ULEZ charge in 2021
Discussion
captainaverage said:
C70R said:
If that's your level of selfishness, then I'm wasting my breath. Good luck with everything in Lee.
Recidivst argument? Says the man/woman who jumps to calling people snobs etc on the internet 
I think we are wasting time here, I strongly urge you to try this website:
https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/what-we-do/
Is that the best argument against the ULEZ that you can come up with?
In fact, I'm going to bet that you don't even live in London. I'm willing to bet you're unlikely to ever be affected by this, but just wanted something to moan about.
mondeoman said:
SebastienClement said:
egor110 said:
What do you base this on ?
Do cars get to a certain age and a switch is flicked and it just stops working ?
I have two cars. They're both 18 years old. One racked up 20,000 trouble free miles this year. It's nowhere near the end of its life.Do cars get to a certain age and a switch is flicked and it just stops working ?
Some serious reading comprehension failure going on among the gnashing of teeth here.
vz-r_dave said:
valiant said:
vz-r_dave said:
They ban UBER for being a danger to the public yet allow the disgusting black cabs to continue their 26% NOx (of the total contributers in London) into the London atmosphere. Charge joe public so they can replace the fleet and continue to charge the Londoner rediculous fee's for their taxi journey's..... I love London but seriously hate how f
king backwards TFL and our Mayor is on this subject.
Uber is not banned as they are appealing and once they abide by the terms and conditions that apply to all other private hire firms, they will be free to ply their trade.king backwards TFL and our Mayor is on this subject. Black cabs will all have to switch to electric or zero emissions in the coming years. (Could be as early as 2018 but not entirely sure and the oldest cab allowed will be 15 years so as each year goes by, the ratio of electric cabs will increase with the last phased out by 2032)
TfL set the fees for black cabs not the cabbies themselves.
Edited by valiant on Monday 23 October 17:53
Edited by vz-r_dave on Monday 23 October 20:44
Like I said previously, from next year all new taxis must be zero emissions so a new taxi will be cleaner than a standard new Uber Prius. (Although I fully accept that in time that electric private hire will become more and more popular). Plus the last diesel model taxi, the TX4, is Euro6 so no nastier than any other modern diesel of similar size.
I'm not quite sure why you think it's a monopoly as its a public authority that sets the rules for black cabs to be operated by private individuals but allows for private hire to coexist(providing they play by the rules -Uber
). The fares set are no different to setting fares on the tube or buses. If TfL didn't set the fare then black cabs would be a lot more expensive as the cabbies trade body has been campaigning for a higher levy for ages.Anyway, I digress. There is an eleventy page thread in NP&E about Uber and black cabs where all this has been said previously, I suggest you have a read. (Although most of it is moaning about not going south of the river and broken CC machines
)egor110 said:
Willy Nilly said:
captainaverage said:
People think it's just London right now. Soon the whole of UK will follow. Ridiculous and pathetic.
The vehicles subject to the charge are at least 11 years old now, which is pretty much end of or near end of life for most cars. For personal transport, there are plenty of options to get in and out of London and for businesses they would need to decide if it is cheaper to pay the charge or upgrade. Occassional visitors will probably be better off paying the charge. Let's be honest, the bulk of vehicles are compliant.
Do cars get to a certain age and a switch is flicked and it just stops working ?
egor110 said:
Older cars are far simpler and far easier to keep going than modern cars as they weren't required to jump thru the current emission hoops.
Of course the car makers would love you to think that cars die after 11 years and even better you need to get a new one every 3 years.
No machine I have ever used has got better with age. The older cars that are now simpler than the current cars, were once modern cars and more complex than cars 10 years older. The fact remains, that by 11 years of age, most cars are in the last 3rd or quarter of their lives. They are no longer the high mileage hacks pounding the nations highways because they are too old and too high maintainance. Of course the car makers would love you to think that cars die after 11 years and even better you need to get a new one every 3 years.
Willy Nilly said:
egor110 said:
Older cars are far simpler and far easier to keep going than modern cars as they weren't required to jump thru the current emission hoops.
Of course the car makers would love you to think that cars die after 11 years and even better you need to get a new one every 3 years.
No machine I have ever used has got better with age. The older cars that are now simpler than the current cars, were once modern cars and more complex than cars 10 years older. The fact remains, that by 11 years of age, most cars are in the last 3rd or quarter of their lives. They are no longer the high mileage hacks pounding the nations highways because they are too old and too high maintainance. Of course the car makers would love you to think that cars die after 11 years and even better you need to get a new one every 3 years.
Change the oil regularly and the engine will just keep going , clutch , brakes and suspension are all easily replaced .
C70R said:
TV8 said:
There are a bunch of expensive looking cameras put up on a few roads near me - between Croydon and Bromley. I knew it was a question of when, not if, they were going to be used for cars.
I only run older cars. Looks like my TVR is going to become expensive to run.
Both Bromley and Croydon are outside of the proposed ULEZ - you have nothing to worry about. Have you even done any research?I only run older cars. Looks like my TVR is going to become expensive to run.
C70R said:
crankedup said:
C70R said:
gavsdavs said:
C70R said:
You realise that taxis (including Private Hires) worked before Uber arrived.
The people who say it "won't work" for them are those who don't want it to work.
I want an effective deterrent to reduce unneccessary journeys, but there's a flip side - if i want to take my non-compliant car out (i.e. head straight out of the enlarged charging zone at 6am on a sunday) - should I have to pay £10 to start my car ?The people who say it "won't work" for them are those who don't want it to work.
Monday to friday 7am-7pm I totally get. Weekends less so. I also think enlarging the charging zone to the north and south circulars has it's own set of problems.
London is a densely populated city. By choosing to live in a densely populated city, you make the decision that you're willing to share your space with lots of other people. Part of this concession is that you might have to do something vaguely selfless, for the benefit of everyone else.
Personally it makes no difference to me but it’s plainly obvious that dirty cars are soon to be off the road completely.
On the basis that we can't build any more London roads...
Should we prioritise the minority (a third as many private cars as people in London) to punish the majority?
Should we just let more and more private vehicles use the road until it's constant gridlock?
Should we just let more and more older vehicles use the road until the air quality is worse than third-world countries?
Seems a strange place to come and wave your self righteous flag against cars, a motoring forum.
crankedup said:
C70R said:
crankedup said:
C70R said:
gavsdavs said:
C70R said:
You realise that taxis (including Private Hires) worked before Uber arrived.
The people who say it "won't work" for them are those who don't want it to work.
I want an effective deterrent to reduce unneccessary journeys, but there's a flip side - if i want to take my non-compliant car out (i.e. head straight out of the enlarged charging zone at 6am on a sunday) - should I have to pay £10 to start my car ?The people who say it "won't work" for them are those who don't want it to work.
Monday to friday 7am-7pm I totally get. Weekends less so. I also think enlarging the charging zone to the north and south circulars has it's own set of problems.
London is a densely populated city. By choosing to live in a densely populated city, you make the decision that you're willing to share your space with lots of other people. Part of this concession is that you might have to do something vaguely selfless, for the benefit of everyone else.
Personally it makes no difference to me but it’s plainly obvious that dirty cars are soon to be off the road completely.
On the basis that we can't build any more London roads...
Should we prioritise the minority (a third as many private cars as people in London) to punish the majority?
Should we just let more and more private vehicles use the road until it's constant gridlock?
Should we just let more and more older vehicles use the road until the air quality is worse than third-world countries?
Seems a strange place to come and wave your self righteous flag against cars, a motoring forum.
98% of the UK is going to remain completely unrestricted, but we need to address one of the world's most densely populated cities.
Given that air quality and congestion are likely to be major issues for London on the coming years, how do you suggest we solve them?
ETA - Just checked your profile, and you don't live anywhere near the proposed zone (you're practically in Ipswich FFS). Why so vociferous about something which will likely never affect you? As someone who actually lives here, inside the proposed zone, and travels here every day, I feel like I'm a bit closer to the issue than you.
Edited by C70R on Tuesday 24th October 09:00
C70R said:
Is that the best argument against the ULEZ that you can come up with?
In fact, I'm going to bet that you don't even live in London. I'm willing to bet you're unlikely to ever be affected by this, but just wanted something to moan about.
Talking to people like you is like talking to a brick wall I can go on and list lots of arguments but you will keep thinking about how selfless you are. You saying stuff like you don't know which bus takes 15 minutes demonstrates your lack of experience. Carry on with your selflessness BS.
valiant said:
vz-r_dave said:
valiant said:
vz-r_dave said:
They ban UBER for being a danger to the public yet allow the disgusting black cabs to continue their 26% NOx (of the total contributers in London) into the London atmosphere. Charge joe public so they can replace the fleet and continue to charge the Londoner rediculous fee's for their taxi journey's..... I love London but seriously hate how fking backwards TFL and our Mayor is on this subject.
Uber is not banned as they are appealing and once they abide by the terms and conditions that apply to all other private hire firms, they will be free to ply their trade.king backwards TFL and our Mayor is on this subject. Black cabs will all have to switch to electric or zero emissions in the coming years. (Could be as early as 2018 but not entirely sure and the oldest cab allowed will be 15 years so as each year goes by, the ratio of electric cabs will increase with the last phased out by 2032)
TfL set the fees for black cabs not the cabbies themselves.
Edited by valiant on Monday 23 October 17:53
Edited by vz-r_dave on Monday 23 October 20:44
Like I said previously, from next year all new taxis must be zero emissions so a new taxi will be cleaner than a standard new Uber Prius. (Although I fully accept that in time that electric private hire will become more and more popular). Plus the last diesel model taxi, the TX4, is Euro6 so no nastier than any other modern diesel of similar size.
I'm not quite sure why you think it's a monopoly as its a public authority that sets the rules for black cabs to be operated by private individuals but allows for private hire to coexist(providing they play by the rules -Uber
). The fares set are no different to setting fares on the tube or buses. If TfL didn't set the fare then black cabs would be a lot more expensive as the cabbies trade body has been campaigning for a higher levy for ages.Anyway, I digress. There is an eleventy page thread in NP&E about Uber and black cabs where all this has been said previously, I suggest you have a read. (Although most of it is moaning about not going south of the river and broken CC machines
)captainaverage said:
C70R said:
Is that the best argument against the ULEZ that you can come up with?
In fact, I'm going to bet that you don't even live in London. I'm willing to bet you're unlikely to ever be affected by this, but just wanted something to moan about.
Talking to people like you is like talking to a brick wall I can go on and list lots of arguments but you will keep thinking about how selfless you are. You saying stuff like you don't know which bus takes 15 minutes demonstrates your lack of experience. Carry on with your selflessness BS.
This persecution complex is incredibly dull, and completely misses the point of the issue. It is a scheme to improve the lives of people who ACTUALLY LIVE IN LONDON - that's why it's being implemented by Transport for LONDON, not Transport for Potters Bar, or Transport for Ipswich.
I own three cars and live a long way inside the proposed zone - and I'm completely in favour of it. Yet those who don't live anywhere near the zone, and will never be affected by it, are choosing this as a topic to grind their axe on.
What does that tell you about the need to understand the context and appreciate the situation of those it actually affects?
we need to clean up inner cities. sometimes the measures will be arbitrary and even a little misguided, but overall we are moving forward. It's also good that in today's more globalised world that cities are coordinating and learning from each other. All good so far.
We need realistic emissions standards. the Euro ones look badly flawed. Just last week a BBC journo demonstrated that new cars were emitting 3x the NOx of 10yr old cars in real driving conditions. I can't judge who's right, but the credibility is not good.
We need realistic emissions standards. the Euro ones look badly flawed. Just last week a BBC journo demonstrated that new cars were emitting 3x the NOx of 10yr old cars in real driving conditions. I can't judge who's right, but the credibility is not good.
crankedup said:
Bit OTT reaction again. Our Governments recommended oil burners to the buying public, now these people are to be penalised! If oil burners of a certain age are to be penalised then all oil burners should be treated the same. As always it’s a financial penalty that will solve the problem, tax the buggers, that’al work. Equal in Society and all that. Look at the bigger boys who pollute, like the aviation industry for example, how much crap is blown into our cities when these things take to the air and land.
Seems a strange place to come and wave your self righteous flag against cars, a motoring forum.
Yep London is surrounded by five airports, pollution & unburnt fuel fall back to earth while aircraft are within three miles of the ground. Another large source of pollution in London is air conditioning units running 24hrs per day in office blocks yet the mayor's answer to this is to ban residential log burners in some areas. Seems a strange place to come and wave your self righteous flag against cars, a motoring forum.
I used to earn a lot of money driving in & out of London but don't do it anymore & quite honestly wouldn't care if London shriveled up & blew away. What these green people don't seem to get is that London's air is cleaner now than it has ever been yet in 10, 20, 30 years time reports will still say it's filthy & we will all have to dig a little deeper in taxes to get it cleaner.
There is fk all point in us doing anything when years worth of effort (and significant cost) is negated by either natural disasters or other countries. Look at the level of emissions in other cities - Istanbul, Shanghai, Nairobi, New York - we as a country are far better but all it takes is a change in wind direction and you're now experiencing the fumes from elsewhere whilst making your own population less economically competitive globally....
As has also been said, other sources of this pollution continue to be ignored - because the motorist is an easy cashcow.....try following a "low emission" bus in London, on a pushbike and see if they are actually any different - they're in such a state maintenance wise that they continue to pump far more out than almost every other type of vehicle in the city.
All or nothing (globally) IMO and that's not happening any time soon
k all point in us doing anything when years worth of effort (and significant cost) is negated by either natural disasters or other countries. Look at the level of emissions in other cities - Istanbul, Shanghai, Nairobi, New York - we as a country are far better but all it takes is a change in wind direction and you're now experiencing the fumes from elsewhere whilst making your own population less economically competitive globally....As has also been said, other sources of this pollution continue to be ignored - because the motorist is an easy cashcow.....try following a "low emission" bus in London, on a pushbike and see if they are actually any different - they're in such a state maintenance wise that they continue to pump far more out than almost every other type of vehicle in the city.
All or nothing (globally) IMO and that's not happening any time soon
rambo19 said:
If old cars are really that bad, why not just ban them from the zone, double standards allowing them in and charging them, imo.
It's called "disincentivisation", and it's effectively a soft ban. Can you imagine how much gnashing and wailing there would be if the word "ban" was used?Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff