ULEZ charge in 2021
Discussion
Was just having a read online as I haven't really paid too much attention to the ULEZ other than ensuring where I lived doesn't fall into it (just inside the M25).
Once thing that caught my eye was this :
"Further into the future, London is planning a smaller zero emission zone from 2025, which will be restricted to electric vehicles, as well as hybrids that can drive on battery power alone for a significant distance. A zero emission zone across all of London is not proposed until 2050."
Don't know how official that is but wonder where that will extend to and from etc.
At least if 2050 London will be zero emissions I suppose there's 30 years for EVs to take over and become cheap enough for the masses. Also, many classic cars will be over the 40 year old tax bracket which seems to imply they become exempt.
Once thing that caught my eye was this :
"Further into the future, London is planning a smaller zero emission zone from 2025, which will be restricted to electric vehicles, as well as hybrids that can drive on battery power alone for a significant distance. A zero emission zone across all of London is not proposed until 2050."
Don't know how official that is but wonder where that will extend to and from etc.
At least if 2050 London will be zero emissions I suppose there's 30 years for EVs to take over and become cheap enough for the masses. Also, many classic cars will be over the 40 year old tax bracket which seems to imply they become exempt.
coldel said:
C70R said:
So it wasn't the main reason you sold your car?
But you thought you'd just mention that for added impact?
Right...
No it wasn't the main reason, I didn't say it was, but it certainly was a consideration. I said that in the post, you just didn't read it properly and therefore you didn't understand correctly before slightly smarmy and condescending response was put in print on the thread.But you thought you'd just mention that for added impact?
Right...
There are plenty of people in the same boat around the border line of the ULEZ making similar calls on cars that they might otherwise have kept. It's quite frankly a sensible and obvious factor of car ownership come 2021 in areas around the ULEZ, even if you are not in it how often are cars used that do not qualify that would impact your usage of it.
You allowed something which is happening in two years time, a quarter of a mile away from your house, to influence your decision to sell a car now?
And you don't think that's an overreaction?
Guvernator said:
God the constant, condescending sniping from C70R is tiring isn't it? Shame as it could be quite a decent discussion otherwise. Anyway life is too short so I'm done with this thread.
Without me this thread would be:1) People moaning about how unfair it is
2) People making political snipes, or claiming it's an 'agenda against the car'
3) People laughing about how their compliant cars are compliant
If you think that's "decent discussion", I'm very sorry.
Alex_225 said:
"Further into the future, London is planning a smaller zero emission zone from 2025, which will be restricted to electric vehicles, as well as hybrids that can drive on battery power alone for a significant distance. A zero emission zone across all of London is not proposed until 2050."
Don't know how official that is but wonder where that will extend to and from etc.
The likelihood is that it would cover roughly the existing CCZ, which contains most of Central London's pollution hotspots.Don't know how official that is but wonder where that will extend to and from etc.
I'm not entirely sure, you're right and it doesn't specifically say anywhere. I'd say try writing to them first, you might be able to put it through an IVA and have it re-classified.
I doubt it. I say that because for the last few weeks I have been chatting to the folk who do LPG conversions. LPG would qualify for reduced emissions but the ULEZ folk don't want to give exception - presumably because of loss of revenue. That is why they are insisting on the date rules - rather than allowing people to have their cars converted and tested.
There is a fascinating post from someone called 'chimp' on a nearby thread explaining the mathematics of emissions and tax. It is worth looking at and covers a lot of the ground that is not being discussed here over the last few days.
It would be wrong to quote the whole post but this bit is relevant to what we are saying at the moment. "If ULEZ really is about reducing oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) quite clearly there should be concessions given to older but now far far less polluting LPG converted vehicles. But the government doesn't want that, they want people to buy new cars!"
I doubt it. I say that because for the last few weeks I have been chatting to the folk who do LPG conversions. LPG would qualify for reduced emissions but the ULEZ folk don't want to give exception - presumably because of loss of revenue. That is why they are insisting on the date rules - rather than allowing people to have their cars converted and tested.
There is a fascinating post from someone called 'chimp' on a nearby thread explaining the mathematics of emissions and tax. It is worth looking at and covers a lot of the ground that is not being discussed here over the last few days.
It would be wrong to quote the whole post but this bit is relevant to what we are saying at the moment. "If ULEZ really is about reducing oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) quite clearly there should be concessions given to older but now far far less polluting LPG converted vehicles. But the government doesn't want that, they want people to buy new cars!"
C70R said:
Without me this thread would be:
1) People moaning about how unfair it is
2) People making political snipes, or claiming it's an 'agenda against the car'
3) People laughing about how their compliant cars are compliant
If you think that's "decent discussion", I'm very sorry.
1) It is unfair1) People moaning about how unfair it is
2) People making political snipes, or claiming it's an 'agenda against the car'
3) People laughing about how their compliant cars are compliant
If you think that's "decent discussion", I'm very sorry.
2) It patently is an agenda against car use, as Khan has openly stated he wants 80% of journeys made on public transport
3) Who cares, this is PH
Your 'decent' discussion is posting condescending emotes whilst sealioning your point of view.
C70R said:
Just so that I'm completely clear.
You allowed something which is happening in two years time, a quarter of a mile away from your house, to influence your decision to sell a car now?
And you don't think that's an overreaction?
Not at all, it was an aging car, potentially some work to do on it in the next year or so and in a couple of years it would cost me £12.50 to do half my journey's. I could potentially have swallowed the cost of the work if I didn't soon after have to start paying to use but the sensible option was to move it on now, avoid those costs, get something fun to replace it that complied. You allowed something which is happening in two years time, a quarter of a mile away from your house, to influence your decision to sell a car now?
And you don't think that's an overreaction?
So no, it's not an overreaction.
coldel said:
C70R said:
Just so that I'm completely clear.
You allowed something which is happening in two years time, a quarter of a mile away from your house, to influence your decision to sell a car now?
And you don't think that's an overreaction?
Not at all, it was an aging car, potentially some work to do on it in the next year or so and in a couple of years it would cost me £12.50 to do half my journey's. I could potentially have swallowed the cost of the work if I didn't soon after have to start paying to use but the sensible option was to move it on now, avoid those costs, get something fun to replace it that complied. You allowed something which is happening in two years time, a quarter of a mile away from your house, to influence your decision to sell a car now?
And you don't think that's an overreaction?
So no, it's not an overreaction.
Gotcha.
Tony Gamble said:
I'm not entirely sure, you're right and it doesn't specifically say anywhere. I'd say try writing to them first, you might be able to put it through an IVA and have it re-classified.
I doubt it. I say that because for the last few weeks I have been chatting to the folk who do LPG conversions. LPG would qualify for reduced emissions but the ULEZ folk don't want to give exception - presumably because of loss of revenue. That is why they are insisting on the date rules - rather than allowing people to have their cars converted and tested.
There is a fascinating post from someone called 'chimp' on a nearby thread explaining the mathematics of emissions and tax. It is worth looking at and covers a lot of the ground that is not being discussed here over the last few days.
It would be wrong to quote the whole post but this bit is relevant to what we are saying at the moment. "If ULEZ really is about reducing oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) quite clearly there should be concessions given to older but now far far less polluting LPG converted vehicles. But the government doesn't want that, they want people to buy new cars!"
Ridiculous. Commercial vehicles can have extra filters and emissions equipment fitted to dodge the charge in the LEZ, seems stupid not to extend it to every vehicle and the ULEZ.I doubt it. I say that because for the last few weeks I have been chatting to the folk who do LPG conversions. LPG would qualify for reduced emissions but the ULEZ folk don't want to give exception - presumably because of loss of revenue. That is why they are insisting on the date rules - rather than allowing people to have their cars converted and tested.
There is a fascinating post from someone called 'chimp' on a nearby thread explaining the mathematics of emissions and tax. It is worth looking at and covers a lot of the ground that is not being discussed here over the last few days.
It would be wrong to quote the whole post but this bit is relevant to what we are saying at the moment. "If ULEZ really is about reducing oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) quite clearly there should be concessions given to older but now far far less polluting LPG converted vehicles. But the government doesn't want that, they want people to buy new cars!"
C70R said:
So you're saying it played an exceptionally minor role in the decision, but you thought you'd bring it up in a ULEZ discussion for effect?
Gotcha.
See above. Gotcha.
Look, you can stop acting like you think you are some sort of actor from a hollywood movie throwing the quips out there at the baddies and in your mind looking super cool. Or you can start talking to people like an adult, you know, like how 99% of adults usually discuss things. I get you are in the PH mindset of being condescending etc. but I think you can be better than that to get your point across.
See my post above, in my situation I made a call on the long term impact of cost and the ULEZ introduction affecting my use of the car. You have no idea of the details of any of that and I am sure the thread has no interest in it either at that level of detail, so suffice to say it made perfect sense to move the car on at this time and I probably would have held on to it for longer had the ULEZ not been incoming.
j_4m said:
C70R said:
Without me this thread would be:
1) People moaning about how unfair it is
2) People making political snipes, or claiming it's an 'agenda against the car'
3) People laughing about how their compliant cars are compliant
If you think that's "decent discussion", I'm very sorry.
1) It is unfair1) People moaning about how unfair it is
2) People making political snipes, or claiming it's an 'agenda against the car'
3) People laughing about how their compliant cars are compliant
If you think that's "decent discussion", I'm very sorry.
2) It patently is an agenda against car use, as Khan has openly stated he wants 80% of journeys made on public transport
3) Who cares, this is PH
Your 'decent' discussion is posting condescending emotes whilst sealioning your point of view.
Sorry if you think that's rude. But if you can't see how it's desirable for a massive, fast-growing, densely-populated city with a very old road network to want to reduce its reliance on ineffecient personal transport, then I don't think I can help you.
Even so, that has nothing to do with what we're discussing here. I had one non-compliant car before the ULEZ was finalised, and I now own two compliant cars which I can drive in the Zone with impunity.
Explain to me how that is the outcome of "an agenda against car use".
j_4m said:
C70R said:
If you think that bolded bit is true, then intelligent discussion on this topic is lost on you.
Sorry if you think that's rude. But if you can't see how it's desirable for a massive, fast-growing, densely-populated city with a very old road network to want to reduce its reliance on ineffecient personal transport, then I don't think I can help you.
Even so, that has nothing to do with what we're discussing here. I had one non-compliant car before the ULEZ was finalised, and I now own two compliant cars which I can drive in the Zone with impunity.
Explain to me how that is the outcome of "an agenda against car use".
It's nice that you have the disposable income to chop and change your cars with such ease, many others don't have that luxury.Sorry if you think that's rude. But if you can't see how it's desirable for a massive, fast-growing, densely-populated city with a very old road network to want to reduce its reliance on ineffecient personal transport, then I don't think I can help you.
Even so, that has nothing to do with what we're discussing here. I had one non-compliant car before the ULEZ was finalised, and I now own two compliant cars which I can drive in the Zone with impunity.
Explain to me how that is the outcome of "an agenda against car use".
If you can afford to own, run and maintain a car, and it's "essential" for your existence, then you can afford to buy one of the thousands of available ULEZ-compliant replacements for less than £1,000
Autotrader alone is offering 2,500 petrol cars newer than 2005 for under a grand, before we even look at eBay/Gumtree etc..
Edited by C70R on Tuesday 9th April 13:32
C70R said:
If you think that bolded bit is true, then intelligent discussion on this topic is lost on you.
Sorry if you think that's rude. But if you can't see how it's desirable for a massive, fast-growing, densely-populated city with a very old road network to want to reduce its reliance on ineffecient personal transport, then I don't think I can help you.
Even so, that has nothing to do with what we're discussing here. I had one non-compliant car before the ULEZ was finalised, and I now own two compliant cars which I can drive in the Zone with impunity.
Explain to me how that is the outcome of "an agenda against car use".
You're seeing this from a very binary position: car OR public transport. Sorry if you think that's rude. But if you can't see how it's desirable for a massive, fast-growing, densely-populated city with a very old road network to want to reduce its reliance on ineffecient personal transport, then I don't think I can help you.
Even so, that has nothing to do with what we're discussing here. I had one non-compliant car before the ULEZ was finalised, and I now own two compliant cars which I can drive in the Zone with impunity.
Explain to me how that is the outcome of "an agenda against car use".
Most people who work in central London use public transport already. They only reason you wouldn't use it to commute is:
- you're insane
- you have to move something that is too big to get onto a bus
- you have a journey that is impossible to achieve by public transport (very rare in London)
When I'm in London, I wouldn't dream of using a car for my daily business, compliant or otherwise.
However, people who live in London do need a car occasionally. Maybe they want to go outside the M25. Maybe they want to return home from a party at 02:00 when the buses are full of weirdos. Maybe they want to take granny to her hospital appointment.
That is perfectly compatible with a fast growing, densely populated city.
rxe said:
C70R said:
If you think that bolded bit is true, then intelligent discussion on this topic is lost on you.
Sorry if you think that's rude. But if you can't see how it's desirable for a massive, fast-growing, densely-populated city with a very old road network to want to reduce its reliance on ineffecient personal transport, then I don't think I can help you.
Even so, that has nothing to do with what we're discussing here. I had one non-compliant car before the ULEZ was finalised, and I now own two compliant cars which I can drive in the Zone with impunity.
Explain to me how that is the outcome of "an agenda against car use".
You're seeing this from a very binary position: car OR public transport. Sorry if you think that's rude. But if you can't see how it's desirable for a massive, fast-growing, densely-populated city with a very old road network to want to reduce its reliance on ineffecient personal transport, then I don't think I can help you.
Even so, that has nothing to do with what we're discussing here. I had one non-compliant car before the ULEZ was finalised, and I now own two compliant cars which I can drive in the Zone with impunity.
Explain to me how that is the outcome of "an agenda against car use".
Most people who work in central London use public transport already. They only reason you wouldn't use it to commute is:
- you're insane
- you have to move something that is too big to get onto a bus
- you have a journey that is impossible to achieve by public transport (very rare in London)
When I'm in London, I wouldn't dream of using a car for my daily business, compliant or otherwise.
However, people who live in London do need a car occasionally. Maybe they want to go outside the M25. Maybe they want to return home from a party at 02:00 when the buses are full of weirdos. Maybe they want to take granny to her hospital appointment.
That is perfectly compatible with a fast growing, densely populated city.
For people who absolutely need to use a non-compliant car in the ULEZ on the odd occasion, they pay for it, just like the CCZ. That's pretty simple.
Given the absolutely enormous choice of compliant cars at low cost, if your usage was more frequent or critical, it would be crazy to persist with a non-compliant car.
According to government stats 54% of greater London households have at least one car, which is a bit more than half but still surprisingly low!
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-12-how-ma...
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-12-how-ma...
gavsdavs said:
I'm quite capable of going out and buying a(nother) ULEZ compliant car if I wanted to. I just don't want to.
I don't think I'm alone in this - I own a classic, I use it minimally, I live within the enlarged ULEZ, and to start it post 2021, it's going to cost £12.50/day. It's use is not what you'd consider to be a cause of the unpleasant atmosphere in London.
Most classics are exempt ULEZ, is the enlarged 2021 ULEZ not going to exempt them also? what's yours? I don't think I'm alone in this - I own a classic, I use it minimally, I live within the enlarged ULEZ, and to start it post 2021, it's going to cost £12.50/day. It's use is not what you'd consider to be a cause of the unpleasant atmosphere in London.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff