Cheap reliable hacks.

Anything else ya ride!
User avatar
wightegi
Posts: 8047
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:23 pm
Rides:: 12v 1988 e start C90, Gl5oo silverwing ,Piaggio xevo 250ie
Location: Isle of Wight

Re: Cheap reliable hacks.

Post by wightegi » Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:38 pm

Historic ones are exempt from the ULEZ charge .

barker
Posts: 3103
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:38 am
Rides:: t80 honda90 nexus honda xr honda sh loncinyamaha vigaro 53suzukiaddress5
Location: west sussex

Re: Cheap reliable hacks.

Post by barker » Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:18 pm

that does not make any sense if they want to clean the pollution up made by vehicles

User avatar
Diesel Dave
Posts: 10939
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:25 pm
Rides:: 1965 Enfield Diesel, 2017 Sterling, Modenas Kriss and CT200 - the only Cub left
Location: Brentwood, Essex

Re: Cheap reliable hacks.

Post by Diesel Dave » Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:40 pm

barker wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:18 pm
that does not make any sense if they want to clean the pollution up made by vehicles
Yes it does ‘cos I can drive my diesel Enfield through central London.

loadedtoad
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:01 pm
Rides:: c90 cbr600 pe175 Lexmoto Diablo
Location: Derbyshire-Leicestershire Border

Re: Cheap reliable hacks.

Post by loadedtoad » Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:15 pm

Whilst the gentry still own and wish to drive there vintage/veteran cars wherever they like the laws will always be accommodating.
Luckily for us at the cheapo end of the market they had to make it Age specific not value.
Not for commercial use though so don't think about a budget taxi service with Austin Allegros. :D

barker
Posts: 3103
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:38 am
Rides:: t80 honda90 nexus honda xr honda sh loncinyamaha vigaro 53suzukiaddress5
Location: west sussex

Re: Cheap reliable hacks.

Post by barker » Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:17 pm

typical shell fish

User avatar
Capitano
Posts: 4141
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:05 pm
Rides:: '92 C90, '17 Burgman UH, 24V e-bike
Location: West Sussex
Contact:

Re: Cheap reliable hacks.

Post by Capitano » Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:22 pm

barker wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:18 pm
that does not make any sense if they want to clean the pollution up made by vehicles
The reason is total volumes.

ie even if a historic vehicle produces 10 x more pollution than a modern one (being generous), their representation is much less than 0.1% of the vehicle total count, say 0.05% being generous again.

So, even if you allow all the historic vehicles to operate without penalty, you are only increasing pollution by 0.05/100 x 10 = 0.005%

8-)

remmington
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:51 pm
Rides:: Honda Wave 110i BMW R80RT
Location: King's Lynn, Norfolk
Contact:

Re: Cheap reliable hacks.

Post by remmington » Thu Feb 27, 2020 10:10 pm

Diesel Dave wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:40 pm
barker wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:18 pm
that does not make any sense if they want to clean the pollution up made by vehicles
Yes it does ‘cos I can drive my diesel Enfield through central London.

I could drive a H1 750 two stroke - thru London (if I could afford one!) :D

loadedtoad
Posts: 416
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:01 pm
Rides:: c90 cbr600 pe175 Lexmoto Diablo
Location: Derbyshire-Leicestershire Border

Re: Cheap reliable hacks.

Post by loadedtoad » Thu Feb 27, 2020 10:32 pm

I could drive a H1 750 two stroke - thru London (if I could afford one!) :D
Never get it out of first but still get a speeding ticket :D
And more smoke than a 2 stroke commer tipper truck

User avatar
Diesel Dave
Posts: 10939
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:25 pm
Rides:: 1965 Enfield Diesel, 2017 Sterling, Modenas Kriss and CT200 - the only Cub left
Location: Brentwood, Essex

Re: Cheap reliable hacks.

Post by Diesel Dave » Fri Feb 28, 2020 5:09 pm

Capitano wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:22 pm
barker wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:18 pm
that does not make any sense if they want to clean the pollution up made by vehicles
The reason is total volumes.

ie even if a historic vehicle produces 10 x more pollution than a modern one (being generous), their representation is much less than 0.1% of the vehicle total count, say 0.05% being generous again.

