In message <umop4e$1837m$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:50:06 on Sat, 30 Dec
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:

>>I think I'm to avoid wasting any more time on this groundhog thread.
>
>As ever facts are not something you're comfortable with.

I'm quite comfortable with the facts, I've just grown tired of debunking
your tripe over and over again.
--
Roland Perry

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2023 21:53:09 +0000 (GMT)
> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> I heard it was only 4x4s they wanted. Mine is a standard 2 wheel drive
>> saloon.
>>> It would be great if it did end up there but given it would cost Khans evil
>>> elves time and money to sort it out I won't hold my breath. ULEZ is all about
>>
>>> cash not the enviroment otherwise scrapping perfectly good vehicles before
>> EOL
>>> wouldn't even be considered.
>>
>> How is it about cash when they will pay you 2K to scrap your car, which is
>> more than it's worth?
>
> He was forced to do that by the government. Left to his own devices Khunt
> wouldn't have coughed up a penny. And if you don't think it was about money
> why did he choose a cut off date of late 2015 for diesels?

Read the ULEZ rules. He didn't pick a cut-off date, just the minimum Euro
emissions standards:

The ULEZ standards are:

• Euro 3 for motorcycles, mopeds, motorised tricycles and quadricycles (L
category)

• Euro 4 (NOx) for petrol cars, vans, minibuses and other specialist
vehicles

• Euro 6 (NOx and PM) for diesel cars, vans and minibuses and other
specialist vehicles

On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 14:58:01 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <umop4e$1837m$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:50:06 on Sat, 30 Dec
>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>
>>>I think I'm to avoid wasting any more time on this groundhog thread.
>>
>>As ever facts are not something you're comfortable with.
>
>I'm quite comfortable with the facts, I've just grown tired of debunking
>your tripe over and over again.

When you actually manage to debunk anything I'll let you know.

On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 16:09:56 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On 29 Dec 2023 21:53:09 +0000 (GMT)
>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> I heard it was only 4x4s they wanted. Mine is a standard 2 wheel drive
>>> saloon.
>>>> It would be great if it did end up there but given it would cost Khans evil
>
>>>> elves time and money to sort it out I won't hold my breath. ULEZ is all
>about
>>>
>>>> cash not the enviroment otherwise scrapping perfectly good vehicles before
>>> EOL
>>>> wouldn't even be considered.
>>>
>>> How is it about cash when they will pay you 2K to scrap your car, which is
>>> more than it's worth?
>>
>> He was forced to do that by the government. Left to his own devices Khunt
>> wouldn't have coughed up a penny. And if you don't think it was about money
>> why did he choose a cut off date of late 2015 for diesels?
>
>Read the ULEZ rules. He didn't pick a cut-off date, just the minimum Euro
>emissions standards:

Yes I know. Point is why Euro 6 for diesels but only euro 4 for petrol. Well
we know the answer - its the latest date he could use to screw diesel drivers on
emissions.

Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 16:09:56 GMT
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Read the ULEZ rules. He didn't pick a cut-off date, just the minimum Euro
> >emissions standards:
>
> Yes I know. Point is why Euro 6 for diesels but only euro 4 for petrol. Well
> we know the answer - its the latest date he could use to screw diesel drivers on
> emissions.

Euro 5b diesel (g/km):
CO 0.5
NOx 0.18
HC+NOx 0.23
PM 0.0045

Euro 6b diesel:
CO 0.5
NOx 0.08
HC+NOx 0.17
PM 0.0045

Euro 3 petrol:
CO 1.0
NOx 0.15
THC 0.2
PM 0.0045

Euro 4 petrol:
CO 1.0
NOx 0.08
THC 0.1
PM 0.0045

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards
(there wasn't a Euro 6a AFAICS)

So Euro 4 petrol and Euro 6 diesel both permit the same amount of NOx, which
is 40% the level of Euro 3 petrol and Euro 5 diesel. They both allow the
same levels of pollution, it's just that diesels only attained that standard
a decade later than petrol.

Diesels are just dirtier, in other words.

