London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31   Report Post  
Old May 14th 19, 01:46 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: May 2011
Posts: 338
Default London pollution monitoring

On 13/05/2019 23:01, Recliner wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2019 20:08, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/05/2019 19:27, JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2019 16:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/05/2019 16:04, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2019 10:24, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 21:22, JNugent wrote:
On 11/05/2019 10:26, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 09:57, JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2019 10:37, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 10/05/2019 09:25, Recliner wrote:

Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube — how
to clean your air

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454 691


Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only measuring
one type of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic "cures" that
only address part of the problem.* It was the same
concentration on one pollutant and ignoring the others that
gave us the Diesel Disaster.

To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel
disaster"?

The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who
followed government advice and incentives by buying diesel cars
rather than petrol and are now being penalised for it?

It must be that.

That is a symptom, not the problem.* The problem is by wanting a
quick political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact that
diesels are responsible for much greater general pollution even
if the manufacturers hadn't been cheating on the tests.

Taking you at your word, that may be a problem.

But where is the "disaster"?

[By that, I mean other than the financial disaster which has
befallen anyone stuck with a running term of car finance and now
having to find an extra £62.50 a week - or more - simply to be
where they were before Khan stabbed them in the back. Obviously.]

The health problems it is causing.

There's a "...said to be..." missing there.

If the level of air pollution were as dangerous as claimed by some,
none of us would survive it. But the vast majority of us do manage
to survive it, somehow - even those of us born and bred in
inner-city locations.

Extrapolating up from the odd case here and there is unimpressive.

Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with an
underlying agenda).

But you don't need me to tell you that.

I'm intrigued to know what you think my "underlying agenda" is.

I didn't say you had one.

So who is the line "Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit
hyperbole with an underlying agenda)." aimed at"?


Those who are behind the movement to (a) restrict mobility and (b) tax
people more - and are using the diesel excuse to facilitate it - and
coined the phrase.

You aren't a decision maker at the Mayor's office or TaL, are you?


TaL? What's that?


Transport against London.

They like to pretend they're in favour of transport for London, but
behave as though restricting transport is their job. They must know
their own business best.



  #32   Report Post  
Old May 14th 19, 02:33 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,453
Default London pollution monitoring

On 14/05/2019 14:45, JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2019 21:27, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/05/2019 21:17, JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2019 20:08, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/05/2019 19:27, JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2019 16:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/05/2019 16:04, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2019 10:24, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 21:22, JNugent wrote:
On 11/05/2019 10:26, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 11/05/2019 09:57, JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2019 10:37, Graeme Wall wrote:

On 10/05/2019 09:25, Recliner wrote:

Air pollution: Snuff out scented candles and avoid Tube —
how to clean your air

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/air-pollution-snuff-out-scented-candles-and-avoid-tube-how-to-clean-your-air-gps5l9s8r?shareToken=43853b15aafb2b53bcc5cd879b454 691

Usual problem with these sort of tests, they are only
measuring one type of pollutant. Tends to lead to simplistic
"cures" that only address part of the problem.* It was the
same concentration on one pollutant and ignoring the others
that gave us the Diesel Disaster.

To what are you referring when you use the phrase "diesel
disaster"?

The obvious disaster is the losses incurred by those who
followed government advice and incentives by buying diesel
cars rather than petrol and are now being penalised for it?

It must be that.

That is a symptom, not the problem.* The problem is by wanting
a quick political fix for CO2 emissions they ignored the fact
that diesels are responsible for much greater general
pollution even if the manufacturers hadn't been cheating on
the tests.

Taking you at your word, that may be a problem.

But where is the "disaster"?

[By that, I mean other than the financial disaster which has
befallen anyone stuck with a running term of car finance and
now having to find an extra £62.50 a week - or more - simply to
be where they were before Khan stabbed them in the back.
Obviously.]

The health problems it is causing.

There's a "...said to be..." missing there.

If the level of air pollution were as dangerous as claimed by
some, none of us would survive it. But the vast majority of us do
manage to survive it, somehow - even those of us born and bred in
inner-city locations.

Extrapolating up from the odd case here and there is unimpressive.

Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole (albeit hyperbole with
an underlying agenda).

But you don't need me to tell you that.

I'm intrigued to know what you think my "underlying agenda" is.

I didn't say you had one.

So who is the line "Calling it a "disaster" is pure hyperbole
(albeit hyperbole with an underlying agenda)." aimed at"?

Those who are behind the movement to (a) restrict mobility and (b)
tax people more - and are using the diesel excuse to facilitate it -
and coined the phrase.

You aren't a decision maker at the Mayor's office or TaL, are you?


Ah, a conspiracy theorist, nuff said.


If you are claiming that there is no plan to restrict travel by car and
no plan to extract more money from those doing it, you are plainly wrong.

When something looks like a duck...


As I said, you've totally missed my point, but carry on duck hunting in
a turkey farm if it pleases you.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

  #33   Report Post  
Old June 30th 19, 10:23 AM
Senior Member
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Feb 2011
Location: Leyton, East London
Posts: 871
Default

Should Sadiq Khan, TfL or the London Borough of Waltham Forest
each be fined 100.00?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/...cid=spartandhp

There is no environmental difference between a car parked with
its engine running and a car needlessly stationary because
unnecessary traffic lights have been installed or because pavements
have been widened to prevent cars from overtaking a bus.

Last edited by Robin9 : July 1st 19 at 09:36 PM
  #34   Report Post  
Old June 30th 19, 01:26 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,625
Default London pollution monitoring

In message , at 11:23:51 on Sun, 30
Jun 2019, Robin9 remarked:

Should Sadiq Khan, TfL or the London Borough of Waltham Forest
each be fined 100.00?

http://tinyurl.com/y2pe3yvd

There is no environmental difference between a car parked with
its engine running and a car needlessly stationery


that envelopes a whole range of other issues.

because unnecessary traffic lights have been installed or because
pavements have been widened to prevent cars from overtaking a bus.



--
Roland Perry
  #35   Report Post  
Old June 30th 19, 02:55 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2018
Posts: 79
Default London pollution monitoring

On 30/06/2019 11:23, Robin9 wrote:
Should Sadiq Khan, TfL or the London Borough of Waltham Forest
each be fined £ 100.00?

http://tinyurl.com/y2pe3yvd

There is no environmental difference between a car parked with
its engine running and a car needlessly stationery because
unnecessary traffic lights have been installed or because pavements
have been widened to prevent cars from overtaking a bus.


Most modern cars will shut off the engine if sitting at lights, etc.
Although this does rely on the driver selecting neutral and putting the
handbrake on, and how many people do that..? No, they just sit there in
front of you with their foot on the brake giving you full brake light
intensity, lovely at night, I don't think grrrr...

By the way, as a former bus driver, I am not keen on the way some people
overtake buses when they're at stops. I once had a car belt past me and
then do a sharp 90-degree left turn into the side road 6ft in front of
the bus, just as I had just started to pull away from a stop (and yes I
was indicating, and in plenty of time).

A young woman holding an 18-month old child lost her footing and the kid
banged his head on the luggage rack rails. I was there for over an hour
waiting for an ambulance and the police, fortunately the little boy
didn't sustain any serious injury.


--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]


  #36   Report Post  
Old June 30th 19, 03:57 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Feb 2016
Posts: 852
Default London pollution monitoring



"Robin9" wrote in message
...

Should Sadiq Khan, TfL or the London Borough of Waltham Forest
each be fined 100.00?

http://tinyurl.com/y2pe3yvd

There is no environmental difference between a car parked with
its engine running and a car needlessly stationery because
unnecessary traffic lights have been installed or because pavements
have been widened to prevent cars from overtaking a bus.


ITYF pavements are widened to make it easier for disabled to get on and of
the bus

tim



  #37   Report Post  
Old June 30th 19, 04:02 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Feb 2016
Posts: 852
Default London pollution monitoring



"MissRiaElaine" wrote in message
...
On 30/06/2019 11:23, Robin9 wrote:
Should Sadiq Khan, TfL or the London Borough of Waltham Forest
each be fined £ 100.00?

http://tinyurl.com/y2pe3yvd

There is no environmental difference between a car parked with
its engine running and a car needlessly stationery because
unnecessary traffic lights have been installed or because pavements
have been widened to prevent cars from overtaking a bus.


Most modern cars will shut off the engine if sitting at lights, etc.


probably less than 50% of cars on the road have start stop technology

It will be about decade before it reaches 95%

Although this does rely on the driver selecting neutral and putting the
handbrake on,


does it?

didn't know that

don't have one

Even when I do select neutral I rarely put the hand brake on if the road is
flat. what's the point?

By the way, as a former bus driver, I am not keen on the way some people
overtake buses when they're at stops. I once had a car belt past me and
then do a sharp 90-degree left turn into the side road 6ft in front of the
bus, just as I had just started to pull away from a stop (and yes I was
indicating, and in plenty of time).


So just because of one idiot, we all have to dawdle down the road waiting
behind the bus at every stop, just because you don't want us to overtake?

tim



  #38   Report Post  
Old June 30th 19, 04:10 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2009
Posts: 131
Default London pollution monitoring

On 30/06/2019 16:57, tim... wrote:

ITYF pavements are widened to make it easier for disabled to get on and
of the bus

In most cases, widening at stops is to allow the bus to pull away from
the stop without having to wait to be let out by another driver, as well
as making it easier for the bus to get close to the kerb.

The DDA bit is the high kerb, which makes it easier for disabled people
and buggy users to get on and off. Wheelchair users still need to use
the ramp, but buggies can be lifted over the small step, and it's easier
for people with limited mobility to get on and off, so they can avoid
having to ask for the ramp to be deployed. Almost all TfL stops have the
high kerb, and the projections are mostly on routes through residential
areas, where the residents park on the road, and tend to block easy
access to the stop by buses.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  #39   Report Post  
Old June 30th 19, 04:58 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,625
Default London pollution monitoring

In message , at 17:02:50 on Sun, 30 Jun
2019, tim... remarked:

Even when I do select neutral I rarely put the hand brake on if the
road is flat. what's the point?


So you don't get pushed into whatever's in front, when someone rear-ends
you. In my case that was people crossing the road at a Pelican. It could
just as likely be another vehicle.
--
Roland Perry
  #40   Report Post  
Old June 30th 19, 06:00 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: May 2011
Posts: 143
Default London pollution monitoring

"MissRiaElaine" wrote in message
...

Most modern cars will shut off the engine if sitting at lights, etc.
Although this does rely on the driver selecting neutral and putting the
handbrake on, and how many people do that..? No, they just sit there in
front of you with their foot on the brake giving you full brake light
intensity, lovely at night, I don't think grrrr...

Strangely, with the only start-stop implementation I've driven (Alfa Romeo)
the engine cut when the car was stopped with the footbrake. If you then
selected neutral and applied the handbrake the engine restarted when you
took your foot off the footbrake.

I decided to bypass start-stop altogether on my latest car by buying a full
hybrid, where the engine has stopped long before the car comes to a rest,
and the car can be moved for short distances in heavy traffic without
starting the engine at all. However, the parking brake on this car is
electric and is quite hard to apply manually - it is applied automatically
when you shift the transmission to Park. The car has a brake hold feature
which leaves the footbrake applied after coming to a stop. The brake
releases when you press the accelerator to move off. This works fairly well,
but it doeas keep the brake lights on while you're stopped.

--
DAS



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tramlink seeking speed monitoring and driver vigilance devices Recliner[_3_] London Transport 0 June 7th 17 07:39 AM
Pollution on the tube [email protected] London Transport 7 June 12th 15 08:55 AM
C-charge monitoring shows sustained traffic improvements TravelBot London Transport News 0 August 28th 06 08:29 AM
Pollution test passed for third runway TravelBot London Transport News 0 August 28th 06 08:24 AM
FS Respro Techno Anti-pollution mask Tom Orr London Transport 0 February 28th 05 07:20 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 London Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about London Transport"

 

Copyright © 2017