Avoid Bradford (5 Viewers)

[The general]

The huge ques on the M3 and M27 coming into the Forest even in the winter tell a completely different story of course.

Dont forget lyndhurst.

 

[Steve and Denise]

I always do only ever went through it once not a nice place at all

 

[steve69]

There, I've corrected that for you.

Lets face it - they're all dumps nowadays. Bath is just a slightly prettier dump, that's all.

 

[raysalaugh]

You might have had horse there too!

Yes and if the meat is tough you've probably got the saddle .

 

[stewartwebr]

Same applies to:

• Bath
• Bradford
• Birmingham
• Bristol
• London
• Glasgow
• Manchester
• Newcastle/Gateshead
• Portsmouth
• Sheffield

With the current zones to get larger and more stringent, and more cities to follow soon.

Basically unless your motorhome is Euro 6 (2014'ish onwards) you will progressively be 'tolled' at a higher and higher amount in more and more places.
(Same applies to mainland cities Europe wide map here)

What I don't understand why a 2013/Euro 5 motorhome is selling for almost the same price as a 2014/Euro 6 motorhome.
In my book the Euro 5 vehicle should be a least a third cheaper, if not more.

Add Edinburgh and Aberdeen to the list as of 1st of the month. Looks like it’s the future, once one council seen the revenue they all jumped on the cash cow train.

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

 

[Brains]

Revised List current UK cities with restrictions for those driving older (pre Euro 6/2014) diesel motorhomes:
CC, CAZ, LEZ, ULEZ and other names.

• Aberdeen
• Bath
• Bradford
• Birmingham
• Bristol
• Dundee
• Edinburgh
• London (CC, ULEZ and LEZ)
• Glasgow
  
  • Manchester (Temporary reprieve)
• Newcastle/Gateshead
• Portsmouth
• Sheffield

With the current zones to get larger and more stringent, and more cities to follow soon.

Basically unless your motorhome is Euro 6 (2014'ish onwards) you will progressively be 'tolled' at a higher and higher amount in more and more places.
(Same applies to mainland cities Europe wide map here)

As an aside: I think anyone calling these anti pollution/congestion schemes 'Money making ventures for the local council' needs to obtain their regular news from a reputable source, and not the Daily Mail or GB News.
There is a reason why every political party that stands a chance of getting in more than one MP is backing them.

What will be interesting to see is what Manchester does, as they can not leave the situation as it is.

As an FYI: Local bus operators and coaches have been dealing with this issue for over a decade.
If you check the map above, as there are a load more UK cities such as York, Birmingham, Norwich that have banned Euro 5 and older busses and coaches.

 

[Mzracer]

Dont forget lyndhurst.

Yes the traffic in Lyndhurst is terrible, has been for decades.

At least it is fairly civilised in Lyndhurst though and definitely not in dump status.

 

[Brains]

Add Edinburgh and Aberdeen to the list as of 1st of the month. Looks like it’s the future, once one council seen the revenue they all jumped on the cash cow train.

and Dundee

 

[Mzracer]

As an aside: I think anyone calling these anti pollution/congestion schemes 'Money making ventures for the local council'

Would you explain this in some detail please?

 

[PaulyP]

You might have had horse there too!

More likely cat !

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

 

[PaulyP]

Revised List current UK cities with restrictions for those driving older (pre Euro 6/2014) diesel motorhomes:
CC, CAZ, LEZ, ULEZ and other names.

• Aberdeen
• Bath
• Bradford
• Birmingham
• Bristol
• Dundee
• Edinburgh
• London (CC, ULEZ and LEZ)
• Glasgow
  
  • Manchester (Temporary reprieve)
• Newcastle/Gateshead
• Portsmouth
• Sheffield

With the current zones to get larger and more stringent, and more cities to follow soon.

Basically unless your motorhome is Euro 6 (2014'ish onwards) you will progressively be 'tolled' at a higher and higher amount in more and more places.
(Same applies to mainland cities Europe wide map here)

As an aside: I think anyone calling these anti pollution/congestion schemes 'Money making ventures for the local council' needs to obtain their regular news from a reputable source, and not the Daily Mail or GB News.
There is a reason why every political party that stands a chance of getting in more than one MP is backing them.

What will be interesting to see is what Manchester does, as they can not leave the situation as it is.

As an FYI: Local bus operators and coaches have been dealing with this issue for over a decade.
If you check the map above, as there are a load more UK cities such as York, Birmingham, Norwich that have banned Euro 5 and older busses and coaches.

So when you look at the Defra site every day and it gives the figure of 1 or 2 which is very low, (1-3) where do they get their scam figures from that say we have pollution !
My vehicle passed its mot last month including emissions, but it would not be allowed into a caz zone as it doesn’t meet their requirements, so why is their style of pollution figure not incorporated into the mot then there would be no “polluting” vehicles and they wouldn’t have to charge anyone !
But it has nothing to do with cleaning the air, it’s all about making money and control !!!

 

[Brains]

Would you explain this in some detail please?

Really?

To put it simply.

I live in a nice bit of London, I have the River Thames nearby, a large park backing onto my garden and there are so many trees around that we are actually designated as living in a forest.

However the pollution levels are multiple times of the WHO maximum.
Pollution kills people, thousands of people, in the UK, every year.
My life, like the millions of people that live within 30 miles of me is liable to be shorter due to pollution.

The main pollutant is diesel particulates.
If you were to open up my brain or lungs you would find traces of diesel particulates.

Something very urgently needs to be done to reduce the diesel particulates.
The 'soft' solution is to toll the vehicles making the diesel particulates.

Other better solutions would be an instant outright ban of all pre-2014 diesel vehicles from all towns.
Followed by a fast (say 5-10 year) switch over to EV's and massive spending on public transport and cycling provision.

Another option could be to move the populations out of the cities.
The population of London could be moved to the New Forest area, as they are used to living in a forest.

 

[The Wino]

So when you look at the Defra site every day and it gives the figure of 1 or 2 which is very low, (1-3) where do they get their scam figures from that say we have pollution !
My vehicle passed its mot last month including emissions, but it would not be allowed into a caz zone as it doesn’t meet their requirements, so why is their style of pollution figure not incorporated into the mot then there would be no “polluting” vehicles and they wouldn’t have to charge anyone !
But it has nothing to do with cleaning the air, it’s all about making money and control !!!

The emissions standards for the mot depend on the age of the vehicle and are stricter the newer it is. They could apply the stricter emission standards to all vehicles but then all older vehicles would fail the mot and most likely it wouldn't be economically viable to upgrade them. Be careful what you wish for!

 

[PaulyP]

Really?

To put it simply.

I live in a nice bit of London, I have the River Thames nearby, a large park backing onto my garden and there are so many trees around that we are actually designated as living in a forest.

However the pollution levels are multiple times of the WHO maximum.
Pollution kills people, thousands of people, in the UK, every year.
My life, like the millions of people that live within 30 miles of me is liable to be shorter due to pollution.

The main pollutant is diesel particulates.
If you were to open up my brain or lungs you would find traces of diesel particulates.

Something very urgently needs to be done to reduce the diesel particulates.
The 'soft' solution is to toll the vehicles making the diesel particulates.

Other better solutions would be an instant outright ban of all pre-2014 diesel vehicles from all towns.
Followed by a fast (say 5-10 year) switch over to EV's and massive spending on public transport and cycling provision.

Another option could be to move the populations out of the cities.
The population of London could be moved to the New Forest area, as they are used to living in a forest.

One thing you said is “pollution kills people” only one death certificate issued in this country has ever mentioned pollution, and then it wasn’t the reason the death occurred but was added as a possible contributing cause ! Whilst people believe we have have a major problem the authorities will continue with these scams.

 

[PaulyP]

The emissions standards for the mot depend on the age of the vehicle and are stricter the newer it is. They could apply the stricter emission standards to all vehicles but then all older vehicles would fail the mot and most likely it wouldn't be economically viable to upgrade them. Be careful what you wish for!

I’m not wishing for it, but if they were serious they could wipe out the problem with 12 months, but then they wouldn’t make money !!

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

 

[TheTwoOfUs]

Let's face it, if you can afford to pay the various charges you can still pollute to your hearts content but the councils will benefit from it.

 

[The Wino]

I’m not wishing for it, but if they were serious they could wipe out the problem with 12 months, but then they wouldn’t make money !!

If they increased the mot standard everyone with a more polluting vehicle would either have to buy a lower emissions one or use public transport. If they did either of those they would not have to pay any emissions levy now. So how is it about making money?
It's the same with the other thread about compulsory speed limiters the same ones who say that speed cameras are just a money making scheme are the same ones against speed limiters ( which would actually reduce the number of speeding fines!). I suspect that some just want to pollute as much as they want and speed without any penalties as both show an " I'm alright Jack" attitude.