Theo

On 30 Dec 2023 18:06:39 +0000 (GMT)
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 16:09:56 GMT
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Read the ULEZ rules. He didn't pick a cut-off date, just the minimum Euro
>> >emissions standards:
>>
>> Yes I know. Point is why Euro 6 for diesels but only euro 4 for petrol. Well
>> we know the answer - its the latest date he could use to screw diesel
>drivers on
>> emissions.
>
>Euro 5b diesel (g/km):
>CO 0.5
>NOx 0.18
>HC+NOx 0.23
>PM 0.0045
>
>Euro 6b diesel:
>CO 0.5
>NOx 0.08
>HC+NOx 0.17
>PM 0.0045
>
>Euro 3 petrol:
>CO 1.0
>NOx 0.15
>THC 0.2
>PM 0.0045
>
>Euro 4 petrol:
>CO 1.0
>NOx 0.08
>THC 0.1
>PM 0.0045
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards
>(there wasn't a Euro 6a AFAICS)
>
>So Euro 4 petrol and Euro 6 diesel both permit the same amount of NOx, which
>is 40% the level of Euro 3 petrol and Euro 5 diesel. They both allow the
>same levels of pollution, it's just that diesels only attained that standard
>a decade later than petrol.
>
>Diesels are just dirtier, in other words.

I notice you left out CO2. All the stuff diesels chuck out would be gone in
a day if traffic stopped but the CO2 will be hanging around for thousands of
years.

Also something never mentioned is at filling stations - the stink of petrol
is quite noticable compared to diesel and there must be a fair cloud of
volatiles drifting around most petrol stations and those volatiles can cause
smog.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On 30 Dec 2023 18:06:39 +0000 (GMT)
> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 16:09:56 GMT
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Read the ULEZ rules. He didn't pick a cut-off date, just the minimum Euro
>>>> emissions standards:
>>>
>>> Yes I know. Point is why Euro 6 for diesels but only euro 4 for petrol. Well
>>> we know the answer - its the latest date he could use to screw diesel
>> drivers on
>>> emissions.
>>
>> Euro 5b diesel (g/km):
>> CO 0.5
>> NOx 0.18
>> HC+NOx 0.23
>> PM 0.0045
>>
>> Euro 6b diesel:
>> CO 0.5
>> NOx 0.08
>> HC+NOx 0.17
>> PM 0.0045
>>
>> Euro 3 petrol:
>> CO 1.0
>> NOx 0.15
>> THC 0.2
>> PM 0.0045
>>
>> Euro 4 petrol:
>> CO 1.0
>> NOx 0.08
>> THC 0.1
>> PM 0.0045
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards
>> (there wasn't a Euro 6a AFAICS)
>>
>> So Euro 4 petrol and Euro 6 diesel both permit the same amount of NOx, which
>> is 40% the level of Euro 3 petrol and Euro 5 diesel. They both allow the
>> same levels of pollution, it's just that diesels only attained that standard
>> a decade later than petrol.
>>
>> Diesels are just dirtier, in other words.
>
> I notice you left out CO2. All the stuff diesels chuck out would be gone in
> a day if traffic stopped but the CO2 will be hanging around for thousands of
> years.

Surely even you must know that the ULEZ is aimed at improving London's
unacceptably unhealthy poor air quality? It's nothing to do with global
warming.

Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On 30 Dec 2023 18:06:39 +0000 (GMT)
> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards
> >(there wasn't a Euro 6a AFAICS)
> >
> >So Euro 4 petrol and Euro 6 diesel both permit the same amount of NOx, which
> >is 40% the level of Euro 3 petrol and Euro 5 diesel. They both allow the
> >same levels of pollution, it's just that diesels only attained that standard
> >a decade later than petrol.
> >
> >Diesels are just dirtier, in other words.
>
> I notice you left out CO2. All the stuff diesels chuck out would be gone in
> a day if traffic stopped but the CO2 will be hanging around for thousands of
> years.

CO2 is not part of the Euro emissions standards.

CO2 emissions don't damage the respiratory health of people living near
traffic, which is what LEZ and ULEZ are designed to improve.

> Also something never mentioned is at filling stations - the stink of petrol
> is quite noticable compared to diesel and there must be a fair cloud of
> volatiles drifting around most petrol stations and those volatiles can cause
> smog.

Filling stations need to have vapour control, as too much vapour buildup and
they could go bang. There will be some petrol spilled by motorists filling
up, but it's relatively minor compared to other sources of VOCs like
aerosols.

Theo

In message <umpkvh$1bo89$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:45:21 on Sat, 30 Dec
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 14:58:01 +0000
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <umop4e$1837m$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:50:06 on Sat, 30 Dec
>>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>
>>>>I think I'm to avoid wasting any more time on this groundhog thread.
>>>
>>>As ever facts are not something you're comfortable with.
>>
>>I'm quite comfortable with the facts, I've just grown tired of debunking
>>your tripe over and over again.
>
>When you actually manage to debunk anything I'll let you know.

I think you mis-typed "when my chatbot algorithm realises you've managed
to debunk anything..."

You've really excelled yourself over the Euro 6 thing, by the way.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 21:08:24 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> I notice you left out CO2. All the stuff diesels chuck out would be gone in
>> a day if traffic stopped but the CO2 will be hanging around for thousands of
>> years.
>
>Surely even you must know that the ULEZ is aimed at improving London's
>unacceptably unhealthy poor air quality? It's nothing to do with global
>warming.

There's nothing poor about londons air quality compared to even 20 years ago.
And usual the smug ealier adopters of EVs are often the ones with the Aga oven
and wood burning stove at home pumping out more particulates and CO than a 1970s
school bus.

On 30 Dec 2023 21:38:34 +0000 (GMT)
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On 30 Dec 2023 18:06:39 +0000 (GMT)
>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards
>> >(there wasn't a Euro 6a AFAICS)
>> >
>> >So Euro 4 petrol and Euro 6 diesel both permit the same amount of NOx, which
>
>> >is 40% the level of Euro 3 petrol and Euro 5 diesel. They both allow the
>> >same levels of pollution, it's just that diesels only attained that standard
>
>> >a decade later than petrol.
>> >
>> >Diesels are just dirtier, in other words.
>>
>> I notice you left out CO2. All the stuff diesels chuck out would be gone in
>> a day if traffic stopped but the CO2 will be hanging around for thousands of
>> years.
>
>CO2 is not part of the Euro emissions standards.

Umm, hello? Why do you think car companies are having to increasingly reduce
the CO2 output of their range?

>CO2 emissions don't damage the respiratory health of people living near
>traffic, which is what LEZ and ULEZ are designed to improve.

No, they just fuck the entire climate to a point where granny getting asthma
will become an irrelevance.

>> Also something never mentioned is at filling stations - the stink of petrol
>> is quite noticable compared to diesel and there must be a fair cloud of
>> volatiles drifting around most petrol stations and those volatiles can cause
>> smog.
>
>Filling stations need to have vapour control, as too much vapour buildup and
>they could go bang. There will be some petrol spilled by motorists filling
>up, but it's relatively minor compared to other sources of VOCs like
>aerosols.

An open nozzle pumping a volatile fuel into an open hole is going to have
a load of emissions. I've driven a diesel for years but on occasion when I
use a petrol the stink that comes out when filling it up is almost overwhelming.

On 31/12/2023 16:09, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 21:08:24 GMT
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> I notice you left out CO2. All the stuff diesels chuck out would be gone in
>>> a day if traffic stopped but the CO2 will be hanging around for thousands of
>>> years.
>>
>> Surely even you must know that the ULEZ is aimed at improving London's
>> unacceptably unhealthy poor air quality? It's nothing to do with global
>> warming.
>
> There's nothing poor about londons air quality compared to even 20 years ago.

Oh yes there is! That is the problem

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 16:29:42 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 31/12/2023 16:09, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 21:08:24 GMT
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> I notice you left out CO2. All the stuff diesels chuck out would be gone in
>
>>>> a day if traffic stopped but the CO2 will be hanging around for thousands
>of
>>>> years.
>>>
>>> Surely even you must know that the ULEZ is aimed at improving London's
>>> unacceptably unhealthy poor air quality? It's nothing to do with global
>>> warming.
>>
>> There's nothing poor about londons air quality compared to even 20 years ago.
>
>
>Oh yes there is! That is the problem

If that was the case - and it isn't - then clearly the original ULEZ and LEZ
did bugger all so why bother expanding them?

On 31/12/2023 16:50, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 16:29:42 +0000
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 31/12/2023 16:09, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 21:08:24 GMT
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> I notice you left out CO2. All the stuff diesels chuck out would be gone in
>>
>>>>> a day if traffic stopped but the CO2 will be hanging around for thousands
>> of
>>>>> years.
>>>>
>>>> Surely even you must know that the ULEZ is aimed at improving London's
>>>> unacceptably unhealthy poor air quality? It's nothing to do with global
>>>> warming.
>>>
>>> There's nothing poor about londons air quality compared to even 20 years ago.
>>
>>
>> Oh yes there is! That is the problem
>
> If that was the case - and it isn't - then clearly the original ULEZ and LEZ
> did bugger all so why bother expanding them?
>
>

They did, and do, work, hence the reason to expand them.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 16:29:42 +0000
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 31/12/2023 16:09, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 21:08:24 GMT
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> I notice you left out CO2. All the stuff diesels chuck out would be gone in
>>
>>>>> a day if traffic stopped but the CO2 will be hanging around for thousands
>> of
>>>>> years.
>>>>
>>>> Surely even you must know that the ULEZ is aimed at improving London's
>>>> unacceptably unhealthy poor air quality? It's nothing to do with global
>>>> warming.
>>>
>>> There's nothing poor about londons air quality compared to even 20 years ago.
>>
>>
>> Oh yes there is! That is the problem
>
> If that was the case - and it isn't - then clearly the original ULEZ and LEZ
> did bugger all so why bother expanding them?

How could the original ULEZ have improved London's air 20 years ago?

On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 19:02:44 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 31/12/2023 16:50, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 16:29:42 +0000
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 31/12/2023 16:09, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 21:08:24 GMT
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I notice you left out CO2. All the stuff diesels chuck out would be gone
>in
>>>
>>>>>> a day if traffic stopped but the CO2 will be hanging around for thousands
>
>>> of
>>>>>> years.
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely even you must know that the ULEZ is aimed at improving London's
>>>>> unacceptably unhealthy poor air quality? It's nothing to do with global
>>>>> warming.
>>>>
>>>> There's nothing poor about londons air quality compared to even 20 years
>ago.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh yes there is! That is the problem
>>
>> If that was the case - and it isn't - then clearly the original ULEZ and LEZ
>> did bugger all so why bother expanding them?
>>
>>
>
>They did, and do, work, hence the reason to expand them.

ULEZ has done nothing because there weren't that many private cars in inner
london to start with. The thing thats done most to clean up the air in central
london is the slow disappearance of knackered black cabs belching black smoke
and the buses being changed from diesel to hybrid and now electric. Emissions
from private cars would be a stastical blip.

On 01/01/2024 09:07, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 19:02:44 +0000
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 31/12/2023 16:50, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 16:29:42 +0000
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 31/12/2023 16:09, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023 21:08:24 GMT
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I notice you left out CO2. All the stuff diesels chuck out would be gone
>> in
>>>>
>>>>>>> a day if traffic stopped but the CO2 will be hanging around for thousands
>>
>>>> of
>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Surely even you must know that the ULEZ is aimed at improving London's
>>>>>> unacceptably unhealthy poor air quality? It's nothing to do with global
>>>>>> warming.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's nothing poor about londons air quality compared to even 20 years
>> ago.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh yes there is! That is the problem
>>>
>>> If that was the case - and it isn't - then clearly the original ULEZ and LEZ
>>> did bugger all so why bother expanding them?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> They did, and do, work, hence the reason to expand them.
>
> ULEZ has done nothing because there weren't that many private cars in inner
> london to start with. The thing thats done most to clean up the air in central
> london is the slow disappearance of knackered black cabs belching black smoke
> and the buses being changed from diesel to hybrid and now electric. Emissions
> from private cars would be a stastical blip.
>
>

So you agree the system does work.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 09:20:09 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 01/01/2024 09:07, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> ULEZ has done nothing because there weren't that many private cars in inner
>> london to start with. The thing thats done most to clean up the air in
>central
>> london is the slow disappearance of knackered black cabs belching black smoke
>
>> and the buses being changed from diesel to hybrid and now electric. Emissions
>
>> from private cars would be a stastical blip.
>>
>>
>
>So you agree the system does work.

Oxford street had, maybe still has, the highest NOx of any street in the
country. Its been bus and taxi only for years , so how would banning private
cars have ANY effect on that level? And large lorries have specific hours
they can come into london , usually early morning and late evenings only , so
their effect would be neglibable too. So the vast majority of pollution in
central london was TfLs own knackered buses and the prehistoric coventry cabs
a lot of which dated from the last century.

On 01/01/2024 09:44, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 09:20:09 +0000
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 01/01/2024 09:07, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> ULEZ has done nothing because there weren't that many private cars in inner
>>> london to start with. The thing thats done most to clean up the air in
>> central
>>> london is the slow disappearance of knackered black cabs belching black smoke
>>
>>> and the buses being changed from diesel to hybrid and now electric. Emissions
>>
>>> from private cars would be a stastical blip.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So you agree the system does work.
>
> Oxford street had, maybe still has, the highest NOx of any street in the
> country. Its been bus and taxi only for years , so how would banning private
> cars have ANY effect on that level? And large lorries have specific hours
> they can come into london , usually early morning and late evenings only , so
> their effect would be neglibable too. So the vast majority of pollution in
> central london was TfLs own knackered buses and the prehistoric coventry cabs
> a lot of which dated from the last century.
>
>

Regardless of who owned them[1] you have just agreed that removing the
worst polluting vehicles has been advantageous.

[1]For the record TfL owns neither buses nor taxis.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 01/01/2024 09:44, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 09:20:09 +0000
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 01/01/2024 09:07, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> ULEZ has done nothing because there weren't that many private cars in inner
>>>> london to start with. The thing thats done most to clean up the air in
>>> central
>>>> london is the slow disappearance of knackered black cabs belching black smoke
>>>
>>>> and the buses being changed from diesel to hybrid and now electric. Emissions
>>>
>>>> from private cars would be a stastical blip.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you agree the system does work.
>>
>> Oxford street had, maybe still has, the highest NOx of any street in the
>> country. Its been bus and taxi only for years , so how would banning private
>> cars have ANY effect on that level? And large lorries have specific hours
>> they can come into london , usually early morning and late evenings only , so
>> their effect would be neglibable too. So the vast majority of pollution in
>> central london was TfLs own knackered buses and the prehistoric coventry cabs
>> a lot of which dated from the last century.
>>
>>
>
> Regardless of who owned them[1] you have just agreed that removing the
> worst polluting vehicles has been advantageous.
>
> [1]For the record TfL owns neither buses nor taxis.

Aren't the Boris buses owned by TfL, and leased to the operators? I don't
think any leasing companies or bus operators were interested in buying what
they regarded as an over-priced bus that would probably have a short life,
and no secondary market. Another BoJo triumph!

On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 11:26:10 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 01/01/2024 09:44, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 09:20:09 +0000
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 01/01/2024 09:07, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> ULEZ has done nothing because there weren't that many private cars in inner
>
>>>> london to start with. The thing thats done most to clean up the air in
>>> central
>>>> london is the slow disappearance of knackered black cabs belching black
>smoke
>>>
>>>> and the buses being changed from diesel to hybrid and now electric.
>Emissions
>>>
>>>> from private cars would be a stastical blip.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you agree the system does work.
>>
>> Oxford street had, maybe still has, the highest NOx of any street in the
>> country. Its been bus and taxi only for years , so how would banning private
>> cars have ANY effect on that level? And large lorries have specific hours
>> they can come into london , usually early morning and late evenings only , so
>
>> their effect would be neglibable too. So the vast majority of pollution in
>> central london was TfLs own knackered buses and the prehistoric coventry cabs
>
>> a lot of which dated from the last century.
>>
>>
>
>Regardless of who owned them[1] you have just agreed that removing the
>worst polluting vehicles has been advantageous.

The worst polluting vehicles were not pre 2016 private diesel cars. Forcing the
sale or scrapping of perfectly servicable (at the time) 5 year old diesel cars
was just spiteful and totally unnecessary. I realise the orginal idea was the
blonde buffoons but khan could have modified it. Naturally Mr V8 Range Rover
decided not to.

On 01/01/2024 15:51, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 11:26:10 +0000
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 01/01/2024 09:44, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 09:20:09 +0000
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 01/01/2024 09:07, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> ULEZ has done nothing because there weren't that many private cars in inner
>>
>>>>> london to start with. The thing thats done most to clean up the air in
>>>> central
>>>>> london is the slow disappearance of knackered black cabs belching black
>> smoke
>>>>
>>>>> and the buses being changed from diesel to hybrid and now electric.
>> Emissions
>>>>
>>>>> from private cars would be a stastical blip.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you agree the system does work.
>>>
>>> Oxford street had, maybe still has, the highest NOx of any street in the
>>> country. Its been bus and taxi only for years , so how would banning private
>>> cars have ANY effect on that level? And large lorries have specific hours
>>> they can come into london , usually early morning and late evenings only , so
>>
>>> their effect would be neglibable too. So the vast majority of pollution in
>>> central london was TfLs own knackered buses and the prehistoric coventry cabs
>>
>>> a lot of which dated from the last century.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Regardless of who owned them[1] you have just agreed that removing the
>> worst polluting vehicles has been advantageous.
>
> The worst polluting vehicles were not pre 2016 private diesel cars. Forcing the
> sale or scrapping of perfectly servicable (at the time) 5 year old diesel cars
> was just spiteful and totally unnecessary. I realise the orginal idea was the
> blonde buffoons but khan could have modified it. Naturally Mr V8 Range Rover
> decided not to.
>

Why should he modify it, it was probably the only useful thing that
Boris did while mayor.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 17:38:11 +0000
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 01/01/2024 15:51, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> The worst polluting vehicles were not pre 2016 private diesel cars. Forcing
>the
>> sale or scrapping of perfectly servicable (at the time) 5 year old diesel
>cars
>> was just spiteful and totally unnecessary. I realise the orginal idea was the
>
>> blonde buffoons but khan could have modified it. Naturally Mr V8 Range Rover
>> decided not to.
>>
>
>Why should he modify it, it was probably the only useful thing that
>Boris did while mayor.

Scrapping nearly new cars is not only enviromentally criminal but is also
penalising people who followed the Labour governments "buy diesel to help
the enviroment" mantra. Then suddenly 15 years later its "diesel is bad
for the enviroment". If you need any kind of example of why people have such
disdain for politicians this is a good one.

Also now the westminster muppets are promoting EVs (huge CO2 cost in building
them, enviromental destruction in mining the batteries minerals) as the
latest enviromental saviour. But guess what - now all the first adopters
have blown their cash on them their percent of the market is dropping.
I wonder why.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jan 2024 17:38:11 +0000
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 01/01/2024 15:51, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> The worst polluting vehicles were not pre 2016 private diesel cars. Forcing
>> the
>>> sale or scrapping of perfectly servicable (at the time) 5 year old diesel
>> cars
>>> was just spiteful and totally unnecessary. I realise the orginal idea was the
>>
>>> blonde buffoons but khan could have modified it. Naturally Mr V8 Range Rover
>>> decided not to.
>>>
>>
>> Why should he modify it, it was probably the only useful thing that
>> Boris did while mayor.
>
> Scrapping nearly new cars is not only enviromentally criminal but is also
> penalising people who followed the Labour governments "buy diesel to help
> the enviroment" mantra.

Nobody would be scrapping nearly-new cars — their resale value would be
much higher than the scrappage allowance.

> Then suddenly 15 years later its "diesel is bad
> for the enviroment". If you need any kind of example of why people have such
> disdain for politicians this is a good one.

Diesels are bad for local air quality, but better for global warming. In
big cities, poor air quality is the bigger issue. For local air quality,
BEVs are best, or public transport, so some measures are designed to push
people that way.

>
> Also now the westminster muppets are promoting EVs (huge CO2 cost in building
> them, enviromental destruction in mining the batteries minerals) as the
> latest enviromental saviour. But guess what - now all the first adopters
> have blown their cash on them their percent of the market is dropping.
> I wonder why.

They are still more expensive to buy than ICE cars, though the gap is
falling. It's the tax incentives that make them affordable, and those have
been falling for private buyers. They still exist for company cars.

For many people, recharging remains an issue, so they're less likely to buy
BEVs.

On Tue, 02 Jan 2024 10:55:40 GMT
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> Scrapping nearly new cars is not only enviromentally criminal but is also
>> penalising people who followed the Labour governments "buy diesel to help
>> the enviroment" mantra.
>
>Nobody would be scrapping nearly-new cars — their resale value would be
>much higher than the scrappage allowance.

Possibly.

>> Then suddenly 15 years later its "diesel is bad
>> for the enviroment". If you need any kind of example of why people have such
>> disdain for politicians this is a good one.
>
>Diesels are bad for local air quality, but better for global warming. In
>big cities, poor air quality is the bigger issue. For local air quality,

The poor air quality in inner london is mostly down to buses and taxis.
The amount of empty black cabs driving around looking for fares is ridiculous.

>> them, enviromental destruction in mining the batteries minerals) as the
>> latest enviromental saviour. But guess what - now all the first adopters
>> have blown their cash on them their percent of the market is dropping.
>> I wonder why.
>
>They are still more expensive to buy than ICE cars, though the gap is
>falling. It's the tax incentives that make them affordable, and those have
>been falling for private buyers. They still exist for company cars.

More political genius. The rate of EV takeup is dropping so reduce the
incentives that make people consider buying them. *sigh*

>For many people, recharging remains an issue, so they're less likely to buy
>BEVs.

True.