malumbu

Johnson screwed TfL over. COVID compounded this. I'm a regular user of public transport and generally happy. I have my moans but tend to pick these up with TfL or my MP. I can't remember the last time I drove a journey under 2 miles. I don't think of the convenience it may provide, assuming I could park, but the harm it presents. I'm pleased that the current Mayor has taken further measures to discourage some car journeys. And recognise some of the good the last one did, despite his many failings. I'm disappointed that the current PM is the first one publicly pro car since Thatcher, but he will go (not soon enough). I went on the wonderful 30 year ride and party for critical mass on Sunday, in central London, having been there 30 years ago at the first one. It was wonderful to celebrate the large increase in cycling since I moved to London.

The revolution will be televised but I expect it will be in the States following Trump's conviction and the the extension of a ultra low lethal weapon zone from the murder hotspots to mid town America. Three to five years replacement? If you are talking about leasing, I though that that was even shorter, but the house of cards will have to tumble sooner or later.

Would be better if just those born this century voted! Same with the Referendum (at that point 16 or under), it would have been very limited, and not representative, but the result would have gone better 🖕

So you are suggesting cars get kept for longer? Putting motor manufacturers out of business. Good, we agree on that one

Funny thing is many people only got excited when it was extended to the outer boroughs, yet hardly said a word when it came to within the North and South Circulars, which was always Johnson's expectation. What a fair charge is, is subjective, but if you ask people nicely not to drive their older cars few would take any notice. How about an acknowledgement for the scrappage scheme, surely most would approve. It's about the same cost as early revenue so it's quits. And the new bus Superloop? No scare stories on line so must be good.

Government were ordered by the Supreme court to sort out air quality. Government came up with the concept of Clean Air Zones (CAZ). The ULEZ is a CAZ, announced by Mayor Johnson, before the Supreme Court published their verdict, and government published their revised national plans. Before the first extension two thirds of the parked cars in my street were older diesels. Now 95 percent are compliant Similar schemes have been introduced in other European cities, some such as Paris have gone further.

If one drives an older vehicle less, or changes that older vehicle for a cleaner one, why would that not result in cleaner air? Changes may be small and difficult to measure - which is why government uses modelling, backed up by monitoring, to report air quality. The main issue is nitrogen oxides, there are not trapped on foliage, or surfaces of buildings, being a gas rather than small particles of pollution. Now you could say there are better options. The best option is if we all took the environment and air quality more seriously, and changed our habits accordingly. But for many driving is habitual and a difficult to get voluntary behavior change, The Mayor is aware of the impact of wood burners, as I have reported before this is well known about for the last ten years or so but successive governments have ducked the issue; particularly shame on Defra https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-and-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/pollution-and-air-quality/guidance-wood-burning-london But can you imagine the uproar if local or national government banned wood burners.

It improves air quality. When originally proposed under the Johnson government it was decided to allow much older petrol cars to help those less well off who needed to use a car regularly. Like the child minder in the BBC article. The scrappage scheme is generous. Parties such as Reform have very few policies; they are essentially anti immigration, pro-car, pro climate change and do not want to take action to improve air quality. Tories are opportunists.

My first chart was from the RAC but I explained that there are too many variables concerning their pothole index to demonstrate any sort of trend ie getting better or worse. The RAC also has a snap shot rather than a series of annual returns from local authorities. Lots of rhetoric from government and 5 Billion pounds. Questions need, as ever, to be asked of them. Let's face it, it is an election year and they are doing everything they can to get the motorists' vote. Enforcement penalties do not go to the highway maintenance budget. I think that is right. But as aware motorists with excellent driving standards why are we still infringing rules and the law? Surely the pot is diminishing and will ultimately just cover enforcement costs

The link doesn't open for me, but if this is a more effective means for road crossings then contact DfT. If I can have the link I will speak to my many contacts on road safety. I expect they are up to speed on alternatives, but you never know. There was a story many years ago about the match company Bryant and May losing money. Some consultants were brought in and said the answer is simple. Just have the sandpaper on one side. It's a total urban myth, strike anywhere matches always had sandpaper just in one side.

My original question was are roads getting worse or is it our perception. I expect the latter. I was introduced to the term evidence based policy 30 years ago. I thought surely all policy is evidence based. I'm still waiting for the evidence that pot holes are getting worse. Solutions? Lighter vehicles, less driving, higher taxes - indirect/general or direct. Road user charging would be the best way forward.

Cars are getting heavier, Sustrans report (green perspective): https://www.sustrans.org.uk/media/12439/why-are-cars-getting-bigger-a-deep-dive-into-how-uk-regulations-are-enabling-car-size-growth.pdf RAC report (motorists' perspective) : https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/calls-for-changes-to-uk-car-parks-to-deal-with-weight-of-modern-cars/ There was a jump in the 90s due to changes to type approval (structural in passenger safety and technology), more increase in physical size and the introduction of NCAP standards. Try driving an early 90s Citroen AX, less than half the weight of a typical modern car, great power to weight ratio, you develop great arm muscles steering it, and leg muscles braking, and it would all but disintegrate on impact with a wall at 70mph. This cyclist has learned to live with potholes, not love them but live with them. Slippy road surface more of an issue for me but that is another story.

I remember thirty years ago media articles about the pothole crisis. I'm not sure whether it is any better or worse than then. Is there an objective measure? Not that it is not an issue, but feels like flavour of the month at the moment. RACs pothole index would suggest that there was a reduction in pothole related damage over the ten years 2009 to 2019, although the pothole index is based on a relative number (proportion of call outs due to pothole damage) rather than absolute. And this was a time when I expect as cars became more reliable there were less call outs for old school mechanical breakdowns, as opposed to can't change my tyre, batter flat or wrong fuel - common causes now. Pot hole breakdowns increased last year, and oddly during 2020, yet either side were up and down. But there are just too many variables, including excessive wet, and excessive cold. And car weight has gone up, in particularly due to heavier vehicles (SUVs). Ford cutting small car production and the Volvo/Merc/JLR/BMW continuing to persuade many they have to have a large SUV as we transition to an electric fleet wont make things any better. I expect that some of the current interest is due to the upcoming local authority and Mayoral elections, as a stick to beat Labour RAC publish an annual report on motorists' issues, warning, some of us use this as evidence that there are a number of issues with motorists including attitudes to speeding https://www.rac.co.uk/report-on-motoring

Not someone that I will miss

well apparently: Advantages of Satellite TV One of the greatest advantages of satellite dishes is that they are a lot smaller in size when compared to when they first were introduced. This makes it very easy for fitters to install them on the roof of your home so you can get the best signal. Better Picture Due to the way signal is transmitted to your home, satellite tv has better picture quality when compared to cable television. This is because cable tv needs a lot of wires connected which are connected to a hub that may be further away from your home, causing poor picture quality. More Choices You have a wide range of channels to choose from because a satellite dish transmits signals from all around the world, so whichever company you are set up with, you can receive channels from other countries. Easy to Troubleshoot Troubleshooting a satellite television is very easy when compared to cable television. The reason for this is because of the configuration which is carried out, making it easy for you so you do not need to get in touch with your provider in order to troubleshoot. I expect that this is rather outdated from a time when they were digging up our streets to lay on cable TV before fast broadband/fibre. I suppose a supplementary question is whether we need cable TV anymore, does anyone round here use cable or satellite?