ULEZ charge in 2021

[C70R]

KH904 said:

If it were up to me, the most efficient & effective way to reduce emissions would be to scrap the VED on private cars and say add 10p a litre (for eg) fuel duty.

That way the more you drive, the more emissions, the more you pay. There are no infrastructure and running costs in setting up what I would imagine hundreds and hundreds of cameras!

Will they really install cameras at every point entering in side the N/S circular?
Then they also will have to have camera's everywhere within the area you are charged for driving inside the area not just entering as I understand?

Edited by KH904 on Wednesday 10th January 23:26

In that one post you've demonstrated, as ably supported by the naivety of your 'poll', a comprehensive lack of understanding of the issue of vehicle pollution. Congratulations.

[Toltec]

C70R said:

Toltec said:

C70R said:

Toltec said:

C70R said:

CABC said:

but then the CoL report says greater London 58% of households have 1 or more cars. 18% have 2 or more

Households is not the correct measure. If only one person lived in each household, we'd be laughing.
However, given the large volumes of children (ergo, families) and multiple occupancy (i.e. renters/sharers) in the ULEZ, personal car ownership is incredibly low in the context of the UK and well under half.
Given that poor quality air affects people rather than houses, it felt like a more relevant measure.

Neither is a perfect measure, a car may be owned and used by one person in the household, used by more than one person or indeed many of the journeys may be on behalf of the passengers, e.g. children.

What you really need to do is reduce the number of miles driven in cars altogether, with emphasis towards the most polluting ones.

The joint objectives of the CCZ and ULEZ.

Looks like if you live inside the ULEZ you have until April 2022, enough time to buy a trailer, arrange somewhere to keep a toy outside or move out of the sthole entirely.

To be clear... you don't live inside the ULEZ, you don't even live in London, and you actively loathe the place. Yet you feel compelled to wade into this discussion like some sort of autistic teenager? How odd...

To be clear, as previously stated I live inside the LEZ, in a London borough and not that far from the South Circular. How do you think I know it is a sthole, admittedly some bits of it are well decorated, but the smell cannot be disguised.

Did you see the BBC program about air pollution on a Birmingham High Street? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-birmingham...

Interesting how not taking your kids to school by car and easing traffic flow reduce pollution.

I particularly liked how the traffic control centre could synchronise the lights which implies they had chosen not to. To be fair that is probably because the increased flow causes more traffic problems further down the road.

[KH904]

C70R said:

In that one post you've demonstrated, as ably supported by the naivety of your 'poll', a comprehensive lack of understanding of the issue of vehicle pollution. Congratulations.

Surely increasing fuel duty means that the most fuel inefficient cars pay proportionately? So the weekend driver of an older car or drives infrequently isn't punished financially as mush as a driver who drives a newer car everyday of the week.

I don't mind having a debate if you disagree, but clearly reading through the whole thread you have been incredibly sarcastic and condescending.
I don't believe I'm the only one who thinks this.

I'm sure you'll reply with another sarcastic response so I'm not going to continue to interact with you.

Edited by KH904 on Thursday 11th January 10:36

[Toltec]

KH904 said:

C70R said:

In that one post you've demonstrated, as ably supported by the naivety of your 'poll', a comprehensive lack of understanding of the issue of vehicle pollution. Congratulations.

Surely increasing fuel duty means that the most fuel inefficient cars pay proportionately? So the weekend driver of an older car or drives infrequently isn't punished financially as mush as a driver who drives a newer car everyday of the week.

I don't mind having a debate if you disagree, but clearly reading through the whole thread you have been incredibly sarcastic and condescending.
I don't believe I'm the only one who thinks this.

I'm sure you'll reply with another sarcastic response so I'm not going to continue to interact with you.

Edited by KH904 on Thursday 11th January 10:36

I think the point he is unsubtley trying to make is that there is a difference between fuel consumption and pollution output. There is a strong connection with CO2 output, however particulate and NOx production are not, this is precisely the problem that has been caused by promoting Diesel engined cars. Production of NOx in lean burn engines has been known about for a long time and was one of the reasons they were not allowed in petrol engines to reduce fuel use once catalytic convertors were required. Some modern petrol engines do have lean burn technology, but also have a NOx reducing catalytic convertor, BMWs with the N53 engine for example, however NOx production from Diesels just seemed to be ignored because they produce less CO2.

[KH904]

Toltec said:

I think the point he is unsubtley trying to make is that there is a difference between fuel consumption and pollution output. There is a strong connection with CO2 output, however particulate and NOx production are not, this is precisely the problem that has been caused by promoting Diesel engined cars. Production of NOx in lean burn engines has been known about for a long time and was one of the reasons they were not allowed in petrol engines to reduce fuel use once catalytic convertors were required. Some modern petrol engines do have lean burn technology, but also have a NOx reducing catalytic convertor, BMWs with the N53 engine for example, however NOx production from Diesels just seemed to be ignored because they produce less CO2.

Thank you for the explanation! There was no sarcasm, condescending tone etc from your reply and that goes a long way!

But if the fuel duty was increased for example, drivers may think twice about unnecessary journeys reducing CO2 & NOx? Those who drive more and emit more pollution (CO2 & NOx) pay more?

Also say everyone gets a ULEZ compatible car, yes pollution drops, but there is a massive infrastructure (I assume) that needs to be paid for? Would they not just target another category of drivers to maintain the revenue ie move the goal posts?

Edited by KH904 on Thursday 11th January 11:39

Edited by KH904 on Thursday 11th January 11:54

[bristolracer]

I was in London yesterday
Got to say there are a lot of cars around that wont be compliant.

Yes in the west end its all shiny new Mercs and BMWs but out in the suburbs there are an awful lot of 54,55,56 plate cars,and loads of diesels, its not a case of a few cars but probably tens of thousands that will be non compliant.

I think euro 6 is a step to high, Euro 5 they may get away with.
I wont be changing my van until i need to, i will be adding the daily charge to the customers bill.
I suspect many tradesmen will do the same. That kind of makes the charge nothing more than a tax, and it therefore becomes ineffective as a measure to reduce pollution.

[fatboy18]

bristolracer said:

I was in London yesterday
Got to say there are a lot of cars around that wont be compliant.

Yes in the west end its all shiny new Mercs and BMWs but out in the suburbs there are an awful lot of 54,55,56 plate cars,and loads of diesels, its not a case of a few cars but probably tens of thousands that will be non compliant.

I think euro 6 is a step to high, Euro 5 they may get away with.
I wont be changing my van until i need to, i will be adding the daily charge to the customers bill.
I suspect many tradesmen will do the same. That kind of makes the charge nothing more than a tax, and it therefore becomes ineffective as a measure to reduce pollution.

As a Tradesman I completely agree, i too will just be adding the costs on to the client.

[Toltec]

KH904 said:

Thank you for the explanation! There was no sarcasm, condescending tone etc from your reply and that goes a long way!

But if the fuel duty was increased for example, drivers may think twice about unnecessary journeys reducing CO2 & NOx? Those who drive more and emit more pollution (CO2 & NOx) pay more?

Also say everyone gets a ULEZ compatible car, yes pollution drops, but there is a massive infrastructure (I assume) that needs to be paid for? Would they not just target another category of drivers to maintain the revenue ie move the goal posts?

Edited by KH904 on Thursday 11th January 11:39

Edited by KH904 on Thursday 11th January 11:54

Did you see this link to the BBC article posted by CABC?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/how_tox...

Worth a read even though the site presentation is annoying.

This is the link to the results the company has obtained from real testing, it looks like Euro5 diesels vary from bad to bloody terrible on NOx output. There is little date for NOx on older petrol engines, though most they have tested put out little NOx and meet or beat their requirements. Diesels are better at producing low carbon monoxide than petrol.

[Pica-Pica]

Toltec said:

KH904 said:

C70R said:

In that one post you've demonstrated, as ably supported by the naivety of your 'poll', a comprehensive lack of understanding of the issue of vehicle pollution. Congratulations.

Surely increasing fuel duty means that the most fuel inefficient cars pay proportionately? So the weekend driver of an older car or drives infrequently isn't punished financially as mush as a driver who drives a newer car everyday of the week.

I don't mind having a debate if you disagree, but clearly reading through the whole thread you have been incredibly sarcastic and condescending.
I don't believe I'm the only one who thinks this.

I'm sure you'll reply with another sarcastic response so I'm not going to continue to interact with you.

Edited by KH904 on Thursday 11th January 10:36

I think the point he is unsubtley trying to make is that there is a difference between fuel consumption and pollution output. There is a strong connection with CO2 output, however particulate and NOx production are not, this is precisely the problem that has been caused by promoting Diesel engined cars. Production of NOx in lean burn engines has been known about for a long time and was one of the reasons they were not allowed in petrol engines to reduce fuel use once catalytic convertors were required. Some modern petrol engines do have lean burn technology, but also have a NOx reducing catalytic convertor, BMWs with the N53 engine for example, however NOx production from Diesels just seemed to be ignored because they produce less CO2.

..and that ignores the micro-particulates from gasoline injection engines, and totally ignores particulates from: brake dust, tyres, and upswept road dirt.

[Toltec]

Pica-Pica said:

..and that ignores the micro-particulates from gasoline injection engines, and totally ignores particulates from: brake dust, tyres, and upswept road dirt.

I've mentioned brake and tyre particulates before, however you are correct I should have made it clear that there were also other factors not directly related to fuel consumption.

Dust comes from trains too.

It looks like it is the direct injection engines that produce the particulates, chase for low CO2 again, depending what you read they either produce more than a diesel or 50 times less.

[C70R]

Just thought I'd pop this here, for those debating the severity of the issue.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/london-bu...

[ZX10R NIN]

The same road that they took from two lanes down to one blocked & one wayed some of the cut throughs forcing the traffic onto the now single lane main rd rephased lights & generally made it a nightmare round to even ride down.

Also that's a main routes for buses which you'll probably find are the main contributors to the air quality

[gavsdavs]

C70R said:

Just thought I'd pop this here, for those debating the severity of the issue.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/london-bu...

The Independent article said:

In previous years the air pollution limit has been broken much earlier, generally in the first few days of January.

The delay this year could be a result of weather conditions, which affect levels of pollution in the air, or it could be the result of London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s efforts to tackle pollution in the city.

There are lots of places in Central London which are horribly polluted, but we are already seeing significant improvements on previous years - may well be because the majority or zone1/zone2 busses are now hybrid and are no longer just idling large diesels.

[swisstoni]

How is the pollution measured? Who does the measuring? Who were the 8 other capitals?

[gavsdavs]

C70R said:

KH904 said:

If it were up to me, the most efficient & effective way to reduce emissions would be to scrap the VED on private cars and say add 10p a litre (for eg) fuel duty.

That way the more you drive, the more emissions, the more you pay. There are no infrastructure and running costs in setting up what I would imagine hundreds and hundreds of cameras!

Will they really install cameras at every point entering in side the N/S circular?
Then they also will have to have camera's everywhere within the area you are charged for driving inside the area not just entering as I understand?

In that one post you've demonstrated, as ably supported by the naivety of your 'poll', a comprehensive lack of understanding of the issue of vehicle pollution. Congratulations.

Still patronising people huh ? Well, riddle me this, genius. I've pointed this out to you before and you decided it was a non issue or didn't respond to it. Maybe i'm too naive to see it too.

The CCZ perimeter is universally covered by cameras. Cross the perimeter, you'll be seen, and you have to pay the charge. Fair enough.

Lets say they decide to do the same thing, expensive as it might be, and universally cover the perimeter of the ULEZ with cameras. Yes, cover the entirity of the north and south circulars on every junction to catch anyone crossing that perimeter to charge them. Brilliant. Cost you a fortune to do it, but you're done, right ?

Now, I, from my 'inside the ULEZ' ivory towers with my non compliant old car, can go for a drive around inside the ULEZ to my hearts content at any time. Even if they weren't going to give me the "lives 100% inside the ULEZ residents discount holiday", you don't catch me moving around, because I haven't crossed the ULEZ or the CCZ perimeters. I can do that all day long, and just avoid those places where there are perimeter cameras.

I suspect that's exactly the type of usage we are trying to prevent - popping down the chippy, dropping the kids off at school, running down to the end of the road and parking outside tesco metro whilst the missus does a bit of shopping.

How many cameras do you think we're going to need to watch ALL car activity with the ULEZ ? It's a big area - a lot of roads to cover. A lot of cameras. The best cameras. Gotta watch those bad hombres.

[croyde]

I'm puzzled at how on earth they are going to police us residents.

Can I leave my 1998 petrol BMW parked outside my flat in a gated outside space and not pay as long as I don't drive?

Or do I pay a daily charge whether I drive it or not.

I've learned the hard way that it's just not worth having a nice car that is parked on the streets of the city. I'm happy in my old bashed up Beemer.

I paid 18k for it in '98 and there's no reason why it won't last another 20 years.

Sadly I can't afford 4000 quid a year to keep it under the new rules, nor can I afford a compliant car.

Weird that before my financial world came crashing down that my 5.0 Mustang GT was compliant despite knocking out solid blocks of CO2 per km..

[NomduJour]

Get with the program - CO2 doesn’t kill people anymore, NOx and PM10 do (for the time being).

[Toltec]

croyde said:

I'm puzzled at how on earth they are going to police us residents.

Can I leave my 1998 petrol BMW parked outside my flat in a gated outside space and not pay as long as I don't drive?

Or do I pay a daily charge whether I drive it or not.

I've learned the hard way that it's just not worth having a nice car that is parked on the streets of the city. I'm happy in my old bashed up Beemer.

I paid 18k for it in '98 and there's no reason why it won't last another 20 years.

Sadly I can't afford 4000 quid a year to keep it under the new rules, nor can I afford a compliant car.

Weird that before my financial world came crashing down that my 5.0 Mustang GT was compliant despite knocking out solid blocks of CO2 per km..

Given Sadiq Kahn is involved his solution to the above problem of how to detect usage within the ULEZ may be just to charge anyone with a non-compliant vehicle registered within the zone. He will put on his pained face and utter a soundbite with something about children and lung disease to justify it. What is likely is that there will be no way to check to see if you have been detected so you would need to pay the daily charge or risk getting a fine if you happen to drive past a camera. This would allow them to install a much lower number of cameras or even just use the existing ANPR cameras within the zone.

I don't disagree with pollution being an issue and if your 1998 beemer is in regular use within the zone then it probably is contributing to the problem, sorry. I think there should be some leeway for older cars or motorhomes etc. that are used on occasional weekends, but regular users should really use a compliant vehicle.

[kiethton]

Biggest issue currently and my biggest point of opposition is motorbikes.

The majority of the bikes parked in the on-street bike bay I use are non-compliant but well maintained, including my own.....we will all be caught up in this legislation from next year.

Bikes on the whole produce fk all pollution, they run on petrol, most have engines <600cc and are rarely stuck in traffic so don't contribute through idling.

The issue is that whilst he may be trying to improve air quality he is simultaneously ignoring bike theft issues. The reason people don't use newer bikes is often not one of cost but one of security, newer bikes would be (and are) stolen in weeks, have scooter couriers ramming their lumps of st down the side of them, damaging them in the process and as such limit bike purchase price to £1k and run with TPO cover as that's all that's now offered, especially for E London postcodes. The introduction of this is a complete farce, is likely to cause an overnight material increase in bike theft and bike enabled crime.

This proposal is totally shortsighted and blind for the real drivers for why people resort to older motorbikes. Until the theft issues are resolved bikes should be exempted, period, afterall if they're not it doesn't take much to join them....a small plate, positioned on the underside of the tail will never be read by an ANPR camera, else we'll resort to the tactics of a scooter I saw a few weeks back, his plate just read "catch me".....

Edited by kiethton on Tuesday 6th February 11:15

[NomduJour]

Toltec said:

regular users should really use a compliant vehicle

That’s surely the point - the cars being affected aren’t the ones in daily use. Virtually nobody affected will commute in their child-killing-device, they’ll likely just see a bit of use at weekends. But, the greater good, Comrades!