ULEZ charge in 2021
Discussion
C70R said:
j_4m said:
C70R said:
Only on PH, the home of excessive opinions, it seems.
I know a lot of people who live and drive in Z1-3, and I doubt that cycle lanes would even be in the top 10 things that annoy them.
Indeed. Compared to badly phased lights, Uber drivers, roadworks, Uber drivers, invincible pedestrians, drivers who have apparently never passed a UK test (so Uber drivers), people who think double yellows are parking zones, people who think that the 'left only' lane is really just an 'ahead only' lane in disguise...I know a lot of people who live and drive in Z1-3, and I doubt that cycle lanes would even be in the top 10 things that annoy them.
Cyclists and cycle lanes appear quite low on the list, mostly it's other drivers who irritate me.
I don't understand how some people can seem to generate such ludicrously strong opinions about it.
Always-Honda said:
Any diesel registered before 2015 is likely to get charged too. They are forcing people into a corner.
Or, they are making sure people stop driving the most polluting vehicles through densely-populated urban areas where they cause the most harm. As someone who has to breath the stinky air every day that seems like a good idea, tbh.
AC43 said:
Always-Honda said:
Any diesel registered before 2015 is likely to get charged too. They are forcing people into a corner.
Or, they are making sure people stop driving the most polluting vehicles through densely-populated urban areas where they cause the most harm. As someone who has to breath the stinky air every day that seems like a good idea, tbh.
j_4m said:
Always-Honda said:
The ULEZ charge is just another money making scam disguised as protecting the environment. Anyone who lives in the zone and the planned extension that has a car registered before 2005 is in trouble. Either sell up or pay up. Any diesel registered before 2015 is likely to get charged too. They are forcing people into a corner.
I'm sure the several million of us who will be affected can chip together and buy some of those Autotrader bargains, maybe organise a car share.Based on the available cars on Autotrader, where the vast majority of cars for sale (both petrol and diesel) are ULEZ compliant, I'd suggest that the average car owner is more likely to own a compliant car than not.
When you factor in the incredibly low car ownership (c.30%) in London, I'd say that "several million" sounds like a huge exaggeration. But let's not allow that to get in the way of another rant.
That's the crux of the matter for me, interfere with policy in the guise of saving the planet to force people into inappropriate diesel cars for two decades.
Then interfere with policy again in the guise of saving our air to force people into inappropriate cars, as far as I am aware Co2 and the greenhouse effect are still an issue so what happens when you move people out of low Co2 diesel cars back into petrol?
It's this lack of foresight and joined up thinking that leaves me with very little faith that Governments interfering with environmental policies is really a good idea. I'm not even getting into the fact that a lot of these save the planet initiatives are usually a profile raising PR exercise as green issues are the hot topic of the moment rather then a real drive to actually do any good.
Then interfere with policy again in the guise of saving our air to force people into inappropriate cars, as far as I am aware Co2 and the greenhouse effect are still an issue so what happens when you move people out of low Co2 diesel cars back into petrol?
It's this lack of foresight and joined up thinking that leaves me with very little faith that Governments interfering with environmental policies is really a good idea. I'm not even getting into the fact that a lot of these save the planet initiatives are usually a profile raising PR exercise as green issues are the hot topic of the moment rather then a real drive to actually do any good.
NomduJour said:
C70R said:
You're going to have to post some response time data pre/post cycle lanes to back that one up, old chap. Otherwise it's just a rant...
After having a brief look, there don’t appear to be specific enough ways of recording that data (not surprising, given that not everyone always takes ill/catches fire/becomes a victim of crime in the same place at the same time). However, it must be patently clear to even the most fervent TfL acolyte that if your ambulance is heading on that East/West route post-cycle lanes, it is extremely likely to be stuck in congestion that wasn’t there before - hence innumerable pictures of ambulances etc. stuck on roads with bike lanes. To suggest otherwise is stupid (as is to blame that same resulting congestion on private cars).
Good to know that we're completely avoiding reasoned debate on the ULEZ and focusing on cycle lanes.
FWIW, I'm relatively ambivalent towards TfL as an organisation. They do some things I like, and they do some things I don't like. I just don't have a strong opinion about the organisation itself.
The ULEZ and cycle lanes happen to fall into the former - if that helps you to pigeonhole me as an "acolyte" and that makes you happy, then that's absolutely fine.
Edited by C70R on Wednesday 19th December 10:27
DonkeyApple said:
Isn’t his view the polar opposite of being self centred? In contrast to those who want to halt progress for their own personal financial saving?
Honestly, I wouldn't bother.That anyone could look at my position on this and call it selfish just suggests that they are preoccupied with personal attacks, because they have run out of reasonable arguments.
Guvernator said:
That's the crux of the matter for me, interfere with policy in the guise of saving the planet to force people into inappropriate diesel cars for two decades.
Then interfere with policy again in the guise of saving our air to force people into inappropriate cars, as far as I am aware Co2 and the greenhouse effect are still an issue so what happens when you move people out of low Co2 diesel cars back into petrol?
It's this lack of foresight and joined up thinking that leaves me with very little faith that Governments interfering with environmental policies is really a good idea. I'm not even getting into the fact that a lot of these save the planet initiatives are usually a profile raising PR exercise as green issues are the hot topic of the moment rather then a real drive to actually do any good.
I'd suggest you do some reading about the effects of various gases on human health. NOX is significantly more likely to cause illness than the fourth-most abundant gas in the Earth's atmosphere.Then interfere with policy again in the guise of saving our air to force people into inappropriate cars, as far as I am aware Co2 and the greenhouse effect are still an issue so what happens when you move people out of low Co2 diesel cars back into petrol?
It's this lack of foresight and joined up thinking that leaves me with very little faith that Governments interfering with environmental policies is really a good idea. I'm not even getting into the fact that a lot of these save the planet initiatives are usually a profile raising PR exercise as green issues are the hot topic of the moment rather then a real drive to actually do any good.
In general terms, reducing CO2 emissions is a very good thing for the planet as a whole.
However, in built-up and heavily-populated areas, NOX has a far greater impact on human health than CO2.
Nobody is saying that diesel cars should be banned everywhere - they are absolutely fine for chugging up and down motorways. Nobody is saying that all cars should be banned in London.
The ULEZ initiative is simply saying:
"We know that cars that don't pass these emissions standards emit a lot more harmful gases. Therefore, we should disincentivise their use in heavily-populated areas."
C70R said:
I'd suggest you do some reading about the effects of various gases on human health. NOX is significantly more likely to cause illness than the fourth-most abundant gas in the Earth's atmosphere.
In general terms, reducing CO2 emissions is a very good thing for the planet as a whole.
However, in built-up and heavily-populated areas, NOX has a far greater impact on human health than CO2.
Nobody is saying that diesel cars should be banned everywhere - they are absolutely fine for chugging up and down motorways. Nobody is saying that all cars should be banned in London.
The ULEZ initiative is simply saying:
"We know that cars that don't pass these emissions standards emit a lot more harmful gases. Therefore, we should disincentivise their use in heavily-populated areas."
OK so why was Co2 the target to the exclusion of pretty much anything else for over 2 decades. If NOX is so harmful, why has it been ignored till now?In general terms, reducing CO2 emissions is a very good thing for the planet as a whole.
However, in built-up and heavily-populated areas, NOX has a far greater impact on human health than CO2.
Nobody is saying that diesel cars should be banned everywhere - they are absolutely fine for chugging up and down motorways. Nobody is saying that all cars should be banned in London.
The ULEZ initiative is simply saying:
"We know that cars that don't pass these emissions standards emit a lot more harmful gases. Therefore, we should disincentivise their use in heavily-populated areas."
Why has that target suddenly switched from Co2 to NOX?