So, even if you allow all the historic vehicles to operate without penalty, you are only increasing pollution by 0.05/100 x 10 = 0.005%

8-)

Whilst your logic is undeniable, the same numbers get quoted for motorcycles but they still banned anything non-euro3...

User avatar
Capitano
Posts: 4141
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:05 pm
Rides:: '92 C90, '17 Burgman UH, 24V e-bike
Location: West Sussex
Contact:

Re: Cheap reliable hacks.

Post by Capitano » Fri Feb 28, 2020 8:57 pm

Diesel Dave wrote:
Fri Feb 28, 2020 5:09 pm
Capitano wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:22 pm
barker wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:18 pm
that does not make any sense if they want to clean the pollution up made by vehicles
The reason is total volumes.

ie even if a historic vehicle produces 10 x more pollution than a modern one (being generous), their representation is much less than 0.1% of the vehicle total count, say 0.05% being generous again.

So, even if you allow all the historic vehicles to operate without penalty, you are only increasing pollution by 0.05/100 x 10 = 0.005%

8-)

Whilst your logic is undeniable, the same numbers get quoted for motorcycles but they still banned anything non-euro3...
It's been a while since I reviewed the figures behind the ULEZ decisions, and I have no real desire to do it again, or face the emotional arguments. The PTWs between historic status and Euro-3 do account for significantly higher levels of total pollution than historic vehicles, though.

Whether that larger number is sufficient to impose the ban/levy is another question and that's where it starts getting into emotional arguments.

I've kind of covered that before, quoting the, "Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: Executive summary" (link in the quote below) that explains it more fully than I ever could.

Paraphrasing it simply, per journey, motorcycles produce more pollution than cars. :( I wish it weren't so, I really do.
Capitano wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:08 am
Seventyheadbarrel wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:41 pm
Why don't these people just leave us alone small motorcycles are not part of the problem they are part of the solution.
Sorry for sending thread of topic
Sadly, it's not quite as simple as that.

Although we try and ignore the fact, motorcycles produce more pollution than cars. The old argument that a filtering bike produces less pollution than a stationary idling car has always been a claim short on factual proof (especially considering a big cruiser filtering past a Toyota Aygo for an example, slightly digressing.) Factor in that the latest generation of cars turn off when stopped. That rather kills the argument.

Many of us as motorcyclists never hear (or choose not to hear) the biking nay-sayers. Unfortunately for us, that doesn't stop other folks looking at the downsides of biking, and the report I have linked from the European Commission does not paint a rosy picture of biking.

Earlier this year, the 'Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities: Executive summary' was published.

It covered subjects including crashes, climate change, noise and air pollution.

One example is that whilst motorbikes incur the smallest infrastructure costs and they pollute less in absolute terms, the fact that they carry a maximum of two persons, and often only one, cancels out those benefits on a person/kilometre' basis.

It also includes data from the World Health Organisation about noise-related illness. Prolonged exposure to excessive noise can cause heart disease, stokes, hypertension, dementia and more, according to WHO, and the study found that on an individual vehicle basis, the 'noise cost' resulting from motorbikes is €0.09 per person/kilometre, which is ten times more than the figure for a car.

I've been a member of MAG for decades, an activist at times, and I'd fully expect them, and other European Riders' Rights groups to discredit the study. Sure enough,FEMA have argued that because over half of motorcycle crashes are the legal responsibility of the other driver, the cost of the accident shouldn't be lumped in with motorbikes, but added to the costs of cars. You can argue that both ways. It still affects the bike and the rider

Anyway, in summary, the picture isn't as pretty as we'd like to paint it ourselves.

We can argue using personal examples all we like, but we'd be arguing against a large, professional study with factual data.

Sorry for the bad news, but it's best to be prepared.

Here's the report, if you want to wade through it. Make plenty of coffee. :(

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/tr ... U8cu-zlMSA

Post Reply