ULEZ charge in 2021

[swamp]

Welshbeef said:

How they alllow diesel cabs up to 12 years free pass is beyond me

The age limit for taxis is currently 15 years! Though they are considering a 12 year limit: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tph/taxi-age-limi...

[Killboy]

cb1965 said:

Mind your own business as to where exactly I have lived. You seem to be fixated with the fact I am saying where I lived was better transport wise when what I said was judging it in absolute terms. My point was my frame of reference isn't conditioned to thinking London is the best place on earth by the fact I have lived elsewhere as well hence am able to judge far more impartially than a fixated London chap like you.

I'm not even from England.

[Killboy]

cb1965 said:

You (and your chum) need to work out the difference between the terms absolute and relative, it's really not too difficult to understand.

This is just getting sad.

[DonkeyApple]

2gins said:

Welshbeef said:

3.1416 said:

It is the last straw which breaks the camel's back.

Time to relocate.

Where is your job? Can you easily upsticks take he buying and selling costs?

Seems remarkably extreme but hey bully for you

If a move is on the cards anyway, but not yet decided, stuff like this just tips the scales.

It was certainly a factor for me, one of the little tipping points.

My children were just reaching the point that their activities were getting further away and it was causing me to remember how it had been easy for my parents to run me all the way across London to Putney for rowing and to all the other places for music lessons and all sorts. I looked at how I simply wouldn’t be able to do the same and that started taking the gilding off.

The schools that I had gone to were now in my eyes ghastly dumping grounds of unhappy children armed with more personal purchasing power than typical PH director.

And as I moved around London I felt that the sightings of people who held doors, waited at tube doors, didn’t eat stinky food on the tube or generally behave in any basic form of civilised manner had dwindled dramatically.

But also weighting in on this slow change of sentiment was that none of my cars were compliant and that the days of enjoying those types of cars before you were 45 mins out of London had gone.

My first plan was to just pay the tax when I needed to use one of the cars and the other car I replaced with a 1972 version to be exempt. But then plans emerged to pedestrianise The Avenue which is a road that runs down to Regents Park and simultaneously remove the Swiss Cottage triangle which during rush hour acts as a holding pen and enormous buffer zone to stop all the smaller lanes and side roads in the area from grinding to a halt. If that goes ahead then traffic will stack all the way up the Finchley Road and down the Hendon Way. It’ll be solid all the way down Adelaide Rd to Chalk Farm and all the way into Swiss Cottage and SJW.

I attended one of the meetings and realised that this was an agenda of extremist lunatics who wanted the way to be cleared for a cycle superhighway into London. These were religious fanatics. No amount of reasoning ever changes the mindset of such ill people. You have two options, kill them or let them carry out their insanity so that the disaster can be seen for all and it can be all undone. It’s like the fanatics who every decade remove the no right turn up the road. It’s there because when people are allowed to turn right there are deaths but everytime the latest generation of fanatics seize power they are all knowing and remove the no right turn. And they can only be reversed once a few people have died.

Anyway, somewhat of a ramble but I’ve always loved living in London and I’ve loved the fact that because of the unbelievably brilliant public transport infrastructure I have never needed a practical car. The absolute ease at which you can move around London without a car gave me the total freedom to not ever compromise on what cars I wanted as they were purely toys for my own self indulgence.

The fact that I was being specifically targeted to change my cars to conform with the masses, combined with other factors is what led me to make the decision to go into exile.

I’m now a London expat residing in the strange, slightly backward country called England. The men don’t seem able to drive all that well and the women appear to all have pie addictions but it’s friendly and fun. It’s a lovely place to hide out for the next decade while the children grow up and bugger off and then we will return but I don’t plan to take any cars with me when I do. I’m going to spend the next decade owning a few big cc wagons and using them but when I move back into Town I’m not going to bother with a car.

[RemyMartin81D]

This thread needs shutting down lol the useful contributions are becoming less and it's just becoming a bickerfest. Which as a reader of the useful information cropping up had been interesting. Shame or one or two posters just accept a difference of opinion can actually exist and debate can happen.

[C70R]

3.1416 said:

At risk of invoking the world's smallest violin, I don't really understand why ULEZ has to operate 24/7 and not in a similar manner to the congestion zone.

For anyone owning cherished vehicles with RV8 type engines within ULEZ it is going to be irritating to say the least.

Perhaps a window on Sundays out of regular hours could be exempt?

That would, presumably, see most of the benefits still maintained whilst retaining some goodwill.

Because, and this shouldn't come as a shock, cars still pollute at night and on Sundays.

For the umpteenth time, this isn't about reducing volume of traffic - it's about reducing pollution.

How do you think the >70% of non-car-owning residents would feel about that? Just so you could drive a toy through the middle of a big city?

Edited by C70R on Thursday 18th April 11:01

[C70R]

Welshbeef said:

3.1416 said:

It is the last straw which breaks the camel's back.

Time to relocate.

Where is your job? Can you easily upsticks take he buying and selling costs?

Seems remarkably extreme but hey bully for you

There's been a lot of that ridiculous posturing and 'extreme' claims.

If this thread was in any way representative, I'd expect Greater London's population to halve in the next decade.

[C70R]

Killboy said:

cb1965 said:

Mind your own business as to where exactly I have lived. You seem to be fixated with the fact I am saying where I lived was better transport wise when what I said was judging it in absolute terms. My point was my frame of reference isn't conditioned to thinking London is the best place on earth by the fact I have lived elsewhere as well hence am able to judge far more impartially than a fixated London chap like you.

I'm not even from England.

He doesn't care.

He just desperately wants to win an argument.

So much so that he'll keep shifting the goalposts and hurling abuse until you give up.

[Tony Gamble]

C70R said:

For the umpteenth time, this isn't about reducing volume of traffic - it's about reducing pollution.

And raising money.

I have offered to convert my petrol engined Audi to lpg - but TFL still want my money.

[3.1416]

C70R said:

Because, and this shouldn't come as a shock, cars still pollute at night and on Sundays.

For the umpteenth time, this isn't about reducing volume of traffic - it's about reducing pollution.

How do you think the >70% of non-car-owning residents would feel about that? Just so you could drive a toy through the middle of a big city?

Edited by C70R on Thursday 18th April 11:01

I admit that I do not have the answer to this, however it would not be unreasonable to suspect that an occasional use non-compliant vehicle (used to exit London - not drive through) would be comparable to a constant use fully compliant vehicle in terms of pollution. We're not talking deisel here and with pre and post catalysts.

That said, it's not a huge financial burden, just an irritation but yet another aspect to consider in preventing yet another dubious fine.

Driving back just after midnight, that's another payment (if noticed). Or a penalty.

As an aside, the rather aggressive traffic calming measures already can cause damage and the 20 mph speed limits appear to generate overly-aggressive over-taking moves by those following (me). I do, however, see the point of the limits where I live.

[Graveworm]

C70R said:

Because, and this shouldn't come as a shock, cars still pollute at night and on Sundays.

For the umpteenth time, this isn't about reducing volume of traffic - it's about reducing pollution.

How do you think the >70% of non-car-owning residents would feel about that? Just so you could drive a toy through the middle of a big city?

Edited by C70R on Thursday 18th April 11:01

My car is fine so this is not about any self interest. But the the graph above seems to show it can't make a significant difference. It's unlikely even to offset the increase brought about by 20mph limits and calming. If it takes money out of the economy (As the limits and calming also must) then, indirectly, it could do more harm than good.

Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 18th April 12:40

[Fairnesstoall]

ULEZ - I am not against this legislation, in fact I think it’s actually movement in the right direction. What I am though very much against is the way that it is potentially to be implemented. It will have a dramatic impact on a considerable number of people/households who can ill afford a financial shock of this kind

My situation is probably not too dissimilar to a large number of people effected, so I speak for them.

I bought my car a number of years ago (2013 Plate) in good faith with the belief that diesels were better than petrol and no indication that in a few years I could no longer drive my car on the streets where I live without consideration extra cost.

I use my car responsibility and do not use it around town, however, I still very much need it as I have to make regular trips to visit and ferry around elderly parents.

I will now have to sell my car – at a considerable financial loss (who will want to buy a car that you can’t drive where you live !!!)

And what do I replace it with, Hybrids and petrol will, I am lead to believe soon be restricted as well and Electric just doesn’t have the infrastructure in place. Especially for those who live in flats – I’m on the fourth floor of a block of flats (and just don’t have an extension lead that long !!!)

The current plans for implementation are at best poorly conceived and at worst damn right incompetent. To cause such a huge financial impact on circ £150k households in the new zone area in this way is irresponsible and I am sure will loose those responsible a considerable number of votes.

I suggest that a little more consideration is applied to this implementation and we can all move forward together.

[jfire]

Fairnesstoall said:

ULEZ - I am not against this legislation, in fact I think it’s actually movement in the right direction. What I am though very much against is the way that it is potentially to be implemented. It will have a dramatic impact on a considerable number of people/households who can ill afford a financial shock of this kind

My situation is probably not too dissimilar to a large number of people effected, so I speak for them.

I bought my car a number of years ago (2013 Plate) in good faith with the belief that diesels were better than petrol and no indication that in a few years I could no longer drive my car on the streets where I live without consideration extra cost.

I use my car responsibility and do not use it around town, however, I still very much need it as I have to make regular trips to visit and ferry around elderly parents.

I will now have to sell my car – at a considerable financial loss (who will want to buy a car that you can’t drive where you live !!!)

And what do I replace it with, Hybrids and petrol will, I am lead to believe soon be restricted as well and Electric just doesn’t have the infrastructure in place. Especially for those who live in flats – I’m on the fourth floor of a block of flats (and just don’t have an extension lead that long !!!)

The current plans for implementation are at best poorly conceived and at worst damn right incompetent. To cause such a huge financial impact on circ £150k households in the new zone area in this way is irresponsible and I am sure will loose those responsible a considerable number of votes.

I suggest that a little more consideration is applied to this implementation and we can all move forward together.

Just replace it twice mate, with a cheapo compliant petrol and then a full electric when by some miracle the council or freeholder puts chargers in your communal parking area. Good for the environment that!

[C70R]

3.1416 said:

C70R said:

Because, and this shouldn't come as a shock, cars still pollute at night and on Sundays.

For the umpteenth time, this isn't about reducing volume of traffic - it's about reducing pollution.

How do you think the >70% of non-car-owning residents would feel about that? Just so you could drive a toy through the middle of a big city?

Edited by C70R on Thursday 18th April 11:01

I admit that I do not have the answer to this, however it would not be unreasonable to suspect that an occasional use non-compliant vehicle (used to exit London - not drive through) would be comparable to a constant use fully compliant vehicle in terms of pollution. We're not talking deisel here and with pre and post catalysts.

That said, it's not a huge financial burden, just an irritation but yet another aspect to consider in preventing yet another dubious fine.

Driving back just after midnight, that's another payment (if noticed). Or a penalty.

As an aside, the rather aggressive traffic calming measures already can cause damage and the 20 mph speed limits appear to generate overly-aggressive over-taking moves by those following (me). I do, however, see the point of the limits where I live.

It's been covered a few times in this thread, and it's just unworkable.

Without fitting a GPS device to every car, or having ANPR on every street, how on earth would you be able to validate what an 'occasional use' car was?

[C70R]

Fairnesstoall said:

ULEZ - I am not against this legislation, in fact I think it’s actually movement in the right direction. What I am though very much against is the way that it is potentially to be implemented. It will have a dramatic impact on a considerable number of people/households who can ill afford a financial shock of this kind

I understand your trepidation.

However, 70% of people in London don't own a car.

Who should be the priority?

[Graveworm]

C70R said:

I understand your trepidation.

However, 70% of people in London don't own a car.

Who should be the priority?

How many use a car? If over 50% of households own them and use includes being a passenger in? How many buy goods that are delivered by cars and vans?

[Tony Gamble]

Fairnesstoall said:

ULEZ - I am not against this legislation, in fact I think it’s actually movement in the right direction. What I am though very much against is the way that it is potentially to be implemented. It will have a dramatic impact on a considerable number of people/households who can ill afford a financial shock of this kind

I suggest that a little more consideration is applied to this implementation and we can all move forward together.

Ditto. I have offered to spend £1,000 converting my petrol car to non poluting LPG.

And/or I would willingly fit a TFL registered satnav recorder to enable them to see just how many miles I drive. I suppose I'd pay £1,000 for that (which would make them a decent profit). I'd then be prepared to pay a pound a mile to use it.

What I cannot bring myself to do is to throw a perfectly driveable car on to the scrap heap and use up the planet's valuable and diminishing resources to build a new one. If we are to Save the Planet it is madness.

[C70R]

Tony Gamble said:

Fairnesstoall said:

ULEZ - I am not against this legislation, in fact I think it’s actually movement in the right direction. What I am though very much against is the way that it is potentially to be implemented. It will have a dramatic impact on a considerable number of people/households who can ill afford a financial shock of this kind

I suggest that a little more consideration is applied to this implementation and we can all move forward together.

Ditto. I have offered to spend £1,000 converting my petrol car to non poluting LPG.

And/or I would willingly fit a TFL registered satnav recorder to enable them to see just how many miles I drive. I suppose I'd pay £1,000 for that (which would make them a decent profit). I'd then be prepared to pay a pound a mile to use it.

What I cannot bring myself to do is to throw a perfectly driveable car on to the scrap heap and use up the planet's valuable and diminishing resources to build a new one. If we are to Save the Planet it is madness.

Stop being melodramatic. You're not throwing anything "on the scrapheap".

If you put the car up for sale at a reasonable price, someone from outside London will buy it.

[DonkeyApple]

C70R said:

3.1416 said:

C70R said:

Because, and this shouldn't come as a shock, cars still pollute at night and on Sundays.

For the umpteenth time, this isn't about reducing volume of traffic - it's about reducing pollution.

How do you think the >70% of non-car-owning residents would feel about that? Just so you could drive a toy through the middle of a big city?

Edited by C70R on Thursday 18th April 11:01

I admit that I do not have the answer to this, however it would not be unreasonable to suspect that an occasional use non-compliant vehicle (used to exit London - not drive through) would be comparable to a constant use fully compliant vehicle in terms of pollution. We're not talking deisel here and with pre and post catalysts.

That said, it's not a huge financial burden, just an irritation but yet another aspect to consider in preventing yet another dubious fine.

Driving back just after midnight, that's another payment (if noticed). Or a penalty.

As an aside, the rather aggressive traffic calming measures already can cause damage and the 20 mph speed limits appear to generate overly-aggressive over-taking moves by those following (me). I do, however, see the point of the limits where I live.

It's been covered a few times in this thread, and it's just unworkable.

Without fitting a GPS device to every car, or having ANPR on every street, how on earth would you be able to validate what an 'occasional use' car was?

The network will log all users just like the current zone does so in theory they could easily enough run a database of cars which are exempt at weekends or allowed to be used once a week without paying the charge.

It would be easy enough to do and would be a civilised act and a recognition that those who live inside the zone but only drive a few miles in it once a week are not the root cause of the issue.

[swamp]

The only winners will be the car dealers in October 2021.

And those in the north and elsewhere, who fancy a bargain diesel.

And TFL.