Re: Cheap reliable hacks.
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 3:38 pm
Historic ones are exempt from the ULEZ charge .
Page 5 of 5
Re: Cheap reliable hacks.
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:18 pm
that does not make any sense if they want to clean the pollution up made by vehicles
Re: Cheap reliable hacks.
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:40 pm
Re: Cheap reliable hacks.
Posted: 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.
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.
Re: Cheap reliable hacks.
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:17 pm
typical shell fish
Re: Cheap reliable hacks.
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:22 pm
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%
Re: Cheap reliable hacks.
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 10:10 pm
Diesel Dave wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:40 pmYes 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!)
Re: Cheap reliable hacks.
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 10:32 pm
Never get it out of first but still get a speeding ticketI could drive a H1 750 two stroke - thru London (if I could afford one!)
And more smoke than a 2 stroke commer tipper truck
Re: Cheap reliable hacks.
Posted: Fri Feb 28, 2020 5:09 pm
Capitano wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:22 pmThe 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%
Whilst your logic is undeniable, the same numbers get quoted for motorcycles but they still banned anything non-euro3...
Re: Cheap reliable hacks.
Posted: Fri Feb 28, 2020 8:57 pm
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.Diesel Dave wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 5:09 pmCapitano wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 9:22 pmThe 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%
Whilst your logic is undeniable, the same numbers get quoted for motorcycles but they still banned anything non-euro3...
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 amSadly, it's not quite as simple as that.Seventyheadbarrel wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:41 pmWhy 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
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