ULEZ charge in 2021
Discussion
Billy_Rosewood said:
Lots of people said the ULEZ expansion would be a non-issue by now and are downplaying it by talking about it and keeping it current 
I like how tfl are still refusing to release air quality figures or how much money they are throwing at repairs and security.
Air quality data will be released once the 20mph reductions deliver the falls that support the narrative. The data will keep improving anyway due to the national policy of EV adoption and the affluence of the SE that maintains the high rate of new car renewal. All of which will be used for the narrative. And they can always bring forward the next batch of tax payers anyway. I like how tfl are still refusing to release air quality figures or how much money they are throwing at repairs and security.
pingu393 said:
Nomme de Plum said:
I wonder how regretful some will be if they have a criminal record which impacts their employment.
Do you think the vandalism is being done by people who worry about such things?bad company said:
Nomme de Plum said:
Vandalism is not the strategy of intelligent people. Prosecutions sometimes take a while. I wonder how regretful some will be if they have a criminal record which impacts their employment.
I’d prefer to call them vigilantes, not vandals.Speed Badger said:
They should give everyone 3 'joker' cards linked to your online account that give you 3 free ULEZ 'days' for use for car shows and the like, and emergencies - sick relative, other car off the road for whatever reason etc.
You want to make the scheme more expensive and complex to run, so that people can save £37.50 per year?Everyone who turns up to the Bromley Pageant by car can afford to pay the ULEZ for a day. £12.50 is a small amount compared to show entry and food/drink at the show, let alone compared to the costs of owning a classic car.
braddo said:
Speed Badger said:
They should give everyone 3 'joker' cards linked to your online account that give you 3 free ULEZ 'days' for use for car shows and the like, and emergencies - sick relative, other car off the road for whatever reason etc.
You want to make the scheme more expensive and complex to run, so that people can save £37.50 per year?Everyone who turns up to the Bromley Pageant by car can afford to pay the ULEZ for a day. £12.50 is a small amount compared to show entry and food/drink at the show, let alone compared to the costs of owning a classic car.
Nomme de Plum said:
I wonder who will end up paying for the repairs and security?
It should be obvious who's paying? No? However the Mayor seems to be using the tax payer as an endless cash cow to protect his vanity project.Surely he doesn't need to replace cameras the very moment they are taken offline? He is also Police and crime commissioner for London. Tackling the source would be a good place too start. Perhaps he should spend more time and resource there given he can't seem to stop the vandals?
Using private contractors to fill gaps in the police could be seen as a smart move... If he used them to protect citizens from the ever increasing stabbings rather than cameras that are having a negligible effect on anything other than revenue.
braddo said:
Everyone who turns up to the Bromley Pageant by car can afford to pay the ULEZ for a day. £12.50 is a small amount compared to show entry and food/drink at the show, let alone compared to the costs of owning a classic car.
You’re right I can afford £12.50 but I won’t be paying it as I don’t see why I should. ULEZ is a blatant money grab and a lot of people cannot easily afford the fee.bad company said:
You’re right I can afford £12.50 but I won’t be paying it as I don’t see why I should. ULEZ is a blatant money grab and a lot of people cannot easily afford the fee.
So you're telling me that you didn't really care about the Bromley Pageant of Motoring, and its 40 years of history?And instead you were happy to prove whatever point it is you were trying to prove, at its expense?
That is, assuming you've ever attended, of course?
bad company said:
... ULEZ is a blatant money grab ....
As much as I like TVRs, they are dirty polluters. If every car and van in greater London were as dirty, air pollution would be much worse than it is now. It's not unfair that higher polluting cars should be 'disincentivised' so that their use is curtailed. That isn't a blatant money grab. I'm reminded of the benefits when an old petrol or diesel car goes past me on the street because their fumes are surprisingly noticeable. It's quite a shock to think all cars and vans were polluting like that 20 years ago.
braddo said:
As much as I like TVRs, they are dirty polluters. If every car and van in greater London were as dirty, air pollution would be much worse than it is now. It's not unfair that higher polluting cars should be 'disincentivised' so that their use is curtailed. That isn't a blatant money grab.
I'm reminded of the benefits when an old petrol or diesel car goes past me on the street because their fumes are surprisingly noticeable. It's quite a shock to think all cars and vans were polluting like that 20 years ago.
But when it gets to 40 years old it’ll become clean. I'm reminded of the benefits when an old petrol or diesel car goes past me on the street because their fumes are surprisingly noticeable. It's quite a shock to think all cars and vans were polluting like that 20 years ago.
bad company said:
But when it gets to 40 years old it’ll become clean.
The number of 40+ year old cars that drive in London is very, very small, so we should be grateful for a bit of pragmatism that still allows classics on the roads. I wouldn't like to bet how many TVRs will be on the roads in 2042...
bad company said:
Nomme de Plum said:
Vandalism is not the strategy of intelligent people. Prosecutions sometimes take a while. I wonder how regretful some will be if they have a criminal record which impacts their employment.
I’d prefer to call them vigilantes, not vandals."Vigilante, a person who forces obedience to the law without legal authority to do so, or a member of a group that decides to force obedience to the law without official authority."
A Vigilante should at least be attempted to stop something illegal happening, in this context a Vigilante would be someone taking a baseball bat to a "Bladerunner" not the vandal themselves.
bad company said:
braddo said:
As much as I like TVRs, they are dirty polluters. If every car and van in greater London were as dirty, air pollution would be much worse than it is now. It's not unfair that higher polluting cars should be 'disincentivised' so that their use is curtailed. That isn't a blatant money grab.
I'm reminded of the benefits when an old petrol or diesel car goes past me on the street because their fumes are surprisingly noticeable. It's quite a shock to think all cars and vans were polluting like that 20 years ago.
But when it gets to 40 years old it’ll become clean. I'm reminded of the benefits when an old petrol or diesel car goes past me on the street because their fumes are surprisingly noticeable. It's quite a shock to think all cars and vans were polluting like that 20 years ago.
The TVR is actually a very good example. On paper it is a very polluting vehicle but as braddo says, the issue is if every car and van in Greater London were as dirty. But they are. A brand new, wholly compliant ICE that's used every day for commuting is very obviously much dirtier than a classic car used once in a while within the zone.
And just think about vans, those workhorses that keep London functioning. Coming in every day and moving around all day while also being a major contributor to congestion, the core driver of vehicle related pollution.
It serves to highlight very well the utter farce of the current ULEZ criteria and why it was chosen.
braddo said:
bad company said:
But when it gets to 40 years old it’ll become clean.
The number of 40+ year old cars that drive in London is very, very small, so we should be grateful for a bit of pragmatism that still allows classics on the roads. I wouldn't like to bet how many TVRs will be on the roads in 2042...
DonkeyApple said:
It serves to highlight very well the utter farce of the current ULEZ criteria and why it was chosen.
They needed to start somewhere though? You're proposing a congestion/usage charge to reduce vehicle use and pollution but as much as that's a laudable aim it's an impossibility for now. The focus in the first place is on vehicle emissions per mile, i.e. have cleaner vehicles but with no limits on use. Hence a TVR isn't exempt. But importantly, it's not banned, so the cost for occasional use is still low.
bad company said:
The number of TVR’s or other modern classics driving in London is also very, very small.
Sure, but legislating for that looks completely unfair - having exemptions for sports cars and modern classics, while making people with old everyday diesel and petrol cars pay the charge.Having a number of exempt days also adds a lot of cost to administering the scheme, because then an inventory of daily trips for every reg plate has to be managed.
Driving your TVR once a fortnight through the year would cost around £300 per year or £25 per month. That is a pittance in the scheme of owning that car. Set up autopay and enjoy your car.
braddo said:
Driving your TVR once a fortnight through the year would cost around £300 per year or £25 per month. That is a pittance in the scheme of owning that car. Set up autopay and enjoy your car.
That’ll be the autopay that charged me for driving my BMW in London while I was in the USA. I asked for photographic evidence, below are photos of my car and the evidence supplied by TFL.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff