Khan Can

[Paul john]

3 hours ago, Basil-BarryC said:

Agreed and will the London tree huggers vote Khan in again so he can further expand his ULEZ boundaries 

Khan has no authority outside m25 ( current ulez boundry ) as it is not “London”

if it stretches further that would be Sunak issue

[Basil-BarryC]

5 minutes ago, Paul john said:

Khan has no authority outside m25 ( current ulez boundry ) as it is not “London”

if it stretches further that would be Sunak issue

Let’s hope he doesn’t get re-elected. He did try to include everything within the M25 which would mean he would land grab parts of Kent/Surrey etc which are within the M25 but not covered by London boroughs. This was proposed after the 2012 Olympics when London council taxes were to be increased by Khan to cover some of the costs.

it’s not about clean air it’s now about funding for London transport etc as the Government refused to pay his additional cost deficit

 

[Paul john]

12 minutes ago, Basil-BarryC said:

Let’s hope he doesn’t get re-elected. He did try to include everything within the M25 which would mean he would land grab parts of Kent/Surrey etc which are within the M25 but not covered by London boroughs. This was proposed after the 2012 Olympics when London council taxes were to be increased by Khan to cover some of the costs.

it’s not about clean air it’s now about funding for London transport etc as the Government refused to pay his additional cost deficit

 

I think you will find thats already done. 

[Basil-BarryC]

1 minute ago, Paul john said:

I think you will find thats already done. 

Yes but Khan wanted “everyone” within the M25 to be included, he hasn’t managed to grab Kent council taxpayers- Yet !

[Paul john]

6 minutes ago, Basil-BarryC said:

Yes but Khan wanted “everyone” within the M25 to be included, he hasn’t managed to grab Kent council taxpayers- Yet !

I guess its a matter of time. The same as crit air in france moved from just paris to 8 other cities. 
i guess we all must accept that if we dont voluntarily do something, someone will stand behind us and force the issue. 
i mean its not like this issue hasn't been highlighted in schools since 1973 and there have been progressive attempt to reduce pollution like the switch from leaded to unleaded in the 1990’s  

 

[Basil-BarryC]

2 minutes ago, Paul john said:

Isn't chiselhurst and orpington kent?

London boroughs of Bexley & Bromley changed in 1965 from Kent County council

[Paul john]

6 minutes ago, Basil-BarryC said:

London boroughs of Bexley & Bromley changed in 1965 from Kent County council

Yup spotted my mistake so edited post

[Basil-BarryC]

13 minutes ago, Paul john said:

I guess its a matter of time. The same as crit air in france moved from just paris to 8 other cities. 
i guess we all must accept that if we dont voluntarily do something, someone will stand behind us and force the issue. 
i mean its not like this issue hasn't been highlighted in schools since 1973 and there have been progressive attempt to reduce pollution like the switch from leaded to unleaded in the 1990’s  

 

Don’t get me wrong but I’m not against the fact that we must be more eco conscious, I’m against water companies dumping raw sewerage into our rivers and seas, I accept that we must all do more to protect the environment, but it’s the way that Khan has done it that is wrong.
He funded reports to suit his requirements, didn’t give sufficient time or funds for motorists to change vehicles to more eco friendly vehicles. After all it was a Labour government that told us to ditch petrol in favour of cleaner diesel’s which produced less CO2 which was the big demon at the time

[Bper]

Sunak has the ability to stop any expansion and despite the political rumblings that he will announce this next week at the Tory party conference, how much of this is really associated with next year's general election.

The conservatives know they are on a wipe out at the next election unless they come up with something to give the voters. It seems incredibly how they cannot see that if they abolished the ULEZ expansion and left the ECHU and done something to actually stop the ridiculous migration that has got completely out of hand they would win.

I wonder if they are purposely aiming to loose next year as neither party seems to be able to actually give any confidence to the voters in either their policies or more importantly the ability to actually govern for the good of the people.

 

[Cyker]

What amazes me is that people are still buying KHAAAN!'s BS that the ULEZ expansions have anything to do with pollution - It doesn't, it's a cash grab pure and simple, which is why we're so angry about it.

Every analysis I've seen has shown a negligible effect, far below any justifiable reason compared to the eye watering cost and disruption.

On top of that, *none* of the money he's made from the ULEZ has been used to make any environmental improvements, just expand the camera network and try to plug his deficit. I think he's closed down more bus routes than any mayor I know of too!

 

[Haliotis]

On 9/22/2023 at 9:54 AM, Haliotis said:

Every motorist. Seems to think that he/she is the best driver on the roads.  The worst of these are those who do something stupid, then gesticulate/mouthe their annoyance to prove that they [the idiots] are in the right.

 

Speaking of which:

Yesterday evening, taking my wife shopping, en route I had cause to negotiate a light-controlled T-junction, where I was to turn right into the ‘leg’ of the T.  There are two lanes - L/H for straight on, and R/H for my lane.  As I was rolling up to await the light to allow my right turn, a car came alongside my left (in the straight on lane) and hooted at me, mouthing with a vicious glare on his face.  He then caused cars behind him to wait whilst he manoeuvred his car until it was in front of mine.  When the green light for turning came on, he also took this turn before I could do so.

Further on, he pulled into a gateway entrance, still facing ahead and stopped. I passed by him and he pulled out again behind a car that had followed me. Shortly afterwards he turn off into a council housing estate, so he is probably local and knew the road.  Then why his obvious fury when he was at fault?

When my wife questioned why he had stopped and then pulled out again, I said I had no idea - except to wonder if it was to check if I had a dash cam in my car.  Pity I don’t have one, because I would have referred my ‘evidence’ to the police.

Problem is, these days you are lucky if you take a journey without meeting one of these idiots.

[AndyN01]

16 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

........except to wonder if it was to check if I had a dash cam in my car.  Pity I don’t have one, because I would have referred my ‘evidence’ to the police.

 

Get one.

The crash into me and drive off incident I and another innocent drive suffered (bounced off me, nearly lost control then bounced off them and drove off - Police not remotely interested at the time) was resolved with a decision that we were totally not at fault based on my Dashcam evidence. Oh, and we've both had witness statements to complete so I guess that the Police have got interested once they looked at the footage.

Andy.

[Bper]

16 minutes ago, AndyN01 said:

Get one.

The crash into me and drive off incident I and another innocent drive suffered (bounced off me, nearly lost control then bounced off them and drove off - Police not remotely interested at the time) was resolved with a decision that we were totally not at fault based on my dashcam evidence. Oh, and we've both had witness statements to complete so I guess that the Police have got interested once they looked at the footage.

Andy.

Andy, it will be very interesting to see if this will actually be taken any further by the police. The CPS may well look at it and decide due to the backlog in the courts that it may not be worth pursuing. 

Whilst an offence has clearly been carried out and no injuries have been sustained they know that any damage will be resolved by the insurance .

 

[Haliotis]

Would it be a good idea if we could insure against increased premiums when hit by any uninsured miscreant when the victim driver is not at fault - in a similar way which we pay a little extra to cover our NCB?

[Cyker]

Good grief don't give them more ideas on how to fleece us!!  

 

[Haliotis]

2 hours ago, Cyker said:

Good grief don't give them more ideas on how to fleece us!!  

 

Know what you mean, Cyker.  I always pay the extra to protect my NCB, but wonder if this is wasted because, fault or no-fault, the premium gets increased anyhow.

Perhaps the best answer would be a compulsory tax and insurance on e-scooters and e-bikes.  They are motor-driven vehicle and capable of causing severe damage in the worst circumstances.   In the event of being in a fault accident, not having this cover should earn a fine, and they should be responsible for paying out damages to victim(s) and property out of their own pocket. Where they claim being unable to afford it - send in the bailiffs.  Harsh? - not on your life, it’s about time the irresponsible sector of the public learned to pay for their misbehaviour.

I grew up in a society where you accepted the consequences so, to avoid them you did not break the law. It never did me any harm because I respected the rules, and my now grown up family were taught likewise.

It sickens me when I read of antisocial behaviour that gets a slap on the wrists, and the scrotes simply laugh and continue in their errant ways.

[Bper]

1 hour ago, Haliotis said:

Know what you mean, Cyker.  I always pay the extra to protect my NCB, but wonder if this is wasted because, fault or no-fault, the premium gets increased anyhow.

Perhaps the best answer would be a compulsory tax and insurance on e-scooters and e-bikes.  They are motor-driven vehicle and capable of causing severe damage in the worst circumstances.   In the event of being in a fault accident, not having this cover should earn a fine, and they should be responsible for paying out damages to victim(s) and property out of their own pocket. Where they claim being unable to afford it - send in the bailiffs.  Harsh? - not on your life, it’s about time the irresponsible sector of the public learned to pay for their misbehaviour.

I grew up in a society where you accepted the consequences so, to avoid them you did not break the law. It never did me any harm because I respected the rules, and my now grown up family were taught likewise.

It sickens me when I read of antisocial behaviour that gets a slap on the wrists, and the scrotes simply laugh and continue in their errant ways.

e-Scooter Rental companies 

They will also have to have appropriate insurance in place – motor insurance requirements apply to e-scooter operators, therefore a minimum of third-party cover is required, with the explicit inclusion of an indemnity to the user/hirer.

Insurance should be compulsory for E-Scooters .and E- bikes.

[Haliotis]

Once the government were aware of the e-scooters coming onto the market, they should have immediately brought in legislation similar to that for cars - retailers should have been forced by law to have the scooters registered with the DVLA, and not allowed to hand them over to a buyer until insurance was taken out.

As is usual with the UK government, they shut the stable door after the horse has bolted - although, in this case, the stable had no door!!!

But, not to worry - if it is we elderly that get mown down, at least it will help to ease the pressures on the NHS.

[Paul john]

Just now, Haliotis said:

Once the government were aware of the e-scooters coming onto the market, they should have immediately brought in legislation similar to that for cars - retailers should have been forced by law to have the scooters registered with the DVLA, and not allowed to hand them over to a buyer until insurance was taken out.

As is usual with the UK government, they shut the stable door after the horse has bolted - although, in this case, the stable had no door!!!

But, not to worry - if it is we elderly that get mown down, at least it will help to ease the pressures on the NHS.

Hmmm.

what about cycle insurance for those deliveroo w*nk*rs that slap your wingmirrors whilst stationary on the southbank and then go on to charge through a pedestrian crossing shouting “f*****g get out of the way”

[Bper]

Like many people I have experienced these e-scooters shooting past us on the pavement at such speed. If I had moved slightly to one side  I hate to think of the damage this would have caused had it hit me in the back at the speed it was traveling. 

The worst thing is you cant hear them coming and then their gone so quickly that you don't get the chance to do anything other then wish you could  stick the scooter up his ****🤬

[Haliotis]

15 hours ago, Paul john said:

Hmmm.

what about cycle insurance for those deliveroo w*nk*rs that slap your wingmirrors whilst stationary on the southbank and then go on to charge through a pedestrian crossing shouting “f*****g get out of the way”

From what I’ve seen of these Deliveroo guys, their bikes look top heavy with that box on the back.  So, in the event of one acting in the way Paul describes, a gentle sideways push would probably dismount the w*****.   Of course, this wouldn’t be deliberate - simply that he brushed against someone/something, and lost control!!!

[Bper]

Sadiq Khan has given firms £151.8million in lucrative contracts to track down drivers who fail to pay Ulez penalties and other road fines.

The London mayor has briefed four companies to chase motorists who are dodging the £12.50 daily charge for driving into recently expanded Ulez with non-compliant vehicles.

All about clean air he tells us.

[Big_D]

Of course it's all about clean air. Why would it be about the money?? 

He asks sarcastically

[Haliotis]

11 hours ago, Bper said:

Sadiq Khan has given firms £151.8million in lucrative contracts to track down drivers who fail to pay Ulez penalties and other road fines.

The London mayor has briefed four companies to chase motorists who are dodging the £12.50 daily charge for driving into recently expanded Ulez with non-compliant vehicles.

All about clean air he tells us.

This ULEZ is becoming more farcical by the day. First, they have a £12.50/day charge against drivers of non-compliant vehicles - which, BTW, only collects cash for Khan, and does nothing to clean up the air - and then they have cameras to catch drivers who dodge the charge. Now, Khan has, at great expense, used a chunk of the “profits” by engaging tracking companies to chase the fee-dodging drivers.  How compliant are the vehicles of the tracking companies?  And, unless they are EV’s, they will just add to the pollution.

Also, whilst all this is going on, providing drivers pay the £12.50, an unlimited number of non-comp[liant vehicles can daily enter the ULEZ and generate uncontrolled pollution. Pollution which, BTW, has never been medically proven to be a health threat to the general public.  Oh yes, there will be the odd sufferer who is is liable to life-threatening effects from air pollution, but that same sufferer will also be liable to other health threats which have no connection to air pollution.

For how long does Khan and his extremist supporters think he can get away with this cheap, money-grabbing con? 

[AndyN01]

27 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

.....For how long does Khan and his extremist supporters think he can get away with this cheap, money-grabbing con? 

IMHO for as long as he has the power to do so and the folks that have the choice to remove that power get off their collective bottoms and put a cross in the appropriate box.

A bit like all the all the wonderful schemes and ideas being rolled out and pushed forwards across our Nation.

Andy