I do read thanks, as NOX goes down, Co2 goes up and vice versa as it's a consequence of the reactions inherent in nearly all current engine designs.
Does any of this sound like it's in any way been thought through properly or does it sound more like knee jerk reactions by politicians who don't really understand the issues at hand?
The issue of nox was known back in the 70s. As were the risks of free radicals and the huge impact of sunlight on these chemicals.
The whole CO2 drive was a global action and as you highlight, it completely ignored local and direct issues.
The movement away from CO2 and to NOx is a very good thing. It’s taking back control and making changes at a local level that benefit local populations.
You are also correct that any policies to do with cars will always be driven by taxation. Cars are key taxation points and that will never change. There have and will always be, changes to taxation to favour increased spending or to steer the population. But the ‘people’ love paying tax and instantly rewarding governments for their increases. The people leapt at switching to diesel to save some tax. They’ve leapt at replacing their car every few years to save tax. The people are idiots who will willingly pay thousands in less visible taxes to save hundreds in visible takes.
It’s just a given that as soon as the herd has been moved to one location it will be moved to another and then another.
In the case of cars it is all too easy to see, move to diesel, move to newer diesels, move to hybrid, move to EV, move to lighter EVs etc etc.
This won’t ever change until the people rise up and stop it. That’s how taxation works. Blending that machine in with improving the quality of the local environment is the good thing and the right thing.
The whole CO2 drive was a global action and as you highlight, it completely ignored local and direct issues.
The movement away from CO2 and to NOx is a very good thing. It’s taking back control and making changes at a local level that benefit local populations.
You are also correct that any policies to do with cars will always be driven by taxation. Cars are key taxation points and that will never change. There have and will always be, changes to taxation to favour increased spending or to steer the population. But the ‘people’ love paying tax and instantly rewarding governments for their increases. The people leapt at switching to diesel to save some tax. They’ve leapt at replacing their car every few years to save tax. The people are idiots who will willingly pay thousands in less visible taxes to save hundreds in visible takes.
It’s just a given that as soon as the herd has been moved to one location it will be moved to another and then another.
In the case of cars it is all too easy to see, move to diesel, move to newer diesels, move to hybrid, move to EV, move to lighter EVs etc etc.
This won’t ever change until the people rise up and stop it. That’s how taxation works. Blending that machine in with improving the quality of the local environment is the good thing and the right thing.
DonkeyApple said:
The issue of nox was known back in the 70s. As were the risks of free radicals and the huge impact of sunlight on these chemicals.
The whole CO2 drive was a global action and as you highlight, it completely ignored local and direct issues.
The movement away from CO2 and to NOx is a very good thing. It’s taking back control and making changes at a local level that benefit local populations.
You are also correct that any policies to do with cars will always be driven by taxation. Cars are key taxation points and that will never change. There have and will always be, changes to taxation to favour increased spending or to steer the population. But the ‘people’ love paying tax and instantly rewarding governments for their increases. The people leapt at switching to diesel to save some tax. They’ve leapt at replacing their car every few years to save tax. The people are idiots who will willingly pay thousands in less visible taxes to save hundreds in visible takes.
It’s just a given that as soon as the herd has been moved to one location it will be moved to another and then another.
In the case of cars it is all too easy to see, move to diesel, move to newer diesels, move to hybrid, move to EV, move to lighter EVs etc etc.
This won’t ever change until the people rise up and stop it. That’s how taxation works. Blending that machine in with improving the quality of the local environment is the good thing and the right thing.
Good post, I'm not angry at them trying to improve air quality, that would be stupid and short sighted. I am angry at how the motorist is constantly manipulated. I love driving, I wouldn't be on this website otherwise but am getting increasingly disillusioned with consecutive governments who seem to both love the fact that the motorist is a great tax cash machine but also hate us in equal measure so try their utmost to make driving as unpleasant as possible.The whole CO2 drive was a global action and as you highlight, it completely ignored local and direct issues.
The movement away from CO2 and to NOx is a very good thing. It’s taking back control and making changes at a local level that benefit local populations.
You are also correct that any policies to do with cars will always be driven by taxation. Cars are key taxation points and that will never change. There have and will always be, changes to taxation to favour increased spending or to steer the population. But the ‘people’ love paying tax and instantly rewarding governments for their increases. The people leapt at switching to diesel to save some tax. They’ve leapt at replacing their car every few years to save tax. The people are idiots who will willingly pay thousands in less visible taxes to save hundreds in visible takes.
It’s just a given that as soon as the herd has been moved to one location it will be moved to another and then another.
In the case of cars it is all too easy to see, move to diesel, move to newer diesels, move to hybrid, move to EV, move to lighter EVs etc etc.
This won’t ever change until the people rise up and stop it. That’s how taxation works. Blending that machine in with improving the quality of the local environment is the good thing and the right thing.
Guvernator said:
Good post, I'm not angry at them trying to improve air quality, that would be stupid and short sighted. I am angry at how the motorist is constantly manipulated. I love driving, I wouldn't be on this website otherwise but am getting increasingly disillusioned with consecutive governments who seem to both love the fact that the motorist is a great tax cash machine but also hate us in equal measure so try their utmost to make driving as unpleasant as possible.
I "love driving" too.However, in spite of buying a compliant PHEV and living immediately adjacent to it, I will still avoid driving in the ULEZ like the plague because it's the antithesis of enjoyable driving.
C70R said:
I'd suggest you do some reading about the effects of various gases on human health. NOX is significantly more likely to cause illness than the fourth-most abundant gas in the Earth's atmosphere.
In general terms, reducing CO2 emissions is a very good thing for the planet as a whole.
However, in built-up and heavily-populated areas, NOX has a far greater impact on human health than CO2.
Nobody is saying that diesel cars should be banned everywhere - they are absolutely fine for chugging up and down motorways. Nobody is saying that all cars should be banned in London.
The ULEZ initiative is simply saying:
"We know that cars that don't pass these emissions standards emit a lot more harmful gases. Therefore, we should disincentivise their use in heavily-populated areas."
The WHO estimates that if we can reduce our PM levels down to their recommendations we'll increase average life expectancy by a whopping 2.5 months. That's not even a 1% increase.In general terms, reducing CO2 emissions is a very good thing for the planet as a whole.
However, in built-up and heavily-populated areas, NOX has a far greater impact on human health than CO2.
Nobody is saying that diesel cars should be banned everywhere - they are absolutely fine for chugging up and down motorways. Nobody is saying that all cars should be banned in London.
The ULEZ initiative is simply saying:
"We know that cars that don't pass these emissions standards emit a lot more harmful gases. Therefore, we should disincentivise their use in heavily-populated areas."
This is just a money grab and a PR exercise, nothing more.
Edited by j_4m on Wednesday 19th December 11:20
C70R said:
Guvernator said:
Good post, I'm not angry at them trying to improve air quality, that would be stupid and short sighted. I am angry at how the motorist is constantly manipulated. I love driving, I wouldn't be on this website otherwise but am getting increasingly disillusioned with consecutive governments who seem to both love the fact that the motorist is a great tax cash machine but also hate us in equal measure so try their utmost to make driving as unpleasant as possible.
I "love driving" too.However, in spite of buying a compliant PHEV and living immediately adjacent to it, I will still avoid driving in the ULEZ like the plague because it's the antithesis of enjoyable driving.
But that just makes it much more suited to walking or cycling. So I take advantage of that.
j_4m said:
C70R said:
I'd suggest you do some reading about the effects of various gases on human health. NOX is significantly more likely to cause illness than the fourth-most abundant gas in the Earth's atmosphere.
In general terms, reducing CO2 emissions is a very good thing for the planet as a whole.
However, in built-up and heavily-populated areas, NOX has a far greater impact on human health than CO2.
Nobody is saying that diesel cars should be banned everywhere - they are absolutely fine for chugging up and down motorways. Nobody is saying that all cars should be banned in London.
The ULEZ initiative is simply saying:
"We know that cars that don't pass these emissions standards emit a lot more harmful gases. Therefore, we should disincentivise their use in heavily-populated areas."
The WHO estimates that if we can reduce our PM levels down to their recommendations we'll increase average life expectancy by a whopping 2.5 months. That's not even a 1% increase on average life expectancy.In general terms, reducing CO2 emissions is a very good thing for the planet as a whole.
However, in built-up and heavily-populated areas, NOX has a far greater impact on human health than CO2.
Nobody is saying that diesel cars should be banned everywhere - they are absolutely fine for chugging up and down motorways. Nobody is saying that all cars should be banned in London.
The ULEZ initiative is simply saying:
"We know that cars that don't pass these emissions standards emit a lot more harmful gases. Therefore, we should disincentivise their use in heavily-populated areas."
This is just a money grab and a PR exercise, nothing more.
Why is this just about "PM"? Why should this just be about "life expectancy"?
You need to think more holistically about all pollution (inc. NOX) and general health/quality of life. The science linking the two is undisputed - a quick Google would help you to educate yourself a little. Here's a starter: http://www.icopal-noxite.co.uk/nox-problem/nox-pol...
C70R said:
I "love driving" too.
However, in spite of buying a compliant PHEV and living immediately adjacent to it, I will still avoid driving in the ULEZ like the plague because it's the antithesis of enjoyable driving.
I don't drive in the ULEZ for enjoyment either, I drive there because that is where I, my parents and most of my friends live. For what it's worth I have a compliant car too but may parents and a lot of my friends do not. However, in spite of buying a compliant PHEV and living immediately adjacent to it, I will still avoid driving in the ULEZ like the plague because it's the antithesis of enjoyable driving.
My parents are pensioners and not very wealthy. They own a car they've kept for nearly 10 years which they know inside out, can drive easily and which hardly costs them any money but is not ULEZ compliant, probably worth £500 on a good day. They will either have to take a punt and change their car for one of an unknown quality\providence, cars costing shed money in London are rarely if ever without fault or pay £12.50 for the privilege of popping to the shops or coming to see their granddaughter. As others have said this is very likely to effect people who are the least able to afford it.
NomduJour said:
An emergency vehicle simply would not travel between Westminster and Tower Bridge with their lights on all the way.
Firstly, if it was an ambulance, you will have passed both St Thomas's and Guys Hospitals, two of the largest the capital.
Secondly, why would the police send a unit from Westminster to Tower Bridge rather than simply dispatching a unit *already near* Tower Bridge.
Finally, with sirens and lights on they certainly wouldn't/shouldn't be sitting queuing in traffic, they are free to use any piece of tarmac they want, including the opposite carriageway.
Amazing the things people will reach for to suit their own story.
Guvernator said:
C70R said:
I "love driving" too.
However, in spite of buying a compliant PHEV and living immediately adjacent to it, I will still avoid driving in the ULEZ like the plague because it's the antithesis of enjoyable driving.
I don't drive in the ULEZ for enjoyment either, I drive there because that is where I, my parents and most of my friends live. For what it's worth I have a compliant car too but may parents and a lot of my friends do not. However, in spite of buying a compliant PHEV and living immediately adjacent to it, I will still avoid driving in the ULEZ like the plague because it's the antithesis of enjoyable driving.
My parents are pensioners and not very wealthy. They own a car they've kept for nearly 10 years which they know inside out, can drive easily and which hardly costs them any money but is not ULEZ compliant, probably worth £500 on a good day. They will either have to take a punt and change their car for one of an unknown quality\providence, cars costing shed money in London are rarely if ever without fault or pay £12.50 for the privilege of popping to the shops or coming to see their granddaughter. As others have said this is very likely to effect people who are the least able to afford it.
Do you think your parents will still be driving the same £500 banger in 3yrs time?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff