounds a day. > There are no 'main routes' that take you briefly into it then out again. I can't remember where I came out from but ended up on the route that eventually takes me past Harrods IIRC, and got stuck in a lane that took me into the zone. When you're very close to the zone, it can be hard keeping out of it when you're new to the area and the dreadful traffic which the zone "solved" gets in the way. > So you say. But since you appear to have problems understanding written > English perhaps the sane applies with verbal communication. Har har, that's funny coming from you! > Quite simple, then. Don't risk the penalty. Stay well away from London > with your vehicle. I do, that's why I've only been into the zone twice since it was introduced. As usual you have to have things pointed out to you in great detail, being a clot. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! Accompanied by the sound of a chisel on slate Dave Plowman (News),<dave@davenoise.co.uk> managed to produce the following words of wisdom <snip stuff about my thoughts> > Sigh. Here is the quote since you seem to have trouble remembering > it:- [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Now just which parts of 'once', 'unlike' and 'isn't meant to be' do > you have trouble understanding? Just to settle this, I was talking solely about the emissions zone that Ken is planning on. Not mention of the Congestion Charge - although I think that's a bad idea as well. I've just had enough of crackpot MPs managing to get any anti-vehicle legislation they like through parliament, but motorists having no way to get their voices heard other than the ABD and Safe-Speed. Safe Speed come across as a one man vigilante outfit, and the ABD never seem to do anything other than release half-arsed press statements. Londons motorists seem to be utterly brainwashed when it comes to any charges that their beloved council can come up with. I don't know anywhere else on the planet who'd vote for a charge of £8 a day just to drive a car and then think that a couple of hundred quid a day for driving an older vehicle seems reasonable.. It's all just more motoring TAX, people. Don't just lie down and take it, you pay enough tax to drive as it is. Don't encourage them!! SignaturePete M - OMF#9 "Save your breath for cooling your porridge! W&P Range Rover V8 Turbo Scorpio Ultima 24v > > 'Once you've got the sticker there's no problem. Without the sticker > > you can't enter the zone without paying a fine. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Now just which parts of 'once', 'unlike' and 'isn't meant to be' do > > you have trouble understanding? > Just to settle this, I was talking solely about the emissions zone that > Ken is planning on. Not mention of the Congestion Charge - although I > think that's a bad idea as well. Ok. So what did you actually mean by 'unlike Ken's insanity in London, this (the LEZ presumably) isn't meant to be a revenue raiser...? After all he his best known - by several miles - for the CC. Signature*I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > Ok. So what did you actually mean by 'unlike Ken's insanity in London, > this (the LEZ presumably) isn't meant to be a revenue raiser...? He meant the LEZ, which he's already told you, as did I. Are you so adamant that you're right that you're even going to argue with Pete about what Pete meant? > After all he his best known - by several miles - for the CC. And the LEZ. It's only you who can only think about the congenstion charge. Do you lick the signs on your way to work? SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > > Ok. So what did you actually mean by 'unlike Ken's insanity in London, > > this (the LEZ presumably) isn't meant to be a revenue raiser...? > He meant the LEZ, which he's already told you, as did I. Are you so > adamant that you're right that you're even going to argue with Pete > about what Pete meant? Thank gawd you've got nothing to do with legal documents - they'd be an even bigger mess than usual. > > After all he his best known - by several miles - for the CC. > And the LEZ. It's only you who can only think about the congenstion > charge. Do you lick the signs on your way to work? Seems it's you who should try that since you drive past them without noticing. Perhaps you should try driving with both hands. Signature*What do little birdies see when they get knocked unconscious? * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > Thank gawd you've got nothing to do with legal documents - they'd be > an even bigger mess than usual. Hmm, who is it who keeps on reading too much in to too little and too little into too much? > Seems it's you who should try that since you drive past them without > noticing. Perhaps you should try driving with both hands. I think you should try not to obsess about the congestion charge all the time, there's a whole world out there Dave, go for it! Try straying outside the M25, lots of people have done so and lived. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > Londons motorists seem to be utterly brainwashed when it comes to any > charges that their beloved council can come up with. I don't know > anywhere else on the planet who'd vote for a charge of £8 a day just to > drive a car and then think that a couple of hundred quid a day for > driving an older vehicle seems reasonable.. Oh dear. You as well don't seem to have got the idea of the CC. It is to reduce the number of vehicles being used in the CC area. And what other way could that be achieved other than by charging? And as I said before I don't pay the CC - I use PT to go to that part of London if I need to. Signature*Two wrongs are only the beginning * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. Accompanied by the sound of a chisel on slate Dave Plowman (News),<dave@davenoise.co.uk> managed to produce the following words of wisdom >> Londons motorists seem to be utterly brainwashed when it comes to any >> charges that their beloved council can come up with. I don't know [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > said before I don't pay the CC - I use PT to go to that part of > London if I need to. I've got the CC idea 100%, I know how it's meant to work, and how to use public transport. I also understand fully how the emissions zones work, in the UK they'll tax you off the road, in Europe they'll actually improve their public transport and make it appealing to use - instead of forcing you to use it and not giving you another choice. I use public transport when I'm in the Czech Republic, it's brilliant, quick, cheap, clean, warm, reliable and gets me where I need to go in a reasonable timescale. I have cars out there I can use but I only use them when public transport can't do the job, or when I'm carrying something that is too bulky or heavy to carry on public transport. The UK doesn't have the infrastructure to do the same with the public transport system, we have probably the most heavily taxed motorists in the world, but virtually none of the money goes where it's supposed to go. The motorway network is a badly maintained disaster, public transport in most places is an utter joke, the trains are vastly overpriced and unreliable and more often than not the car is the only way to get from A-B within a sensible timescale. London is possibly the only exception as it's had a pretty good public transport system for the last 100 years or so. Bugger all to do with Mad Ken and his ideas. Where I live in Liverpool public transport is simply not an option for most journeys. If I'm going to the studio it takes 15 mins by car, 25 mins by pushbike or over an hour by bus. If I'm going to work it takes 15-20 mins by car or a staggering 1.5 hours by public transport - the pushbike option is ruled out by the need to cross the River. All local rail services to me were removed in the early 60s, they're lovely "scenic walkways" now. SignaturePete M - OMF#9 "Save your breath for cooling your porridge! W&P Range Rover V8 Turbo Scorpio Ultima 24v > > Oh dear. You as well don't seem to have got the idea of the CC. It is > > to reduce the number of vehicles being used in the CC area. And what > > other way could that be achieved other than by charging? And as I > > said before I don't pay the CC - I use PT to go to that part of > > London if I need to. > I've got the CC idea 100%, I know how it's meant to work, and how to use > public transport. > I also understand fully how the emissions zones work, in the UK they'll > tax you off the road, in Europe they'll actually improve their public > transport and make it appealing to use - instead of forcing you to use > it and not giving you another choice. > I use public transport when I'm in the Czech Republic, it's brilliant, > quick, cheap, clean, warm, reliable and gets me where I need to go in a > reasonable timescale. I have cars out there I can use but I only use > them when public transport can't do the job, or when I'm carrying > something that is too bulky or heavy to carry on public transport. [snip] The PT system in London - and that's what we're discussing since no other UK city has a congestion charge - is brilliant. SignatureDave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. Accompanied by the sound of a chisel on slate Dave Plowman (News),<dave@davenoise.co.uk> managed to produce the following words of wisdom >>> Oh dear. You as well don't seem to have got the idea of the CC. It >>> is to reduce the number of vehicles being used in the CC area. And [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > The PT system in London - and that's what we're discussing since no > other UK city has a congestion charge - is brilliant. I agree entirely, but the PT system in London was brilliant /before/ the congestion charge and knowing this gubbermint not very much at all of the £8 a day will have gone into improving it. However, because Ken and his cronies have managed to get the CC to work in London, there are now crackpot schemes to follow his example in places where it just won't work. Manchester for example. SignaturePete M - OMF#9 "Save your breath for cooling your porridge! W&P Range Rover V8 Turbo Scorpio Ultima 24v Accompanied by the sound of a chisel on slate Pete M,<pete.murray@blueSPAMFREEyonder.co.uk> managed to produce the following words of wisdom > Accompanied by the sound of a chisel on slate Dave Plowman > (News),<dave@davenoise.co.uk> managed to produce the following words [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > work in London, there are now crackpot schemes to follow his example > in places where it just won't work. Manchester for example. Note: When I say "to work" I mean "past the noses of the people who believe the hype". Liverpool this year is Capital of Culture [1]. Until 2-3 years ago it was possible to drive from one end of the city to the other without getting stuck in traffic for more than a few minutes, even the city centre was pretty much congestion free. Since managing to be voted CofC Liverpool Council have implemented a "Road improvement" scheme over most of the City (Liverpool has 3 councils, Liverpool itself, Sefton and Knowsley). It is now impossible to get from one side of the City Centre to the other without being snarled up in traffic - because of the "improvements" the Council have given us "in preparation for 2008". Roads that were bus / taxi only have been pedestrianised unnecessarily, roads that flowed beautifully with no problems have been made into bus / taxi lanes going in one direction and half the city centre traffic now has to divert all over the place through many many traffic lights and around what were semi-busy but well flowing roads but are now heavily congested. They've built a bus depot 1/4 of a mile from where it used to be and blocked off two main roads to put it there even though there was nothing wrong with the depot where it was. So basically, a city centre that had virtually no traffic problems is now heavily congested because they've put bus lanes where traffic used to flow and blocked off the alternative routes to build a bus depot that wasn't needed. They're knocking down the busy City Centre industrial areas to build "An Arts Quarter" and replacing the industrial units with "Luxury flats". The businesses in that area are all being relocated miles from the city centre - exactly where they're not needed. To rub salt in the wounds they've put either double yellow lines down almost every street and parking meters on the others. The "improvements" have meant the end of two multi-storey car parks because you can no longer get to them, and the buses are still mainly empty. People are going to the retail parks instead of to the city centre, so the council have put miles and miles of cones and obstructions near to the main retail parks. If anyone in the council had used common sense, they'd have kept the traffic flowing happily without closing half the main roads, but that would have made the introduction of the CC more difficult in years to come so they've deliberately f.cked everything up and caused congestion and increased emissions in the whole city centre... I wonder what will come next. SignaturePete M - OMF#9 "Save your breath for cooling your porridge! W&P Range Rover V8 Turbo Scorpio Ultima 24v Accompanied by the sound of a chisel on slate Pete M,<pete.murray@blueSPAMFREEyonder.co.uk> managed to produce the following words of wisdom > Accompanied by the sound of a chisel on slate Pete > M,<pete.murray@blueSPAMFREEyonder.co.uk> managed to produce the [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > congestion and increased emissions in the whole city centre... I > wonder what will come next. Bollocks, I forgot the footnote. [1] It's a Joke. I know, and I'm a Scouser. SignaturePete M - OMF#9 "Save your breath for cooling your porridge! W&P Range Rover V8 Turbo Scorpio Ultima 24v > > The PT system in London - and that's what we're discussing since no > > other UK city has a congestion charge - is brilliant. > I agree entirely, but the PT system in London was brilliant /before/ the > congestion charge and knowing this gubbermint not very much at all of > the £8 a day will have gone into improving it. It's true the CC admin costs are high. The 'gubbermint' have no access to those funds. Almost all the buses, trains and tubes are recent and in good condition - a very different matter from a few years ago when they were appalling. > However, because Ken and his cronies have managed to get the CC to work > in London, there are now crackpot schemes to follow his example in > places where it just won't work. Manchester for example. Then the voters in that city can stop it happening - or reverse it at the next election. As happened in Edinburgh. Signature*Eat well, stay fit, die anyway Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > The PT system in London - and that's what we're discussing since no other > UK city has a congestion charge - is brilliant. It's barely acceptable, and it had better be because despite the beloved congestion charge, the roads are shite. Last time I spent a week working in London I was amazed that people would stand the underground's overcrowding. It's not "brilliant", it's noisy, overcrowded, hot, smelly and unreliable. You're used to it because your overcrowded roads are worse so your standards of acceptability are lowered. I looked at using busses instead but from Victoria to Threadneedle street the journey time went up from a claimed 25 minutes to a claimed hour, and given that the claimed 25 minutes on the tube varied from 45 minutes to an hour, I don't think the day was long enough to try the busses. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! > I was amazed that people would stand the underground's overcrowding. > It's not "brilliant", it's noisy, overcrowded, hot, smelly and > unreliable. Sounds like London in general and I have a crap sense of smell... > I looked at using busses instead but from Victoria to Threadneedle > street the journey time went up from a claimed 25 minutes to a claimed > hour, and given that the claimed 25 minutes on the tube varied from 45 > minutes to an hour, Your looking at it with your non-Londonite hat on and looking at timetables, you don't do that with the underground it's a turn up and go service. Not normally more than a few minutes wait in the central area, yes you do need "experience" to know how long it'll take but any one with half a brain soon sorts that out. It's also adviseable to avoid travelling with all the wage slaves as well. The zone ticketing system is easy to understand and predictable, the fares reasonable. I think they know have under/over/bus through ticketing and of course the Oyster card. Compare that to most other cities with a bus every 15 mins if you are lucky that will just take you into the city, you 'll need another one to get from one area of the city to another. Simple to understand and reasonable fares? Through ticketing? You're having a laugh aren't you... Outside of the city boundaries you may as well forget PT as an option. SignatureCheers new5pam@howhill.com Dave. pam is missing e-mail > Your looking at it with your non-Londonite hat on and looking at > timetables, you don't do that with the underground it's a turn up and go > service. No, I wasn't looking at timetables, just journey times to gauge roughly when I had to leave the hotel then multiply by 2 as public transport is almost always twice as slow as it claims, apart from in London where it's even slower. > Not normally more than a few minutes wait in the central area, Half an hour sometimes on the circle line :-( > yes you do need "experience" to know how long it'll take but any one with > half a brain soon sorts that out. It's also adviseable to avoid travelling > with all the wage slaves as well. I'd never go there if I wasn't going for money.. > Compare that to most other cities with a bus every 15 mins if you are > lucky that will just take you into the city, you 'll need another one to > get from one area of the city to another. Simple to understand and > reasonable fares? Through ticketing? You're having a laugh aren't you... Perhaps London's public transport might be excellent compared to other cities but as a form of transport it's still woeful. It took me between 45 minutes to an hour to travel 4 miles. If I didn't have so much gear to carry and wasn't too chicken to brave the "solved" traffic problems then I'd ride a bike and get there in 20 minutes. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! Ian Rawlings typed: >> Your looking at it with your non-Londonite hat on and looking at >> timetables, you don't do that with the underground it's a turn up [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > much gear to carry and wasn't too chicken to brave the "solved" > traffic problems then I'd ride a bike and get there in 20 minutes. Or a motorbike with panniers and topcase, and get there in 10. Serious point - the Govt are pushing PT and cycling as the solution to all our woes, and yet motorcycles and scooters are never mentioned. A small scoot will do any urban journey as quick as a very fit cyclist (or quicker), return around 120mpg and cost pocket money to run. You can get probably 8 bikes in the space of one car, so congestion disappears, and the speed of the flow would mean that all the pollution of a million idling vehicles is gone. Modern kit means you will stay dry in the worst of weather. What's not to like? SignatureRich B Ducati GT1000 Take out the obvious to email me. >Modern kit means you will stay dry in the worst of weather. What's >not to like? White van man pulling from a side road into a slow stream of traffic and smashing your leg? AJH > A small scoot will do any urban journey as quick as a very fit cyclist > (or quicker), return around 120mpg and cost pocket money to run. You > can get probably 8 bikes in the space of one car, so congestion > disappears, and the speed of the flow would mean that all the pollution > of a million idling vehicles is gone. There speaks someone who hasn't been to Bangkok or probably cities in China these days. Small scooters tend to be powered by two strokes, they produce far more smoke than a modern diesel. I've been in Bangkok in the rush hour when you have trouble seeing across the street due to the blue haze of two stroke exhaust of hundreds of scooters and tuktuks. Oh and the traffic wasn't going any faster either. SignatureCheers new5pam@howhill.com Dave. pam is missing e-mail Dave Liquorice typed: >> A small scoot will do any urban journey as quick as a very fit >> cyclist (or quicker), return around 120mpg and cost pocket money to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > scooters and tuktuks. Oh and the traffic wasn't going any faster > either. I'm aware of the congestion and pollution in the cities you mention, even if I haven't been lucky enough to go there. I suppose if you imagine all the commuters in Bangkok driving medium-sized cars, and the tuktuks replaced by diesel Sprinter vans, you'll see the point I was trying to make - about London. SignatureRich B Ducati GT1000 Take out the obvious to email me. > > The PT system in London - and that's what we're discussing since no > > other UK city has a congestion charge - is brilliant. > It's barely acceptable, and it had better be because despite the > beloved congestion charge, the roads are shite. That's true. Years ago the people of London again voted out a council who wanted to drive motorways through their city. You can see small parts of the proposed box system scattered around where they were built on derelict land so didn't meet planning objections. The M25 is the only completed part of that plan. > Last time I spent a week working in London I was amazed that people > would stand the unde |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message