On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 01:14:02 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

The charge is not a fund raising exercise, it is an incentive to
change behaviour.

To what?

To wake up to the dangers - and anti-social behaviour - of
continuing to drive diesel engines.

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:50:46 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And how about those who live there? Are they to be denied owning a
car?

Do they need one? Try public transport (at least in London).

In article , Huge
writes
On 2017-04-17, Andrew wrote:
On 17/04/2017 14:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/04/17 14:01, NY wrote:
If manufacturers could make a petrol engine that drove like a diesel,
I'd have the best of both worlds.

They could. Its called a 5 litre V8..



They do. They are called petrol hybrids.

Well, the McLaren P1, anyway. All the rest of them are poo.


The new BMW 5 series hybrid looks quite interesting if it lives up to
the hype.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Huge wrote:

The (proposed) scrappage scheme is geographically based, so your figures
are irrelevant.

So to be even vaguely worthwhile (a grand or two) it will need to be
highly selective, applying to 0.5 to 1% of all cars?

Presumably these will be in marginal constituencies, then ...

It will be the usual mess. Based on age or whatever, rather on the worst
polluting vehicles. Which aren't always going to be the oldest.

Beginning to wish I'd kept my V8 Defender (11mpg) instead of changing it
for a diesel (27 mpg)
--
bert

In article , Brian Gaff
writes
Modern diesels are a lot better,
They've said that about every new generation of diesel engine for the
last 20 years+. They even said it about the LR 200TDi
--
bert

In article , ARW
writes
On 17/04/2017 10:16, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Chris Hogg laid this down on his screen :
Because of the hotter
combustion temperatures, diesels emit more NOx, which seems to be the
main point of issue ATM.

Partially solved at low engine speeds by an EGR, problem is that the
EGR's on a diesel need to be regularly cleaned out and no manufacturer
has them on their service list to be cleaned. The net result is a diesel
engine with a choked up intake system.

That's at least one on my breakdowns explained. Dunno why they swapped
it a second time after 2000 miles on a different breakdown.

Next time get them to blank it off.
--
bert

In article ,
newshound writes
On 4/17/2017 11:15 AM, Richard wrote:
"newshound" wrote in message
news:0IudnRuN34NbDmnFnZ2dnUU78VOdnZ2d@brightview .co.uk...

On 4/17/2017 10:51 AM, Huge wrote:
On 2017-04-17, Tim Watts wrote:
On 17/04/17 10:37, Huge wrote:
On 2017-04-17, Graeme wrote:
In message , Chris Hogg
writes

But particulate carbon isn't the only problem. Because of the hotter
combustion temperatures, diesels emit more NOx, which seems to

main point of issue ATM. I gather there may be catalytic NOx
filters,
but the current fuss suggests they don't work very well.

Making a decision now is certainly difficult. We only manage 5-6,000
miles a year, minimum journey 10 miles, average 50 and, once a year,
500. All each way. I keep looking at the Dacia Duster, and
have spoken
to as many drivers as possible, and have not yet found anyone
with a bad
word to say about them, except that the diesel is preferable to the
petrol engine.

Very tempting, given the price.

I wouldn't buy a diesel at the moment. Not until the Government
has sorted
out what its attitude towards them is going to be. You might find
there are
a lot of place you're not allowed to take it.



I suspect all the places will be places I would never drive (eg centre
of massive cities like London).

Quite possibly, but the problem is that none of us know, as yet.


Exactly. How long before you won't be able to drive it to any city
centre hospital. (Because it is in a city centre, rather than because
it is a hospital).
The point is being missed. They don't want to ban them, merely
charge extra for you to drive in their ****ty centres.

The charge is not a fund raising exercise, it is an incentive to change
behaviour.

When does an incentive become a punishment - stick rather than carrot.
--
bert

"mechanic" wrote in message ...

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 01:14:02 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

The charge is not a fund raising exercise, it is an incentive to
change behaviour.

To what?

To wake up to the dangers - and anti-social behaviour - of
continuing to drive diesel engines.

Oh, so some ****ing clown (you) decides that every diesel driver is
anti-social.
I hope you choke on your own purity.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 17 April 2017 22:44:10 UTC+1, newshound wrote:
On 4/17/2017 11:15 AM, Richard wrote:
"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...

On 4/17/2017 10:51 AM, Huge wrote:
On 2017-04-17, Tim Watts wrote:
On 17/04/17 10:37, Huge wrote:
On 2017-04-17, Graeme wrote:
In message , Chris
Hogg
writes

But particulate carbon isn't the only problem. Because of the
hotter
combustion temperatures, diesels emit more NOx, which seems to be
the
main point of issue ATM. I gather there may be catalytic NOx
filters,
but the current fuss suggests they don't work very well.

Making a decision now is certainly difficult. We only manage
5-6,000
miles a year, minimum journey 10 miles, average 50 and, once a
year,
500. All each way. I keep looking at the Dacia Duster, and have
spoken
to as many drivers as possible, and have not yet found anyone with
a bad
word to say about them, except that the diesel is preferable to
the
petrol engine.

Very tempting, given the price.

I wouldn't buy a diesel at the moment. Not until the Government has
sorted
out what its attitude towards them is going to be. You might find
there are
a lot of place you're not allowed to take it.



I suspect all the places will be places I would never drive (eg
centre
of massive cities like London).

Quite possibly, but the problem is that none of us know, as yet.


Exactly. How long before you won't be able to drive it to any city
centre hospital. (Because it is in a city centre, rather than because
it is a hospital).

The point is being missed. They don't want to ban them, merely charge
extra for you to drive in their ****ty centres.

The charge is not a fund raising exercise, it is an incentive to change
behaviour.

To what?

To stop using diesels.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 06:32:58 UTC+1, charles wrote:
In article , Tim Watts
wrote:
On 17/04/17 10:37, Huge wrote:
On 2017-04-17, Graeme wrote:
In message , Chris Hogg
writes

But particulate carbon isn't the only problem. Because of the
hotter
combustion temperatures, diesels emit more NOx, which seems to be
the
main point of issue ATM. I gather there may be catalytic NOx
filters,
but the current fuss suggests they don't work very well.

Making a decision now is certainly difficult. We only manage
5-6,000
miles a year, minimum journey 10 miles, average 50 and, once a year,
500. All each way. I keep looking at the Dacia Duster, and have
spoken to as many drivers as possible, and have not yet found anyone
with a bad word to say about them, except that the diesel is
preferable to the petrol engine.

Very tempting, given the price.

I wouldn't buy a diesel at the moment. Not until the Government has
sorted out what its attitude towards them is going to be. You might
find there are a lot of place you're not allowed to take it.



I suspect all the places will be places I would never drive (eg centre
of massive cities like London).

waht about the taxis, delivery lorries, service buses, long distance
coaches, tourist coaches, railway locaomotives ? Are they all to be
banned
as well?

Railway locomotives could be electric

And mostly are too.

& could do a lot of the above.

**** all of the above in fact.

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:46:12 +0100,
lid wrote:

On 18/04/2017 18:56, mechanic wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 11:56:24 +0100,
lid wrote:

I had a diesel 10 years ago that had a cat and didn't emit much in the
way of NOx...

How would you know?


Because I had the reports from the tester.

Did they test for that 10yrs ago?

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:01:50 +0100, Richard wrote:

"mechanic" wrote in message ...

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 01:14:02 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

The charge is not a fund raising exercise, it is an incentive to
change behaviour.

To what?

To wake up to the dangers - and anti-social behaviour - of
continuing to drive diesel engines.

Oh, so some ****ing clown (you) decides that every diesel driver is
anti-social.
I hope you choke on your own purity.

The only choking is your kids on the NOX etc.

In article ,
mechanic wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:50:46 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And how about those who live there? Are they to be denied owning a
car?

Do they need one? Try public transport (at least in London).

Try going on public transport with a big suitcase or two and small children

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 18/04/2017 06:20, charles wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 17/04/17 15:58, Andrew wrote:
On 17/04/2017 12:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/04/17 11:49, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 20:05:07 +0100, tim... wrote:

It'll be restricted to 10 YO cars

I also read that they might just restrict it to cars registered in
cities
with a pollution problem

Targeting the place of registration is not the same as targeting the
pollution in the cities; the London Mayor is targeting the actual
drivers by putting up the congestion charge for these polluting
vehicles. The sooner they are removed from our streets the better.

what a sanctimonious prick you are, to be sure.

The sooner people like you are removed from the gene pool, the better.


If you or anyone you knew was suffering from asthma or any sort of
lung problem then you might think otherwise.

Far better to slam another 30p on diesel fuel duty and use the
money to fix the potholes and compensate the real losers, those
with breathing issues.

That's fine by me and I drive diesels.

Given the **** state of the roads, I'd rather pay extra ON CONDITION the
money is ringfenced and goes directly to where it belongs.

It's also fair: more duty paid = user doing higher milage and/or a low
efficiency vehicle.

The only thing it does not address is particulate emissions that could
be anywhere from practically zero (new vehicle) to clouds of black smoke.

If you want to see black smoke - go to Paddington station.

Scrap VED at the same time.

If you want to see black smoke go on Youtube and search for clagging.

SteveW

On 18/04/2017 19:55, mechanic wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 01:14:02 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

The charge is not a fund raising exercise, it is an incentive to
change behaviour.

To what?

To wake up to the dangers - and anti-social behaviour - of
continuing to drive diesel engines.

But the way to deal with that is by ensuring the cleanliness of new
vehicles - older ones will soon fall out of the system anyway, without
punishing the innocent owners who followed government advice.

If it is really necessary to clean up the air rapidly and reduce the
number of diesels immediately to do so, then having been given the wrong
advice, owners should be given enough money to scrap their vehicles that
they can afford to replace them with an equivalent petrol car at no cost
to themselves.

You cannot claim anti-social behaviour when drivers neding transport
were deliberately encouraged by government to go diesel.

SteveW

On 18/04/2017 10:29, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 11:37:40 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

One proposal from the Mayor of London is within the boundaries of the
North and South circular roads. And an awful lot of people live within
those.

So? All that area has very good public transport. The vast majority
of people in that area have no real need to own a car. Taxi for the
weekly shop (or shock horror just walk more often) for groceries,
hire for the occasional longer journey. With a car costing around
40p/mile to run (fuel, insurance, maintenace, depreciation, etc) the
£2000 that 5,000 miles/year costs buys quite a few taxi trips and
hires...

Public transport and walking more just don't work for those of us that
have difficulty walking due to painful arthritis or that need to carry
bulky or heavy things or that simply may be on-call for children, sick
relatives, etc. where they may need to leave immediately and travel to
one of a number of destinations without having to link up with various
timetables.

SteveW

In article ,
mechanic wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:50:46 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And how about those who live there? Are they to be denied owning a
car?

Do they need one? Try public transport (at least in London).

The obvious retort to that is if you need a car because of where you live,
move. Makes as much sense as you've done.

--
*Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
mechanic wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:50:46 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And how about those who live there? Are they to be denied owning a
car?

Do they need one? Try public transport (at least in London).

Try going on public transport with a big suitcase or two and small
children

Or simply taking the dog somewhere new for a walk.

Of course I use PT in London for quite a few journeys. Mainly when going
to the West End etc. But even with a very good PT system, a car is still
going to be more convenient for some.

--
*A journey of a thousand sites begins with a single click *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 18/04/17 22:06, mechanic wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:01:50 +0100, Richard wrote:

"mechanic" wrote in message ...

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 01:14:02 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

The charge is not a fund raising exercise, it is an incentive to
change behaviour.

To what?

To wake up to the dangers - and anti-social behaviour - of
continuing to drive diesel engines.

Oh, so some ****ing clown (you) decides that every diesel driver is
anti-social.
I hope you choke on your own purity.

The only choking is your kids on the NOX etc.

sanctimonius ****


--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

mechanic wrote:

dennis wrote:

mechanic wrote:

dennis wrote:

I had a diesel 10 years ago that had a cat and didn't emit much in the
way of NOx...

How would you know?

Because I had the reports from the tester.

Did they test for that 10yrs ago?

I thought for diesel cars, the MOT "fast pass" only tests smoke level,
not CO/NOx/HC levels?

Steve Walker wrote:

If you want to see black smoke go on Youtube and search for clagging.

Or "rolling coal"

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 18/04/17 22:06, mechanic wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 21:01:50 +0100, Richard wrote:
.......
I hope you choke on your own purity.

The only choking is your kids on the NOX etc.

sanctimonius ****

[He's obviously (a) winding people up for a little giggle to himself,
and (b) knows nothing at all about diesel engines apart from what the
London-centric media and politicians report, **all of whom know equally
****-all** as far as I can see -- except that they do often choke, in
their city centre habitats, thanks to the density of *old* diesels
clogging the place up, without proper regulation.]

Anyway ...

I've not seen anyone yet mention the fact that modern diesels use DPFs
(diesel particulate filters) which I presume remove most of the evil
things from diesel exhausts?

I always avoided diesels because of the stink of the fuel, and the noise
of the engines, and the smell of the exhausts -- which I instinctively
*knew* were filthy, compared to petrol (which has nice odourless
poisons), despite governments *encouraging us* -- over decades -- to buy
diesel.

But I had to change my beloved 10-year-old Corolla recently, and I
fancied a Yeti. I *had* to buy diesel, because there was no choice at
the dealer's.

And anyway (I thought -- this is October 2016) diesel these days is
good - they've been telling us for 20 years.


So anyway (again): my 63-Reg Yeti has a DPF. But I don't have to "go
for a long drive to clean it out" -- as others have said above: if it
gets too sticky, it cleans itself: after I turn off the engine, if the
EMS data tells it to, it leaves the fan running and (somehow!!) burns
off the particulates using fuel from its own system.

When this first happened, I thought that the burning rubber smell meant
that my new Yeti was on fire. A search through the Yeti Owners' website
provided the answer, (and much relief).

I also give it a very expensive tank-full of "special" diesel every now
and again to help clean it out.


Where does all this stand against the average hammered-to-hell
10-year-old transit, or the average taxi, or the average bus, or (above
all) the millions of giant commercial diesels that deliver everything
under the sun? They are lumping all these things together. This is a
very complex problem. Rather than "Banning diesels" they should
institute roadside checks, with a car (van) crusher standing by.

John

In article ,
Another John wrote:
[He's obviously (a) winding people up for a little giggle to himself,
and (b) knows nothing at all about diesel engines apart from what the
London-centric media and politicians report, **all of whom know equally
****-all** as far as I can see -- except that they do often choke, in
their city centre habitats, thanks to the density of *old* diesels
clogging the place up, without proper regulation.]

Like those relatively new VW etc which fiddled the figures in the (US)
tests deliberately? And that independant tests show that many new models
produce far more pollution in practice than their test results give?

Anyway ...

I've not seen anyone yet mention the fact that modern diesels use DPFs
(diesel particulate filters) which I presume remove most of the evil
things from diesel exhausts?

The pollutant in the news at the moment is NOx. And that isn't removed by
a particulate filter. That filter is meant to stop the visible black smoke
from a hard working diesel. And anyone who does any driving at all will
have seen plenty modern diesels smoking.

--
*You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Anyway ...

I've not seen anyone yet mention the fact that modern diesels use DPFs
(diesel particulate filters) which I presume remove most of the evil
things from diesel exhausts?

The pollutant in the news at the moment is NOx. And that isn't removed by
a particulate filter. That filter is meant to stop the visible black smoke
from a hard working diesel. And anyone who does any driving at all will
have seen plenty modern diesels smoking.

So ... the invisible nasties in diesel are even nastier than the
invisible nasties in petrol?

Not being argumentative - just trying to keep up. And wondering, of
course, how much my 63Reg diesel trade-in value has fallen since I
bought it last October -(

J.

On Wednesday, 19 April 2017 11:17:12 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Another John wrote:
[He's obviously (a) winding people up for a little giggle to himself,
and (b) knows nothing at all about diesel engines apart from what the
London-centric media and politicians report, **all of whom know equally
****-all** as far as I can see -- except that they do often choke, in
their city centre habitats, thanks to the density of *old* diesels
clogging the place up, without proper regulation.]

Like those relatively new VW etc which fiddled the figures in the (US)
tests deliberately? And that independant tests show that many new models
produce far more pollution in practice than their test results give?

Anyway ...

I've not seen anyone yet mention the fact that modern diesels use DPFs
(diesel particulate filters) which I presume remove most of the evil
things from diesel exhausts?

The pollutant in the news at the moment is NOx. And that isn't removed by
a particulate filter. That filter is meant to stop the visible black smoke
from a hard working diesel. And anyone who does any driving at all will
have seen plenty modern diesels smoking.

--
*You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

A smoking diesel is down to worn injectors.

The dangerous particles are invisible.
They can actually get through the walls of the lung and into your bloodstream.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates

On Wednesday, 19 April 2017 18:59:52 UTC+1, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 April 2017 11:17:12 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Another John wrote:
[He's obviously (a) winding people up for a little giggle to himself,
and (b) knows nothing at all about diesel engines apart from what the
London-centric media and politicians report, **all of whom know equally
****-all** as far as I can see -- except that they do often choke, in
their city centre habitats, thanks to the density of *old* diesels
clogging the place up, without proper regulation.]

Like those relatively new VW etc which fiddled the figures in the (US)
tests deliberately? And that independant tests show that many new models
produce far more pollution in practice than their test results give?

Anyway ...

I've not seen anyone yet mention the fact that modern diesels use DPFs
(diesel particulate filters) which I presume remove most of the evil
things from diesel exhausts?

The pollutant in the news at the moment is NOx. And that isn't removed by
a particulate filter. That filter is meant to stop the visible black smoke
from a hard working diesel. And anyone who does any driving at all will
have seen plenty modern diesels smoking.

--
*You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

A smoking diesel is down to worn injectors.

The dangerous particles are invisible.
They can actually get through the walls of the lung and into your bloodstream.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates



Ultrafine particles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrafine_particle

"Another John" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Anyway ...

I've not seen anyone yet mention the fact that modern diesels use DPFs
(diesel particulate filters) which I presume remove most of the evil
things from diesel exhausts?

The pollutant in the news at the moment is NOx. And that isn't removed by
a particulate filter. That filter is meant to stop the visible black
smoke
from a hard working diesel. And anyone who does any driving at all will
have seen plenty modern diesels smoking.

So ... the invisible nasties in diesel are even
nastier than the invisible nasties in petrol?

Yep, NOx is the problem. Far less of it from petrol engines.

Not being argumentative - just trying to keep up.
And wondering, of course, how much my 63Reg diesel
trade-in value has fallen since I bought it last October -(

If we told you that, you'd slash your wrists and
there are clearly children reading in here }-(

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 10:02:35 +0100, Another John wrote:

I've not seen anyone yet mention the fact that modern diesels use
DPFs (diesel particulate filters) which I presume remove most of
the evil things from diesel exhausts?

Sorry mate, but it's a bit precious implying I'm clueless when you
make remarks like that!

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:12:06 +0100, charles wrote:

In article ,
mechanic wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:50:46 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And how about those who live there? Are they to be denied owning a
car?

Do they need one? Try public transport (at least in London).

Try going on public transport with a big suitcase or two and small children

Infrequently .

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:06:30 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
mechanic wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:50:46 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And how about those who live there? Are they to be denied owning
a car?

Do they need one? Try public transport (at least in London).

The obvious retort to that is if you need a car because of where
you live, move. Makes as much sense as you've done.

Not too much sense on here so far; many would walk/cycle/use public
transport if those alternatives were suitable. Where we are bus
routes are being cut so such alternatives are limited - city
dwellers tend to have more choice. And that's where the pollution
problems tend to be.

