Race and horse transporters banned within M25

[teamHOLDENracing]

I'm slightly surprised that this issue has not already been debated. Hopefully it will be picked up and made a front page news item, because in my view, things have just gone too far.

Transport for London (aka Ken Livingstone) recently wrote to me explaining the London Low Emission Zone. They wrote to me because I am the registered keeper of a private HGV - a 7.5 tonne race transporter, which does not meet Euro III emissions standards.

Apparently, unless I 'upgrade my fleet' or have the vehicle modified, I will be subject to a daily charge similar to the congestion charge when entreing London.

This didn't worry me unduly, because I have never needed to drive the truck in Central London.

I then flipped the page and realised that for these purposes 'London' is in fact Greater London. More simply put, it covers pretty much everything within the M25.

Now this also didn't worry me unduly, because my trips inside the M25 are not that frequent, so if I have to pay the £8 or whatever it is charge, its not much of an issue for me.

I then flipped the page to discover that the charge is an astronomic £200 a day!!!! "The level of charge has been set in order to encourage operators to clean up their fleets rather than pay the daily charge".

I don't recall an act of Parliament that allows Ken Livingstone to effectively ban my completely legal and roadworthy vehicle, on which I pay annual road tax, from a substantial proportion of our roads. It seems to me absolutely incredible that such a thing is even possible.

I do less than 3,000 miles in this vehicle and I have little doubt that the effect on global warming of building a new one and scrapping this one far out weighs the miniscule impact I have on the planet by continuing to drive it.

The cost of trying to 'clean up' my vehicle is well in excess of £2,000 +VAT. Still, that's only 10 trips beyond the M25. According to the leaflet I 'could reorganise my vehicle fleet so that only vehicles which meet the LEZ emissions standards drive within the zone'. Well that's ok then.

The military are exempt. Presumably the particulate they generate is harmless.

Those of us with race or horse transporters should be up in arms about this.

[teamHOLDENracing]

Graham, in 2012 they will get you, as then the goal posts shift to Euro IV.

I have no issue with governments cleaning up emissions by tightening the regs for new vehicles. I have a huge issue with applying tese regs retrospectively to older vehicles. My local diesel specialists are gobsmacked by the whole thing - and the complete lack of any consistent technical guidance.

The whole thing is so outrageous it can't be legal, surely?

Vehilces are detected by camera. Fines are £1,000 for a vehicle over 3.5 tonnes, reduced to £500 if paid within 14 days. If not paid within 28 days it goes up to £1500.

Horse of the year show at Olympia is finished then....

( I can kind of see his point if I was tooling about in the City of London doing multiple deliveries all day every day in a 1983 truck belching out fumes. But I'm not. And if I did it wouldn't be economic to run an old thing like that. But for low mileage vehicles like mine, or a horse box, the trucks can go on forever. Until some left wing tw@t decides to make an issue of them). It epitomises much of what is wrong with today's meddling 'we know best' government.

God I'm cross about this!!!!

[teamHOLDENracing]

pc.iow said:

tvrforever said:

Any chance they might extend this ruling to the rest of the country? I'm sick of having to follow 'yaw-yaws' and their horseboxes at 25mph in 60 zones...

I have been thinking along the same lines myself.
No old lorry's,motorhome's or horseboxes on the road,
and the problem is........?

My K reg 7.5 tonner cruises comfortably at 70mph on the motorway. Were I to tow my race car I would be limited to 60 mph.

You choose.

The 7.5 tonner is registered as a Private Heavy Good vehicle, without need for an operators licence. I don't see hiw it could be registered as Private Light Goods, nor how that would help me in this case.

Perhaps someone would be good enough to work out if Brands Hatch lies in Ken's exclusion zone?

[teamHOLDENracing]

hora said:

Why do you need to drive the thing 3,000 miles a year? I'm not a horse-lover but surely its a bit cruel to the horse(s) in question plus its not very green to drive a HGV ANYWHERE at circa 3,000 miles a year.

I don't transport horses, I transport a race car. I put a 4.5 litre V8 race car inside a 6 litre diesel truck, drive it to a race circuit. I then drive said 4.5 litre race car round and round in circles, then I put it back in the truck and drive it home.

You might call that 'not very green', I call it pursuit of a sport.

I'm slightly confused by your point anyway - would it be greener to drive it 30,000 miles a year?

The other posters are right - at the moment this impacts a small minority. But it is the thin end of the wedge and it will be extended until it does affect you.

[teamHOLDENracing]

The principle of the thing should concern all of us. An old ish, but fully road legal and well maintained vehicle is effectively being banned from our roads by applying emmissions standards that did not apply when the vehicle was built and do not form part of the MOT requirements.

How long before cars without catalysts are dealt with similarly? How can you move the goal posts retrospectively?

On the plus side the truck has made its last trip to Ikea

[teamHOLDENracing]

Perhaps the inclusion of 'horses' in the title was a mistake, given the readership of PH....


...but the issue is the same

[teamHOLDENracing]

The very heavy mileage HGV users 'renew their fleet' as a matter of course, because the fuel efficiency advantages of a newer vehicle and breakdown costs of an old vehicle doing high mileage mean it is economic to do so.

Low mileage users can and do run older vehicles quite happily - but Transport for London is legislating them off the roads. Its a very scarey precedent

[teamHOLDENracing]

zagato said:

I can manage to overtake, thankyou. However it does mean waiting 5 minutes at a time to get to the next clear and straight section of road. As I live on the edge of the countryside many of the roads can be twisty in between the long clear straights. I see many people overtaking on blind corners or at the brow of a hill. Utterly stupid manouvers taken though sheer frustration at some of the inconsiderate muppets clogging up our roads, doing 35mph in 60 limits. I also see a fair few wrecks in the ditches too, who have clearly mastered the art of overtaking.

Presumably you don't eat anything which might have been farmed then - as it would have been produced by those inconsiderate farmers in their tractors? Or bought anything delivered to a shop by an inconsiderate haulier in an HGV?

You just don't get the bit about this starting with something that might not affect you, but ending with something that will. Like slapping an emmissions tax on your W8 because it has a big engine, despite the fact that you lready pay more tax than everyone else on it because of the fuel it uses. This is dangerous precedent

[teamHOLDENracing]

zagato said:

If you can't afford land for your mobile pooping glue pot, get another hobby ffs.

What, like motor racing? Which is actually what I use my 7.5 tonner for.

zagato said:

Using the finite space we have in a sensible manner makes sense to me. If nothing is done imagine what it will be like when the predicted 1/3 more people arrive on our overcrowded island. It'll be grid lock everywhere. Then I'd like to nuke it from orbit. Selfish, I know.

And you've also missed the point of the charge. It is not intended to reduce the overall number of vehicles on the road. It is alledgedly trying to improve air quality by forcing older vehicles off the road. If I have a 4 year old truck I can drive it round Greater London all day everyday at 2 mph if I want. But if I inadvertently stray into the zone in my 1984 truck for 5 minutes, kerrching, that will be £200 to Mr Livingstone....

Are you starting to get it now?

[teamHOLDENracing]

zagato said:

It affects me everytime I get stuck behind another sodding horse box, caravan or wide load gippo demountable on a lorry. It's alreay enough with the amount of tractors, old duffers and work vehicles round my area to contend with. The less clogged up the roads, the better.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=461232 

Its already coming to get you and your W8 powered Passat. Do you now see why this needs to be halted before we lose all automotive freedom of choice?

[teamHOLDENracing]

skwdenyer said:

MJK 24 said:

As promised, here are the prices I've been quoted.

Vehicle is a 1998 Renault Midliner 7.5 ton with 1,400,000kms showing.

To update to Euro 3 allowing use until 2012 - £3,000 for the kit plus fitting plus VAT.

To update to Euro 4 allowing use beyond 2012 - £4,100 for the kit plus fitting plus VAT.

Much as I disagree with the tactics being used, this does on the face of it look like an effective (if blunt) way of getting improved emissions standards in London. £3,000 to save (potentially up to) £120,000 of "charges" seems like a pretty good carrot - vs - stick equation.

Are there reductions in road fund licence available for HGVs compliant with enhanced emissions standards?

I also suspect that the £3000 investment will not depreciate all that much, which is good.

I fail to see why air quality is more of an issue for someone living just inside Greater London (i.e. right at the fringes of the zone) than someone living just outside. Central London I can understand. If this was of real concern then MOT standards would be tightened across the board.

Given I will be (unlawfully in my view) banned from driving a legal, roadworthy and fully taxed vehicle inside the M25, can I have a refund on my road fund licence please?

[teamHOLDENracing]

I disagree, because the congestion charge does not single out a particular type of vehicle. In addition, a £200 a day charge is effectively a ban. £200 is not a charge, it is a punitive penalty

I still don't see how targetting a specific type of vehicle, which is perfectly roadworthy and meets all MOT requirements, can be legal. Which piece of legislation gives Ken the right to have different MOT requirements than the rest of the country - because effectively that is what we have