More LEZ due ? (1 Viewer)

[GJH]

Not sure about your facts and figures Gromett but I wont hold that against you. Personally I think that the Lez law is an ass. The four biggest polluters in this zone have not been included in the act. [HI]40 thousand black cabs, buses, atroplanes[/HI] and of course the busiest most polution motorway in Europe is just a mile from the zone, prevailing winds from the SW will deliver s masses of pollution onto London within a very short time period. I would think that the LEZ zone is as polluted now as it was before it was introduced.

I see you've since noted that black cabs are dealt with by the age rule. Buses are not exempted. How many aeroplanes run on diesel?

As regards the M25, as posted earlier

Agreed - but, as with everything, boundaries have to be somewhere

Of course, if we had the legislation passed centrally the boundary could be the coast and catch everyone

The LEZ may well be affected by as much (if not more) pollution overall but, as I keep saying (maybe I should tape it ) the LEZ was only intrriduced to deal with one specific pollutant.

 

[scotjimland]

The LEZ does not apply to cars or motorcycles

Vehicle checker here http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/lez/17700.aspx#tkt-tab-panel-3

more on black cabs here Link Removed

 

[buttons]

I see you've since noted that black cabs are dealt with by the age rule. Buses are not exempted. How many aeroplanes run on diesel?

As regards the M25, as posted earlier

The LEZ may well be affected by as much (if not more) pollution overall but, as I keep saying (maybe I should tape it ) the LEZ was only intrriduced to deal with one specific pollutant.

Black Cabs are responsible for 20% of the specific pollutant, do you think including black cabs would be sensible.
This is what Black Cab drivers think of the new cab particulate filters, dont look good to me.

Quote: Since November last year all new LTI taxis must be fitted with a Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF). Instead of an all new engine, this filter is simply being retro-fitted to the existing model. Whist we all want to breathe cleaner air, these filters are not the answer especially as they add extra three thousand pounds or so to cost of a new taxi.
In many ways this is nothing more than a tax, levied at a sector that can ill afford it at a time when fuels costs are also going through the roof.

Increasingly drivers of the traditional black cab are playing on an un-level playing field with the odds decidedly stacked against them.
On top of Link Removed, as imposed upon them by TfL, drivers of new vehicles will have to work longer to cover the initial purchase price leaving less time to put aside money for the next cab.

But it is not just the additional cost that these filters bring; they simply do not work in an urban environment and can often result in costly repairs; not only in having the filters ‘re-generated’, but also to the engine itself if the filters are allowed to clog which causes back-pressure.
If that were not enough, there is new evidence that point to DPF filters being responsible for a number of vehicle fires.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

Black Cabs are responsible for 20% of the specific pollutant, do you think including black cabs would be sensible. (snip for brevity)

As you mentioned yourself and per Jim's link, black cabs are included. If the filters don't work then new vehicles will be required. Costs to businesses change in all sorts of ways all the time but just because some UKIP lobbyist doesn't like the cost to black cab drivers does not invalidate the LEZ.

Indeed, if black cabs have been so high a contributor to asthma and other respiratory problems over the years then it could well be argued that the sooner they are scrapped the better

 

[slobadoberbob]

I am sorry Shiffty for breaching rule one

I am sorry Shiffty ...aka Dave for calling you Sad and other thing... I retract the words and apologies unreserverdly.

I acknowledge I breach rule one...

Bob:Blush:

 

[Gromett]

At the end of the day you can't put a price on peoples health. If we don't force the vehicles to clean up we end up with increased welfare and NHS costs. We all end up paying rather than just he polluter paying.

I would rather a few taxi cabs were pushed off the road for financial reasons that some youngster suffer with life changing breathing conditions.

As I understand it licensed hackney carriages are able to pick up off the street whereas everyone else (who don't have these rules) are only allowed to take prebooked fares. They are also not allowed to use taxi ranks.
The licensed cabs therefore gain a major advantage as far as business is concerned it is only fair that they have to contribute the the welfare of the city in return.

I think airplanes need to start paying fuel duty and vat like the rest of us so that it is on a level playing field as far as costs are concerned.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[buttons]

As you mentioned yourself and per Jim's link, black cabs are included. If the filters don't work then new vehicles will be required. Costs to businesses change in all sorts of ways all the time but just because some UKIP lobbyist doesn't like the cost to black cab drivers does not invalidate the LEZ.

Indeed, if black cabs have been so high a contributor to asthma and other respiratory problems over the years then it could well be argued that the sooner they are scrapped the better

I sure as always GJH you could be correct. I read it as only new cabs will require a Heath Robinson particulate filter that is already causing all kinds of problems on new vehicles. I think the old cab will require a bit more than a filter to clean them up. 15 years is a long time to cruise the streets of London at low speed. We are all aware of the problems with any particulate filter left to idle for long periods so how will they work for cabs in London. They require a total redesign around a new engine.
Just off to give my van a blast down the motorway to clear the filter.

 

[slobadoberbob]

yes correct

At the end of the day you can't put a price on peoples health. If we don't force the vehicles to clean up we end up with increased welfare and NHS costs. We all end up paying rather than just he polluter paying.

I would rather a few taxi cabs were pushed off the road for financial reasons that some youngster suffer with life changing breathing conditions.

As I understand it licensed hackney carriages are able to pick up off the street whereas everyone else (who don't have these rules) are only allowed to take prebooked fares. They are also not allowed to use taxi ranks.
The licensed cabs therefore gain a major advantage as far as business is concerned it is only fair that they have to contribute the the welfare of the city in return.

I think airplanes need to start paying fuel duty and vat like the rest of us so that it is on a level playing field as far as costs are concerned.

Hackney carriages or London Black cabs as you wish have a right to pickup in London. There are a few suburban ranks that have limited pick up areas, but are still black cabs.. Chingford in E4 (London) could only pick up in a certain range from the station, but still off the street... so some cabs are more equal than others.

The pre-booked (old mini cabs) now controlled by TFL have to have a booked journey and cannot pick up off the street by being flagged down. So there is a two tier, or even three tier if you include places like Chingford etc.,

But we seem to forget the bus.. now they chuck out loads of contaminates. We have discuss other truck based vehicles in the past.. but until everything is electric of does not put out contaminates then the problem will remain.

Hiking a tax as is done now.. if you can pay it then it is not an issue .. but for the Mr average Joe then it is a problem.

I tend to agree on the Aviation fuel vat zero issue.. I think airlines should pay.. but then all they will do as they used to.. stop of in Ireland to fuel .. or take on fuel in Europe... more take off's and landings...

Bob

 

[buttons]

Here is what the AA say about town driving with a particulate filter they say change to petrol of electric. Diesels are not suitable for continual use in towns..
http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/fuels-and-environment/diesel-particulate-filters.html

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[scotjimland]

Here is what the AA say about town driving with a particulate filter they say[HI] change to petrol[/HI] of electric. Diesels are not suitable for continual use in towns..
http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/fuels-and-environment/diesel-particulate-filters.html

Petrol .. hardy a safe alternative , nor for that matter electric as pointed out in a previous post..

Petrol contains toxic substances such as benzene, toluene, xylene and 1,3-butadiene. Benzene can cause leukaemia, immune deficiencies, eye irritations, drowsiness, nausea and headaches, while toluene can cause damage to the nervous system and narcosis. Xylene can lead to eye, throat and chest irritation, headaches and dizziness, while 1,3-butadiene can cause cancer and eye, nose and throat irritation.

LONDON: A petrol pump near your home could raise your cancer risk, a new study has warned. Researchers in Spain have carried out the study and found that buildings within a 100m radius of petrol pumps are exposed to potentially harmful pollution — in fact, they found raised traces of a cancer-causing chemical in the homes.

"Some airborne organic compounds — such as benzene, which increases the risk of cancer — have been recorded at petrol stations at levels above the average levels for urban areas where traffic is the primary source of emission," lead researcher Marta Doval of Murcia University said.

The study has shown that the air at petrol stations and in their immediate surroundings is above all affected by emissions stemming from evaporated vehicle fuels — unburnt fuels from fuel loading and unloading operations, refuelling and liquid spillages.

 

[ShiftZZ]

Thanks Bob....




The main thrust here is what?
I suspect that there are too many people in London and thats the issue, same issue at the High Speed Rail link, another red herring.

London in not the be all and end all, move some of the 'work' away from London, in this day an age a large number of office work could well be done at home thus elimination a lot of the transport issues. We always look for solutions rather than the cause.

 

[GJH]

Thanks Bob....

The main thrust here is what?
I suspect that there are too many people in London and thats the issue, same issue at the High Speed Rail link, another red herring.

London in not the be all and end all, move some of the 'work' away from London, in this day an age a large number of office work could well be done at home thus elimination a lot of the transport issues. We always look for solutions rather than the cause.

Not just London. The south east in general has been full for years. But until some government say NO, you can't have another estate/road/runway then it won't change. Of course, if companies had the interests of the country at heart they could always move to other areas voluntarily and take the burden away from government

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[slobadoberbob]

lets move the South east to France

Not just London. The south east in general has been full for years. But until some government say NO, you can't have another estate/road/runway then it won't change. Of course, if companies had the interests of the country at heart they could always move to other areas voluntarily and take the burden away from government

I agree... lets move the South East to France and get some of there space.

Bob:Blush:

 

[GJH]

I agree... lets move the South East to France and get some of there space.

Bob:Blush:

What makes you think France would accept the South East, Bob?