 

[Sandancers]

Really?

To put it simply.

I live in a nice bit of London, I have the River Thames nearby, a large park backing onto my garden and there are so many trees around that we are actually designated as living in a forest.

However the pollution levels are multiple times of the WHO maximum.
Pollution kills people, thousands of people, in the UK, every year.
My life, like the millions of people that live within 30 miles of me is liable to be shorter due to pollution.

The main pollutant is diesel particulates.
If you were to open up my brain or lungs you would find traces of diesel particulates.

Something very urgently needs to be done to reduce the diesel particulates.
The 'soft' solution is to toll the vehicles making the diesel particulates.

Other better solutions would be an instant outright ban of all pre-2014 diesel vehicles from all towns.
Followed by a fast (say 5-10 year) switch over to EV's and massive spending on public transport and cycling provision.

Another option could be to move the populations out of the cities.
The population of London could be moved to the New Forest area, as they are used to living in a forest.

How many people have died from ingesting the plastic nano particles found in food ?

How will you prevent people dying from the nano plastics in food ?

I have no idea about the above, but I'll bet as soon as the politicians figure out a way to raise tax to "fix" the issue then there will be loads of publicity about it.

 

[Brains]

One thing you said is “pollution kills people” only one death certificate issued in this country has ever mentioned pollution, and then it wasn’t the reason the death occurred but was added as a possible contributing cause ! Whilst people believe we have have a major problem the authorities will continue with these scams.

You can tell that to the estimated 48,625 UK residents that died last year where scientist say pollution would have been a contributing factor.

If you are not a scientist, and you disagree with scientists about science, it's actually not a disagreement.
You are likely going out on a limb with your limited knowledge, you maybe right but there is a good chance that you might be wrong.
Science is not the truth. Science is finding the truth.
When Science changes its opinion, it did not lie to you. It learned more.

In our youth we would have painted a wall with a lead based paint or kept pests under control with DDT.
Your Grandmother might have used mercury based makeup. Your Grandfather may have worked with asbestos.
Science has since learned that those things are not very good for you.

 

[Mzracer]

Really?

To put it simply.

I live in a nice bit of London, I have the River Thames nearby, a large park backing onto my garden and there are so many trees around that we are actually designated as living in a forest.

However the pollution levels are multiple times of the WHO maximum.
Pollution kills people, thousands of people, in the UK, every year.
My life, like the millions of people that live within 30 miles of me is liable to be shorter due to pollution.

The main pollutant is diesel particulates.
If you were to open up my brain or lungs you would find traces of diesel particulates.

Something very urgently needs to be done to reduce the diesel particulates.
The 'soft' solution is to toll the vehicles making the diesel particulates.

Other better solutions would be an instant outright ban of all pre-2014 diesel vehicles from all towns.
Followed by a fast (say 5-10 year) switch over to EV's and massive spending on public transport and cycling provision.

Another option could be to move the populations out of the cities.
The population of London could be moved to the New Forest area, as they are used to living in a forest.

Thanks

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

 

[Brains]

How many people have died from ingesting the plastic nano particles found in food ?

How will you prevent people dying from the nano plastics in food ?

I have no idea about the above, but I'll bet as soon as the politicians figure out a way to raise tax to "fix" the issue then there will be loads of publicity about it.

There is a relatively simple 'fix' to a big percentage of the problem.
'Polluter pays'
Tax all packaging.

And force all producers of packaging to 'buy back' their packaging in some form
(IE: A deposit on glass bottles)

Cardboard, made from recycled paper products, could be taxed at pennies per tonne.
Plastic film however should be taxed at a much higher rate, say £1 per/m2
Plastic bottles at a similar rate, say £1 per litre bottle, whereas glass would be about 10p per litre bottle + deposit scheme.

 

[Mzracer]

The population of London could be moved to the New Forest area

A good portion of them do every weekend !!

 

[Mzracer]

If you are not a scientist, and you disagree with scientists about science, it's actually not a disagreement, you are just wrong.

Sometimes you make sense.

However this is just a plain poor statement.

 

[Folkranger]

That must be because you need to be provided with entertainment, I can think of no other reason.

The huge ques on the M3 and M27 coming into the Forest even in the winter tell a completely different story of course.

Flat landscape, trees and ponies. Pubs aren't bad but not too many.
Try Newcastle, beautiful vibrant city with Northumberland on the doorstep which, while being countryside, is certainly not boring.

 

[Brains]

Sometimes you make sense.

However this is just a plain poor statement.

OK.
Please reword it.

Please find a word to use where a lay person disagrees with an expert in the field.

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

 

[Mzracer]

Really?

To put it simply.

I live in a nice bit of London, I have the River Thames nearby, a large park backing onto my garden and there are so many trees around that we are actually designated as living in a forest.

However the pollution levels are multiple times of the WHO maximum.
Pollution kills people, thousands of people, in the UK, every year.
My life, like the millions of people that live within 30 miles of me is liable to be shorter due to pollution.

The main pollutant is diesel particulates.
If you were to open up my brain or lungs you would find traces of diesel particulates.

Something very urgently needs to be done to reduce the diesel particulates.
The 'soft' solution is to toll the vehicles making the diesel particulates.

Other better solutions would be an instant outright ban of all pre-2014 diesel vehicles from all towns.
Followed by a fast (say 5-10 year) switch over to EV's and massive spending on public transport and cycling provision.

Another option could be to move the populations out of the cities.
The population of London could be moved to the New Forest area, as they are used to living in a forest.

I am more worried about Global pollution rather than local pollution. We can/could get local pollution to much better/lower levels, we would have to work with California style pollution controls, we could adapt to that.

However what is the point when the Chinese and other similar countries are just trashing the Globe with their pollution, the only way to get this message across is to massively tariff Chinese goods to get a movement of that manufacturing back to more controlled environments such as much of Europe and the west coast USA as examples.

So pay the right money for laptops, stop buying throw away products, keep your phone much longer, don't buy Chinese made EV's that have been transported in polluting car transport ships, get the idea ? No I thought not.

 

[Mzracer]

OK.
Please reword it.

Please find a word to use where a lay person disagrees with an expert in the field.

Try this.

If you are not a scientist, and you disagree with scientists about science, then you are likely going out on a limb with your knowledge, you maybe right but there is a good chance that you might be wrong. it's actually not a disagreement, you are just wrong.

Your statement was an emphatic 'you are just wrong' but that is because your narrative needs that support, there will be scientists who have a different view on a subject, after all that is the nature of science, so who is right and who is wrong?

 

[Brains]

I am more worried about Global pollution rather than local pollution. We can/could get local pollution to much better/lower levels, we would have to work with California style pollution controls, we could adapt to that.

However what is the point when the Chinese and other similar countries are just trashing the Globe with their pollution, the only way to get this message across is to massively tariff Chinese goods to get a movement of that manufacturing back to more controlled environments such as much of Europe and the west coast USA as examples.

So pay the right money for laptops, stop buying throw away products, keep your phone much longer, don't buy Chinese made EV's that have been transported in polluting car transport ships, get the idea ? No I thought not.

45 years in the maritime world.
So totally get the idea.

All pollution is 'local' to somewhere.
All other countries can do is influence the big global polluters (USA and China)
You have to start somewhere.
Your house, your street, your village is where you start.

See statement above re 'polluter pays'
Start by taxing the packaging, including all imported packaging.
Then you can start taxing the products themselves.
Why are laptops unrecyclable black plastic ? Make them white and recyclable.

As for ship transport, per tonne, it's one of the cleanest ways to move goods around the world.
That is not say it can still be substantially improved.

 

[The Wino]

Try this.

If you are not a scientist, and you disagree with scientists about science, then you are likely going out on a limb with your knowledge, you maybe right but there is a good chance that you might be wrong. it's actually not a disagreement, you are just wrong.

Your statement was an emphatic 'you are just wrong' but that is because your narrative needs that support, there will be scientists who have a different view on a subject, after all that is the nature of science, so who is right and who is wrong?

There's a big difference between another scientist disagreeing with the body of opinion from other scientists on a subject and a lay person. It's good that other scientists challenge the current view it's how science progresses.

 

[Brains]

Try this.

If you are not a scientist, and you disagree with scientists about science, then you are likely going out on a limb with your knowledge, you maybe right but there is a good chance that you might be wrong. it's actually not a disagreement, you are just wrong.

Your statement was an emphatic 'you are just wrong' but that is because your narrative needs that support, there will be scientists who have a different view on a subject, after all that is the nature of science, so who is right and who is wrong?

OK, re worded.

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