On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 08:50:30 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

mechanic wrote:

dennis wrote:

mechanic wrote:

dennis wrote:

I had a diesel 10 years ago that had a cat and didn't emit much in the
way of NOx...

How would you know?

Because I had the reports from the tester.

Did they test for that 10yrs ago?

I thought for diesel cars, the MOT "fast pass" only tests smoke level,
not CO/NOx/HC levels?

dennis?

mechanic wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:12:06 +0100, charles wrote:

In article ,
mechanic wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:50:46 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And how about those who live there? Are they to be denied owning a
car?

Do they need one? Try public transport (at least in London).

Try going on public transport with a big suitcase or two and small children

Infrequently .


I've done Gatwick to Liverpool Street with 2 x 70lb suitcases and a
piece of hand luggage, never again!!

In article ,
Another John wrote:
The pollutant in the news at the moment is NOx. And that isn't removed
by a particulate filter. That filter is meant to stop the visible
black smoke from a hard working diesel. And anyone who does any
driving at all will have seen plenty modern diesels smoking.

So ... the invisible nasties in diesel are even nastier than the
invisible nasties in petrol?

A modern petrol engine produces very little NOX.

--
*The first rule of holes: If you are in one, stop digging!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
mechanic wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:06:30 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
mechanic wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:50:46 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And how about those who live there? Are they to be denied owning
a car?

Do they need one? Try public transport (at least in London).

The obvious retort to that is if you need a car because of where
you live, move. Makes as much sense as you've done.

Not too much sense on here so far; many would walk/cycle/use public
transport if those alternatives were suitable.

The snag tend to be everyone wants everyone to use those far more worthy
ways of getting around - except themselves, of course. 'They' always have
excuses why only they need a car.

Where we are bus
routes are being cut so such alternatives are limited - city
dwellers tend to have more choice.

Bus routes tend to be cut if they are little used.


And that's where the pollution
problems tend to be.

Rather obviously.

--
*I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was blaming you.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
mechanic wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:06:30 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
mechanic wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:50:46 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And how about those who live there? Are they to be denied owning
a car?

Do they need one? Try public transport (at least in London).

The obvious retort to that is if you need a car because of where
you live, move. Makes as much sense as you've done.

Not too much sense on here so far; many would walk/cycle/use public
transport if those alternatives were suitable.

The snag tend to be everyone wants everyone to use those far more worthy
ways of getting around - except themselves, of course. 'They' always have
excuses why only they need a car.

Where we are bus
routes are being cut so such alternatives are limited - city
dwellers tend to have more choice.

Bus routes tend to be cut if they are little used.

and, by being cut, become useless and even less used. Our first bus into
town is at 10.35 and there are only two more in the day.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 19/04/17 22:37, Capitol wrote:
mechanic wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:12:06 +0100, charles wrote:

Try going on public transport with a big suitcase or two and small
children

Infrequently .


I've done Gatwick to Liverpool Street with 2 x 70lb suitcases and a
piece of hand luggage, never again!!

Why not let the children walk?

--
Adrian C

On 20/04/2017 08:29, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
On 19/04/17 22:37, Capitol wrote:
mechanic wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 22:12:06 +0100, charles wrote:

Try going on public transport with a big suitcase or two and small
children

Infrequently .


I've done Gatwick to Liverpool Street with 2 x 70lb suitcases and a
piece of hand luggage, never again!!

Why not let the children walk?


Avoiding the fares?

On 20/04/2017 00:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Bus routes tend to be cut if they are little used.

As they should be, empty buses pollute more than the odd car/taxi.

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:03:12 +0100,
lid wrote:

On 20/04/2017 00:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Bus routes tend to be cut if they are little used.

As they should be, empty buses pollute more than the odd
car/taxi.

Maybe they're an essential service for some?

On 20/04/2017 11:31, mechanic wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:03:12 +0100,
lid wrote:

On 20/04/2017 00:20, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Bus routes tend to be cut if they are little used.

As they should be, empty buses pollute more than the odd
car/taxi.

Maybe they're an essential service for some?


Its never essential to run empty buses.