ULEZ charge in 2021
Discussion
DonkeyApple said:
That 20mph limit is pretty much everywhere I now go in London. It’s a very good thing on those side streets that are double parked but I just don’t see the point of it on the main roads. I think there’s plenty of data anyway that shows that the safer you make the driving environment the greater complacency becomes and so incidents rise.
It certainly seems odd that in places like Queens Gate they are implementing the strategy of making roads more complex and confusing so as to slow people down and make everyone more alert yet simultaneously rolling out a different solution that flies in the face of that data.
Personally, the real problem is that if you cannot drive at tourists at 30/40mph with the engine revving then they aren’t going to be scared out of the idea of just walking across the road. The reality is that whether in the tourist hotspots or testosterone rich environments like the City the only thing that actually keeps the enormous number of pedestrians on the pavement is the fear of being mown down. Once that fear is removed through either cars that are travelling very slowly or later with autonomous cars that will simply give way at all times to pedestrians then it’s going to get a lot harder trying to get through town by car.
I'm sure PH's clmate geniuses would have seen the report that slowing cars down increases their emissions, because the engine is running for a longer time.It certainly seems odd that in places like Queens Gate they are implementing the strategy of making roads more complex and confusing so as to slow people down and make everyone more alert yet simultaneously rolling out a different solution that flies in the face of that data.
Personally, the real problem is that if you cannot drive at tourists at 30/40mph with the engine revving then they aren’t going to be scared out of the idea of just walking across the road. The reality is that whether in the tourist hotspots or testosterone rich environments like the City the only thing that actually keeps the enormous number of pedestrians on the pavement is the fear of being mown down. Once that fear is removed through either cars that are travelling very slowly or later with autonomous cars that will simply give way at all times to pedestrians then it’s going to get a lot harder trying to get through town by car.
Who da think it.
swamp said:
2gins said:
I'm also in Richmond. 3 things C70R overlooks or isn't aware of.
1. Richmond could mean either the town or the borough in the poster's context, depending which he means he could be in the zone or not as the South circular bisects parts of Kew, Sheen, Barnes and Mortlake.
2. Either way the local recycling centre/tip is in the zone so it's £12.50 every time you want to dispose of something large or specialized e.g. garden waste or engine oil.
3. Even if you never do that the local council here and in other outer boroughs intend to adopt the ULEZ standards across the borough so it is likely a consideration even now. There are no details yet about when or how but whatever, it is just good planning.
Stop being a condescending arsehat.
Richmond Council actually want the Mayor to extend the ULEZ to cover the entire borough. I imagine other local authorities on the border will want the same.1. Richmond could mean either the town or the borough in the poster's context, depending which he means he could be in the zone or not as the South circular bisects parts of Kew, Sheen, Barnes and Mortlake.
2. Either way the local recycling centre/tip is in the zone so it's £12.50 every time you want to dispose of something large or specialized e.g. garden waste or engine oil.
3. Even if you never do that the local council here and in other outer boroughs intend to adopt the ULEZ standards across the borough so it is likely a consideration even now. There are no details yet about when or how but whatever, it is just good planning.
Stop being a condescending arsehat.
Someone like Zac Goldsmith would never be as conniving and duplicitous as that.
DonkeyApple said:
NomduJour said:
Exhibition Road is being remodelled to separate pedestrians from traffic; seems sensible to me - there are always people in the middle of the carriageway, cars on the wrong side of the road etc.
I thought the whole purpose of that redesign a few years back was to specifically create multiple conflict points and confusion? Listen up folks, London is not even close to being a polluting city please check here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-pollute...
Its all a lot of hot air , if the authorities truly believed London needed real controls they would stop any so called polluting vehicle from entry. Don't forget that any car built from the introduction of catalytic converters (circa 1992) produces a small fraction of pollution of the previous era.
Its all a lot of hot air , if the authorities truly believed London needed real controls they would stop any so called polluting vehicle from entry. Don't forget that any car built from the introduction of catalytic converters (circa 1992) produces a small fraction of pollution of the previous era.
The 20mph actually contribute to the bad air quality as do speed humps etc the Mayor's office admit this when pressed on the issue & then palm it off as a small side issue in terms of overall road safety but the big reason for the 20mph roll out will be for the cameras to have a better chance of reading the numberplates.
ZX10R NIN said:
The 20mph actually contribute to the bad air quality as do speed humps etc the Mayor's office admit this when pressed on the issue & then palm it off as a small side issue in terms of overall road safety but the big reason for the 20mph roll out will be for the cameras to have a better chance of reading the numberplates.
I think a big driver is to bring speed differentials down between bikes and vehicles to pave the way for everyone getting a bike and cycling around like they used to in China when they couldn’t afford cars and would die if they didn’t cycle. The next phase is to flatten the whole of London to remove all the hills. hyphen said:
croyde said:
fatboy18 said:
Are hybrid cars exempt from the extra charge?
I have a 8ltr V10 engine but it has to be started with a 12volt battery, so surely this makes it a hybrid?
Like it I have a 8ltr V10 engine but it has to be started with a 12volt battery, so surely this makes it a hybrid?
So as long as it's modern so euro 4 or whatever it is, engine can be large as you want!
To recap, for all those revelling in the fact that 'Car X' is compliant. This ULEZ is...
1) nothing to do with the size of the engine
2) nothing to do with the size of the car
3) nothing to do with the performance of the car
All petrol cars built since 2005 are compliant.
All diesel cars built since 2015 are compliant.
That's it.
Hackney said:
The problem with that is, 50% of any conflict is likely to be an a***hole in a car, not caring that the conflict is to cause consideration rather than blaring through, hand on horn.
People just wander in front of traffic on Exhibition Road - it looks pretty, but there’s no delineation between road and pavement at all. Also common to see cars in both “lanes” at the Cromwell Road end because there are no road markings. But we digress.
NomduJour said:
Exhibition Road is being remodelled to separate pedestrians from traffic; seems sensible to me - there are always people in the middle of the carriageway, cars on the wrong side of the road etc.
Not sure what this has to do with the ULEZ?Exhibition Road was an experiment, and it appears that experiment has failed. Given how busy London is generally, I'm all up for out-the-box thinking to try and maximise the available space.
T-195 said:
T-195 said:
Surprised no one has blamed The Mayor yet.
Piece of piss. London Public Transport could easily cope with another 3 Million regular users.
T-195 said:
So what you're saying is because you can take a photo of a Google search (
), and you know some people who live in London, the fact that this article clearly shows that 70% of Londoners don't own a car is untrue?http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-12-how-ma...
Hackney said:
I can't imagine that would be because then they can get to share the cost of infrastucture with the neighbouring borough rather than having to stump up for it on their own.
Someone like Zac Goldsmith would never be as conniving and duplicitous as that.
It won't be ZG because (I) he's the MP and nothing to do with the borough council who will make the decision and (ii) he will lose his seat to Sarah Olney (LibDem) at the next GE.Someone like Zac Goldsmith would never be as conniving and duplicitous as that.
As for 20 mph, this is a residential street in a corner of Berkshire beyond the M25 and all that silliness:
https://goo.gl/maps/3oa7PF46muF2
OK, it's a private road but it looks like TSRGD compliant signage and was presumably put there with council knowledge. This'll be the next big thing.
I quote from a slightly earlier post.
2) nothing to do with the size of the car
3) nothing to do with the performance of the car ******
BUT nothing to do with the miles driven.
Making the method of charging unfair when other alternatives are available.
My reading of this thread is that few people object to the principal of trying to save lives.
If we adopted the Mayor's concept of ULEZ charging we would fine people the same for doing 80mph or 120mph.
But we don't as we've come up with a system that is rather more fair.
- To recap, for all those revelling in the fact that 'Car X' is compliant. This ULEZ is...
2) nothing to do with the size of the car
3) nothing to do with the performance of the car ******
BUT nothing to do with the miles driven.
Making the method of charging unfair when other alternatives are available.
My reading of this thread is that few people object to the principal of trying to save lives.
If we adopted the Mayor's concept of ULEZ charging we would fine people the same for doing 80mph or 120mph.
But we don't as we've come up with a system that is rather more fair.
C70R said:
T-195 said:
So what you're saying is because you can take a photo of a Google search (), and you know some people who live in London, the fact that this article clearly shows that 70% of Londoners don't own a car is untrue?http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-12-how-ma...
Why not try to prove someone wrong for a f
king change??You really are f
king stupid.The first line of the document states that 54% of households in London have at least one car.
[/footnote]
Edited by T-195 on Wednesday 10th April 13:42
T-195 said:
C70R said:
T-195 said:
So what you're saying is because you can take a photo of a Google search (), and you know some people who live in London, the fact that this article clearly shows that 70% of Londoners don't own a car is untrue?http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-12-how-ma...
Why not try to prove someone wrong for a f
king change??You really are f
king stupid.The first line of the document states that 54% of households in London have at least one car.
[/footnote]
Edited by T-195 on Wednesday 10th April 13:42
I'm definitely the thick one.
And it's definitely not you, because you don't know the difference between a household and an individual.
Never has the use of this emoji been more apt.
C70R said:
Thank you for the personal abuse. It's an emerging theme among those who oppose the ULEZ.
I'm definitely the thick one.
And it's definitely not you, because you don't know the difference between a household and an individual.
Never has the use of this emoji been more apt.
I think you will find the abuse tends to be less correlated with those against the ULEZ and more correlated with posts directed at yourself, from a very simple observation its because you post on here in response to people in such a condescending manner.I'm definitely the thick one.
And it's definitely not you, because you don't know the difference between a household and an individual.
Never has the use of this emoji been more apt.
That said, yes I agree with you, in this instance you are right to point out that households and individuals are different metrics. But maybe try doing it without resorting to sounding like a condescending thirteen year old and you might find the tone of response changes and the discussion becomes a bit more constructive.
Second Best said:
My local car wash is frequented by quite a few city runners. They're all very pissed off with the ULEZ charge, as apparently there's also been some form of (minor) stealth tax to private hire vehicles - something about clean air regulations - which means they're now potentially 10% worse off daily.
It would be illegal for me to point out that at least three of them had the same numberplate to help offset the costs.
I have seen this. Two black Priusi with the same plates. Clearly the prospect of the punishment over the savings is no deterrent....It would be illegal for me to point out that at least three of them had the same numberplate to help offset the costs.
I almost admire the ingenuity......
catfood12 said:
Second Best said:
My local car wash is frequented by quite a few city runners. They're all very pissed off with the ULEZ charge, as apparently there's also been some form of (minor) stealth tax to private hire vehicles - something about clean air regulations - which means they're now potentially 10% worse off daily.
It would be illegal for me to point out that at least three of them had the same numberplate to help offset the costs.
I have seen this. Two black Priusi with the same plates. Clearly the prospect of the punishment over the savings is no deterrent....It would be illegal for me to point out that at least three of them had the same numberplate to help offset the costs.
I almost admire the ingenuity......
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff