ULEZ charge in 2021
Discussion
C70R said:
I'm waiting for you to prove, as you so vociferously made the point, that they are a bigger issue in London than HGVs.
You told us confidently that this was the case, because they polluted 30x as much as an HGV. So, one would assume based on your 'confidence', that there were more than 30x as many of them in London, to make them the "bigger" issue you describe...
If you don't/didn't have these numbers to hand, I'd just assume it's a continuation of your attempts to argue baselessly and obfuscate the point.
I see mathematical ability is another of your failings. You told us confidently that this was the case, because they polluted 30x as much as an HGV. So, one would assume based on your 'confidence', that there were more than 30x as many of them in London, to make them the "bigger" issue you describe...
If you don't/didn't have these numbers to hand, I'd just assume it's a continuation of your attempts to argue baselessly and obfuscate the point.
Each TRU is potentially as polluting as 30 Euro 6 lorries.
1 TRU = 30 Euro 6 lorries. 30 TRU = 900 Euro 6 lorries. 1 Euro 6 lorry = 1/30 TRU. 30 Euro 6 lorries = 1 TRU.
Where has the idiot idea come from that there need to be thirty times as many refrigeration units as lorries for the problem to be recognisable?
https://www.edie.net/news/6/Transport-refrigeratio...
"The company said that making all transport refrigeration units in London zero-emission would save the same amount of particulate matter as taking 327,510 diesel cars off the city’s streets".
NomduJour said:
Where has the idiot idea come from that there need to be thirty times as many refrigeration units as lorries for the problem to be recognisable?
You, actually.You specifically said that they were a more important issue to tackle in London than vehicle emissions. If they emit 30x as much pollution, for your logic to be anywhere near sound there would need to be more than 30x as many units as vehicles in London.
Do keep up at the back.
C70R said:
NomduJour said:
Where has the idiot idea come from that there need to be thirty times as many refrigeration units as lorries for the problem to be recognisable?
You, actually.You specifically said that they were a more important issue to tackle in London than vehicle emissions. If they emit 30x as much pollution, for your logic to be anywhere near sound there would need to be more than 30x as many units as vehicles in London.
Do keep up at the back.
Why does the same argument not apply to the mileage done by a tiny number of non-compliant vehicles owned by enthusiasts?
Toltec said:
C70R said:
NomduJour said:
Where has the idiot idea come from that there need to be thirty times as many refrigeration units as lorries for the problem to be recognisable?
You, actually.You specifically said that they were a more important issue to tackle in London than vehicle emissions. If they emit 30x as much pollution, for your logic to be anywhere near sound there would need to be more than 30x as many units as vehicles in London.
Do keep up at the back.
Why does the same argument not apply to the mileage done by a tiny number of non-compliant vehicles owned by enthusiasts?
(And yes, my maths were quite clearly the wrong way around. Good spot!)
C70R said:
Because it's a ridiculous, baseless, minority argument that isn't able to be legislated sensibly. Should the unemployed also be exempt? OAPs? Single mothers? Asylum seekers? Quadbike owners?
(And yes, my maths were quite clearly the wrong way around. Good spot!)
Fine, let's reverse it then, they simply pay a fee that covers both car tax and ULEZ charge on the days they drive the car.(And yes, my maths were quite clearly the wrong way around. Good spot!)
Toltec said:
C70R said:
Because it's a ridiculous, baseless, minority argument that isn't able to be legislated sensibly. Should the unemployed also be exempt? OAPs? Single mothers? Asylum seekers? Quadbike owners?
(And yes, my maths were quite clearly the wrong way around. Good spot!)
Fine, let's reverse it then, they simply pay a fee that covers both car tax and ULEZ charge on the days they drive the car.(And yes, my maths were quite clearly the wrong way around. Good spot!)
Some of you guys live on a different planet.
croyde said:
Is C70R actually Khan?
He seems to be the only one left in this thread.
I'm here and following along.He seems to be the only one left in this thread.
I applaud C70R's patience.
Not sure/can't remember whereabouts you all are located, but if SE this could be an interesting (hopefully objectively) discussion meeting:
https://se23.life/t/meet-sadiq-khan-s-air-pollutio...
I'm not against cleaning up our atmosphere. It's just that as our wonderful leaders have cocked it up before, yes everyone get a diesel, so I no longer trust them.
All the latest wheezes appear to be about relieving the motorist of more cash.
Tax on fuel, tax on CO2, VED, congestion charge, T Charge and now ULEZ.
These all cost us money yet do not solve the problem.
No one drives in central London for fun so I imagine those paying £11 or even £21 to go into that gridlocked hell, are doing it as they have no alternative.
To my eyes central London has got even more congested since the charge was implemented.
Not happy at taking money for the central part of town, Khan wants to extend the zone to effectively trap millions of Londoners.
Many of these people run good well kept older cars as they can't afford to keep changing them every few years.
Surely this should be applauded not vilified.
I've said it before. I've run my car for 20 years. It's battered from life in London, mainly blind parkers and a bit of vandalism. I don't want to scrap it then come up with a few thousand for a compliant car where I once again will have to worry about it, pay more insurance and not know it's history unlike my current BMW.
All for some vague idea that it is more polluting. Bigger carbon footprint to destroy it and buy another surely?
All the latest wheezes appear to be about relieving the motorist of more cash.
Tax on fuel, tax on CO2, VED, congestion charge, T Charge and now ULEZ.
These all cost us money yet do not solve the problem.
No one drives in central London for fun so I imagine those paying £11 or even £21 to go into that gridlocked hell, are doing it as they have no alternative.
To my eyes central London has got even more congested since the charge was implemented.
Not happy at taking money for the central part of town, Khan wants to extend the zone to effectively trap millions of Londoners.
Many of these people run good well kept older cars as they can't afford to keep changing them every few years.
Surely this should be applauded not vilified.
I've said it before. I've run my car for 20 years. It's battered from life in London, mainly blind parkers and a bit of vandalism. I don't want to scrap it then come up with a few thousand for a compliant car where I once again will have to worry about it, pay more insurance and not know it's history unlike my current BMW.
All for some vague idea that it is more polluting. Bigger carbon footprint to destroy it and buy another surely?
croyde said:
I'm not against cleaning up our atmosphere. It's just that as our wonderful leaders have cocked it up before, yes everyone get a diesel, so I no longer trust them.
All the latest wheezes appear to be about relieving the motorist of more cash.
Tax on fuel, tax on CO2, VED, congestion charge, T Charge and now ULEZ.
These all cost us money yet do not solve the problem.
No one drives in central London for fun so I imagine those paying £11 or even £21 to go into that gridlocked hell, are doing it as they have no alternative.
To my eyes central London has got even more congested since the charge was implemented.
Not happy at taking money for the central part of town, Khan wants to extend the zone to effectively trap millions of Londoners.
Many of these people run good well kept older cars as they can't afford to keep changing them every few years.
Surely this should be applauded not vilified.
I've said it before. I've run my car for 20 years. It's battered from life in London, mainly blind parkers and a bit of vandalism. I don't want to scrap it then come up with a few thousand for a compliant car where I once again will have to worry about it, pay more insurance and not know it's history unlike my current BMW.
All for some vague idea that it is more polluting. Bigger carbon footprint to destroy it and buy another surely?
Good post totally agree. Its just like the latest coffee cup charge, its all about getting cash off of us.All the latest wheezes appear to be about relieving the motorist of more cash.
Tax on fuel, tax on CO2, VED, congestion charge, T Charge and now ULEZ.
These all cost us money yet do not solve the problem.
No one drives in central London for fun so I imagine those paying £11 or even £21 to go into that gridlocked hell, are doing it as they have no alternative.
To my eyes central London has got even more congested since the charge was implemented.
Not happy at taking money for the central part of town, Khan wants to extend the zone to effectively trap millions of Londoners.
Many of these people run good well kept older cars as they can't afford to keep changing them every few years.
Surely this should be applauded not vilified.
I've said it before. I've run my car for 20 years. It's battered from life in London, mainly blind parkers and a bit of vandalism. I don't want to scrap it then come up with a few thousand for a compliant car where I once again will have to worry about it, pay more insurance and not know it's history unlike my current BMW.
All for some vague idea that it is more polluting. Bigger carbon footprint to destroy it and buy another surely?
just tell the companies to stop making the bloody things, and give people a recycled all plastic cup. easy.
The owness should be focused on the car manufactures, research and development to produce lightweight vehicles with low energy use.
There was lots of talk over the years of a Hydrogen engine. I know the Automotive industry loves OIl but there needs to be a different approach, I'm not even sure electric is the way to go long term?
Edited by fatboy18 on Monday 8th January 19:58
croyde said:
I'm not against cleaning up our atmosphere. It's just that as our wonderful leaders have cocked it up before, yes everyone get a diesel, so I no longer trust them.
All the latest wheezes appear to be about relieving the motorist of more cash.
Tax on fuel, tax on CO2, VED, congestion charge, T Charge and now ULEZ.
These all cost us money yet do not solve the problem.
No one drives in central London for fun so I imagine those paying £11 or even £21 to go into that gridlocked hell, are doing it as they have no alternative.
To my eyes central London has got even more congested since the charge was implemented.
Not happy at taking money for the central part of town, Khan wants to extend the zone to effectively trap millions of Londoners.
Many of these people run good well kept older cars as they can't afford to keep changing them every few years.
Surely this should be applauded not vilified.
I've said it before. I've run my car for 20 years. It's battered from life in London, mainly blind parkers and a bit of vandalism. I don't want to scrap it then come up with a few thousand for a compliant car where I once again will have to worry about it, pay more insurance and not know it's history unlike my current BMW.
All for some vague idea that it is more polluting. Bigger carbon footprint to destroy it and buy another surely?
a lot of BS on all sides probably.All the latest wheezes appear to be about relieving the motorist of more cash.
Tax on fuel, tax on CO2, VED, congestion charge, T Charge and now ULEZ.
These all cost us money yet do not solve the problem.
No one drives in central London for fun so I imagine those paying £11 or even £21 to go into that gridlocked hell, are doing it as they have no alternative.
To my eyes central London has got even more congested since the charge was implemented.
Not happy at taking money for the central part of town, Khan wants to extend the zone to effectively trap millions of Londoners.
Many of these people run good well kept older cars as they can't afford to keep changing them every few years.
Surely this should be applauded not vilified.
I've said it before. I've run my car for 20 years. It's battered from life in London, mainly blind parkers and a bit of vandalism. I don't want to scrap it then come up with a few thousand for a compliant car where I once again will have to worry about it, pay more insurance and not know it's history unlike my current BMW.
All for some vague idea that it is more polluting. Bigger carbon footprint to destroy it and buy another surely?
Minority interests sometimes suffer. Personally I'm relieved that my 2002 Yaris s*****box is compliant! Yes, I have a sub-shed to absorb the bumps and scrapes you refer to. wonderful car. For all the fuss, Euro 4 is hardly a tough barrier for non-enthusiasts like yourself. The issue is with classic cars not ordinary motorists, sadly you'll be affected. Even then it's some time away in reality.
traffic WAS notably reduced after CCZ introduction. The city as a whole is busier however. For me, getting to Brands before CCZ means that 6am is rush hour! My track car won't be able to enter London after ULEZ anyway, but hey, greater good and all that.
I don't think the CO2 case is clear cut. interesting article in today's Times amongst others.
Localised particulates and NOx are another matter though.
croyde said:
I'm not against cleaning up our atmosphere. It's just that as our wonderful leaders have cocked it up before, yes everyone get a diesel, so I no longer trust them.
All the latest wheezes appear to be about relieving the motorist of more cash.
Tax on fuel, tax on CO2, VED, congestion charge, T Charge and now ULEZ.
VED and CO2 tax are the same thing. T Charge and ULEZ are effectively the same thing. CCZ only impacts you if you decide to drive slap bang in the middle of one of Europe's busiest cities. Pull the other one.
These all cost us money yet do not solve the problem.
No one drives in central London for fun so I imagine those paying £11 or even £21 to go into that gridlocked hell, are doing it as they have no alternative.
It's intended to disincentivise use. Those who would have chosen to, now may not.
To my eyes central London has got even more congested since the charge was implemented.
There's plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Not happy at taking money for the central part of town, Khan wants to extend the zone to effectively trap millions of Londoners.
Many of these people run good well kept older cars as they can't afford to keep changing them every few years.
Surely this should be applauded not vilified.
I've said it before. I've run my car for 20 years. It's battered from life in London, mainly blind parkers and a bit of vandalism. I don't want to scrap it then come up with a few thousand for a compliant car where I once again will have to worry about it, pay more insurance and not know it's history unlike my current BMW.
All for some vague idea that it is more polluting. Bigger carbon footprint to destroy it and buy another surely?
"Carbon footprint" is meaningless. Selling your car to someone outside London, and buying a car made in 2005 doesn't change a damn thing about your personal carbon footprint. Yet it is likely to improve the air quality in London, even by an infinitesimally small amount.
If your car was 10 years younger, would you actually give a sAll the latest wheezes appear to be about relieving the motorist of more cash.
Tax on fuel, tax on CO2, VED, congestion charge, T Charge and now ULEZ.
VED and CO2 tax are the same thing. T Charge and ULEZ are effectively the same thing. CCZ only impacts you if you decide to drive slap bang in the middle of one of Europe's busiest cities. Pull the other one.
These all cost us money yet do not solve the problem.
No one drives in central London for fun so I imagine those paying £11 or even £21 to go into that gridlocked hell, are doing it as they have no alternative.
It's intended to disincentivise use. Those who would have chosen to, now may not.
To my eyes central London has got even more congested since the charge was implemented.
There's plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Not happy at taking money for the central part of town, Khan wants to extend the zone to effectively trap millions of Londoners.
Many of these people run good well kept older cars as they can't afford to keep changing them every few years.
Surely this should be applauded not vilified.
I've said it before. I've run my car for 20 years. It's battered from life in London, mainly blind parkers and a bit of vandalism. I don't want to scrap it then come up with a few thousand for a compliant car where I once again will have to worry about it, pay more insurance and not know it's history unlike my current BMW.
All for some vague idea that it is more polluting. Bigger carbon footprint to destroy it and buy another surely?
"Carbon footprint" is meaningless. Selling your car to someone outside London, and buying a car made in 2005 doesn't change a damn thing about your personal carbon footprint. Yet it is likely to improve the air quality in London, even by an infinitesimally small amount.
t about this, or are you just venting a bit of personal grievance and pretending it's a matter of principle?I've added a few replies in line, but I'm probably going to give up. I'll leave you with this, and let you think about exactly how important your unremarkable, old BMW is in the grand scheme of things.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35629034
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/0...
C70R said:
gavsdavs said:
Point 1: Why is it that CCZ residents "deserve" (your words) a discount, but ULEZ residents don't ?
CCZ was a confused and poor implementation, and I've repeated that several times. Saying "waa waa, they got a discount, so why don't I?" doesn't help improve London's air quality, so it's a largely moot point.C70R said:
gavsdavs said:
Point 2: Have you considered the size of, or cost of monitoring the ULEZ compared to the CCZ ? As I've already stated, implementing monitoring over such a large area is going to create congestion in itself.
This is nothing more than pessimistic speculation. I'd like to see some data and plans/budgets to back this up. I've no reason to believe that rolling out large numbers of ANPR cameras should increase congestion.I'd imagine there are more like 500 ingress/egress roads around the ULEZ, and each of those will need contractors installing poles, cameras, cabling, signs, road paint. That's going to cost a lot to set up, and time to do. Thats obviously if they don't choose to block up some roads to reduce that number to something a bit more manageable, impacting existing traffic flows as a result. What if I drive round inside the ULEZ and don't cross a perimeter. How many cameras have to go up to spot me driving a mile entirely within the ULEZ ? Cameras on every corner ?
The practicalities of the exercise are many times larger. Of course in C70R-land you can sprinkle pixie dust and some lackies transparently do it and there's no cost, or impact to traffic to do it.
C70R said:
gavsdavs said:
Point 3: You've avoided answering the question so I'll put it differently. Why is it okay for us to have run the CCZ for a number of years 12/5 timings with no talk of 24/7 enforcement, but it's just fine with you to dive straight in and enforce 24/7 on the ULEZ. That's okay with you ? You don't think a phased approach might be more palatable to the population (and therefore MUCH less likely to ps off your voters) ?
I've not avoided answering - you just seem unwilling to read my replies. Congestion IS INEXTRICABLY LINKED to specific time of the day, and is the reason I can drive through London at 2am on a Weds with no issue. The idea of disincentivising use during high congestion periods (i.e. the "12/5" that you keep banging on about) lends itself perfectly to the CCZ approach.s off your voters) ?Allowing non-compliant vehicles to use the ULEZ outside of peak hours is going to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for air quality - it's just going to shift the problem around. Vehicles still pollute at night and on weekends - I actually can't believe I'm having to explain this.
C70R said:
gavsdavs said:
- Why CCZ residents get a 90% discount for using their cars, and why ULEZ residents should not.
See above. The CCZ was well-meant but flawed. Using this to support your selfish perspective is reducing the conversation to envy.C70R said:
gavsdavs said:
- Why CCZ is applied 12/5, but you're keen for ULEZ to be applied 24/7 from day one.
See above. Vehicles still pollute at 2am.C70R said:
gavsdavs said:
What are you going to do with your 2 non-compliant cars ? Do you feel any emotional attachment to them or do you consider them as white goods to be replaced because of this ? I take it you can afford to do that ? Are you looking forward to finding £12.50 per day, per car to use them at all if you can't afford to do that ?
Honestly, I've never felt significant "emotional attachment" to a car in my life - I consider that quite weird. I've been car-obsessed since the age of 3, and have had some genuinely wonderful cars in my past (I haven't bothered to update my garage on my pre-PH time). I don't see either of those things being incompatible with a view that we all take responsibility for the environment.Our cars aren't being banned. They aren't being taken from us and crushed. Their use is being disincentivised - that's all. Personally, I'll probably sell and upgrade into something compliant.
I use my non-compliant car on maybe 2/3 days a month. I largely chose not to use it because there are better ways to get around London. Every day I see more pollution pouring out of vans, taxis, busses and lorris than my non-compliant car will produce in a year.
Most of us who live in ULEZ have got this message and subscribe to it, but the proposed application of the ULEZ charge appears punitive and looks a lot more like revenue generation and surveillance masquerading as pollution control. I suspect the majority of people will see it that way, whether that's what it is or not.
C70R said:
gavsdavs said:
It really does look like you're motivated ideologically to push this - as if you ARE a government employee or a blinkered greenie unable to see a pragmatic, acceptable solution.
I'm probably the furthest from a "greenie" that you could imagine. I've never given the first thought to voting Green in my entire life. What I am is a pragmatist who recognises that improving the quality of London's air is a collective responsibility - the opinions of a niche, car-enthusiast audience are completely irrelevant in the wider scheme of things.
More than half of the people in the ULEX do not own a car, yet they suffer as a consequence of vehicle pollution. These are the people who this policy should be supporting.
Edited by gavsdavs on Monday 8th January 22:30
gavsdavs said:
C70R said:
gavsdavs said:
Point 1: Why is it that CCZ residents "deserve" (your words) a discount, but ULEZ residents don't ?
CCZ was a confused and poor implementation, and I've repeated that several times. Saying "waa waa, they got a discount, so why don't I?" doesn't help improve London's air quality, so it's a largely moot point.Still sounds like sour grapes to me. The CCZ was well-intentioned, but poorly executed. In spite of that, a blanket ban with discount scheme is not remotely comparable with a widely-accessible scheme (remember the several hundred thousand eligible cars I found on Autotrader?).
C70R said:
gavsdavs said:
Point 2: Have you considered the size of, or cost of monitoring the ULEZ compared to the CCZ ? As I've already stated, implementing monitoring over such a large area is going to create congestion in itself.
This is nothing more than pessimistic speculation. I'd like to see some data and plans/budgets to back this up. I've no reason to believe that rolling out large numbers of ANPR cameras should increase congestion.I'd imagine there are more like 500 ingress/egress roads around the ULEZ, and each of those will need contractors installing poles, cameras, cabling, signs, road paint. That's going to cost a lot to set up, and time to do. Thats obviously if they don't choose to block up some roads to reduce that number to something a bit more manageable, impacting existing traffic flows as a result
The practicalities of the exercise are many times larger. Of course in C70R-land you can sprinkle pixie dust and some lackies transparently do it and there's no cost, or impact to traffic to do it.
You're saying this like you've come up with anything remotely resembling a cogent alternative. Until you do, it's moot because something needs to happen.
C70R said:
gavsdavs said:
Point 3: You've avoided answering the question so I'll put it differently. Why is it okay for us to have run the CCZ for a number of years 12/5 timings with no talk of 24/7 enforcement, but it's just fine with you to dive straight in and enforce 24/7 on the ULEZ. That's okay with you ? You don't think a phased approach might be more palatable to the population (and therefore MUCH less likely to ps off your voters) ?
I've not avoided answering - you just seem unwilling to read my replies. Congestion IS INEXTRICABLY LINKED to specific time of the day, and is the reason I can drive through London at 2am on a Weds with no issue. The idea of disincentivising use during high congestion periods (i.e. the "12/5" that you keep banging on about) lends itself perfectly to the CCZ approach.s off your voters) ?Allowing non-compliant vehicles to use the ULEZ outside of peak hours is going to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for air quality - it's just going to shift the problem around. Vehicles still pollute at night and on weekends - I actually can't believe I'm having to explain this.
I've answered this several times. Allowing non-compliant vehicles to run at night and on weekends will have ZERO NET IMPACT on air quality. You'd have to be a special kind of idiot to think otherwise. And, you've misquoted me in your frothing - I said "lends itself perfectly to the CCZ".
C70R said:
gavsdavs said:
- Why CCZ residents get a 90% discount for using their cars, and why ULEZ residents should not.
See above. The CCZ was well-meant but flawed. Using this to support your selfish perspective is reducing the conversation to envy.C70R said:
gavsdavs said:
- Why CCZ is applied 12/5, but you're keen for ULEZ to be applied 24/7 from day one.
See above. Vehicles still pollute at 2am.It's not even in the same ballpark as "OTT". You're being incredibly melodramatic. A blanket ban on all vehicles would be "OTT". Daily charging on all but hybrids would be "OTT". This is a flaky argument.
C70R said:
gavsdavs said:
What are you going to do with your 2 non-compliant cars ? Do you feel any emotional attachment to them or do you consider them as white goods to be replaced because of this ? I take it you can afford to do that ? Are you looking forward to finding £12.50 per day, per car to use them at all if you can't afford to do that ?
Honestly, I've never felt significant "emotional attachment" to a car in my life - I consider that quite weird. I've been car-obsessed since the age of 3, and have had some genuinely wonderful cars in my past (I haven't bothered to update my garage on my pre-PH time). I don't see either of those things being incompatible with a view that we all take responsibility for the environment.Our cars aren't being banned. They aren't being taken from us and crushed. Their use is being disincentivised - that's all. Personally, I'll probably sell and upgrade into something compliant.
Again, use of over-emotive phraseology to support a flaky argument. Do you really only believe that there are two types of people in the world? Those like you, who put their 'pride' in their car above all else, and the plebs who treat cars like "white goods"?
I use my non-compliant car on maybe 2/3 days a month. I largely chose not to use it because there are better ways to get around London. Every day I see more pollution pouring out of vans, taxis, busses and lorris than my non-compliant car will produce in a year.
Most of us who live in ULEZ have got this message and subscribe to it, but the proposed application of the ULEZ charge appears punitive and looks a lot more like revenue generation and surveillance masquerading as pollution control. I suspect the majority of people will see it that way, whether that's what it is or not.
Nobody is stopping you from using your car - this isn't 1984 either. You are free to use it when you wish, but the levels of pollution it emits mean that it's not desirable for a large population, the majority of whom don't own a car and yet suffer with declining air quality. You simply pay for the privilege of contributing to poor air quality.
C70R said:
gavsdavs said:
It really does look like you're motivated ideologically to push this - as if you ARE a government employee or a blinkered greenie unable to see a pragmatic, acceptable solution.
I'm probably the furthest from a "greenie" that you could imagine. I've never given the first thought to voting Green in my entire life. What I am is a pragmatist who recognises that improving the quality of London's air is a collective responsibility - the opinions of a niche, car-enthusiast audience are completely irrelevant in the wider scheme of things.
More than half of the people in the ULEX do not own a car, yet they suffer as a consequence of vehicle pollution. These are the people who this policy should be supporting.
Still playing the man, I see? FWIW, not that I need justify it to you, but your assessment is a million miles off the mark. Keep swinging, though...
If being at the other end of that "sliding scale" means giving a s
t about things like the two links I posted above, then I'm quite pleased.Edited by C70R on Monday 8th January 22:43
Alot of blinkered, selfish people here. 20 years from now the idea of owning and running an ICE car within zone 1 / 2 will be seen as ridiculous. Why should 2/3rd of London's residents and workers lives be disrupted for the 1/3rd that choose to drive cars? Having moved back to London having lived on the South Coast for a few years, the idea of not using London's public transport which is leagues ahead of the rest of the South East and complaining that you can't run a pre euro-4 car is insane. You can't have your cake and eat it; if you want to enjoy the benefits of living in London then its inevitable that you will have to make increasingly large sacrifices as you choose to share the space with increasing numbers of people.
Its a shame that enjoying cars as a hobby seems to come hand in hand with having backwards, blinkered views both politically and environmentally.
On a side note, I agree that other forms of unregulated pollution (ie RFUs, aircon units, etc) also need to be cracked down on. But how someone can argue that the still-huge numbers of single car driver private vehicles in London is justifiable is beyond me. Particularly considering there will likely be a number of big discounts for those living within the T-charge zone and you can easily get around it by buying a Euro 4 car!
eta: I will be affected by this, and I own a E36 328, an E38 740i and an E34 540i. So hardly have a vested interest in the charge going through, but then you'd have to be absolutely thick if you chose to live in London and thought you could easily enjoy driving / owning old cars.
Its a shame that enjoying cars as a hobby seems to come hand in hand with having backwards, blinkered views both politically and environmentally.
On a side note, I agree that other forms of unregulated pollution (ie RFUs, aircon units, etc) also need to be cracked down on. But how someone can argue that the still-huge numbers of single car driver private vehicles in London is justifiable is beyond me. Particularly considering there will likely be a number of big discounts for those living within the T-charge zone and you can easily get around it by buying a Euro 4 car!
eta: I will be affected by this, and I own a E36 328, an E38 740i and an E34 540i. So hardly have a vested interest in the charge going through, but then you'd have to be absolutely thick if you chose to live in London and thought you could easily enjoy driving / owning old cars.
Edited by Gooly on Monday 8th January 23:22
NomduJour said:
Private petrol cars contribute somewhere between 1-3% of NOx and PM10 emissions.
They are not the problem. There are fairer, cheaper, more effective targets.
Sure, and I would understand the issue if it was a ban on owning or running a private car within the ring roads but it isn't; it's a levy on older, higher emission vehicles. 1-3% in the context of London's already awful air quality is still significant. As I mentioned, there are numerous other things that need to be targeted and private car use is not the golden bullet; but its a start, a meaningful way to tackle an issue for which we are already 20-30 years behind schedule on. They are not the problem. There are fairer, cheaper, more effective targets.
Beyond that, the levy will also help tackle congestion, which will then help bus journeys become more efficient and perhaps encourage more people to cycle if the roads are slightly less busy. Theres far more to it than just the percentage of emissions currently emitted by private car use, its about slowly forming an attitude change and also taking off some of the worst polluting cars.
Once again, its not a ban and if its really that much of an issue then you can buy a Euro 4 compliant car, which these days aren't hugely expensive.
But yes, I too would love to see some of the ageing, filthy black cabs, non hybrid buses and random unregulated diesel units like RFUs taken off the road too. One can hope that with enough attention and political engagement given by those who complain about them, we will eventually see legislation pertinent to it. Contact your MP, petition, go through the many channels that allow your voice to be heard in a democratic political system.
Edited by Gooly on Monday 8th January 23:53
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff