Reply With QuoteI note that a tory council somewhere in Surrey or somewhere has refused to put warning signs up in protest
What use is that ?
Not political just stating a fact
B
Seems to be a fair few people down that they’re London set on disrupting the new ULEZ charging. According to the BBC there have been lots of cameras broken along with numerous cables cut.
I note that a tory council somewhere in Surrey or somewhere has refused to put warning signs up in protest
What use is that ?
Not political just stating a fact
B
I would have thought any tickets issued in this area without adequate signage would not be legally binding.Originally Posted by Brian
This guy Khan is really giving it to Londoners, imho looking down from the Midlands, he is just a ****ing ****hole who is where is is via the disgraceful ‘postal vote’ system!
Oh dear…
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
But most Londoners support it and in many boroughs more people make do without a car than own one.
Bit mystified as to the attention the mayor gets from outside the capital? As a Londoner I have no opinion on other cities mayors as their policies are of no benefit or hindrance to me and I can’t vote for or against!?
You clearly have never read the below the line comments section of the Torygraph for any SK or ULEZ article.
He, and everything he stands for is hated by middle England. The vitriol towards him and his policies is immense.
I know the reasons why, but that is for the BP rather G&D.
Personally, I just hate TFL as an organisation, as I have experience where they have screwed me over and been dishonest.
Manchester has a keen eye on this because the feeling is very much we are next. The charging zone here is "under review". Burnham is a Khan type and is down on record as whinging in parlament that Manchester was not on a list of areas to have clean air zones. When he got what he wanted and suffered a backlash he blamed the government for imposing it. What he was supposed to do was introduce a city centre scheme. What he did do is join together with all the local councils to create a zone bigger than the London expansion. I believe 80% of cars in the London zone comply so we are dealing with 2 out of 10 cars. In a few years they would all be gone anyway. This is about getting the framework in to change the goalposts later. In 10 years time it will be £12.50 to drive your Electric car.
Councils will always look to the 'quick fix' for their financial deficit..............
Always useful to hang the 'green' agenda on it, of course.
TFL call centre told me my hybrid wasn’t compliant and only fully battery powered cars were….that proves what we are dealing with.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well that’s nonsense. I drive a 2011 petrol Skoda and that’s compliant!
Glasgow recently introduced a LEZ zone, covering the entire city centre but rather than implementing a charging system, people are fined, which increases each time they enter within a 90 day period. Ironically, Glasgow City Council had to hire compliant vehicles because a lot of their fleet weren’t.
There’’s joined up government right there!
There's one of the problems. Different rules in different places. There is more than a hint of entrapment in all of them. If you come to Manchester beware of the bus zones. Poorly placed and confusing signs to the infrequent visitor and gotcha. I wonder how many fines are a result of arrogant ignoring of the rules compared to genuine confusion and error.
I think that's a fair assessment.
One gammon thinks another gammon’s post is a fair assessment. Neither gammon lives in London. Makes sense.
I'm not at all sure that the majority of Londoners support ULEZ.
The recent by-election at Uxbridge which looked to be a good chance for Labour was taken by the Tories on an anti ULEZ ticket.
Even Starmer blamed ULEZ for the loss of a closely contested seat.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...cs-latest-news
Cheers,
Neil.
There have been various polls, but the results are debated because of the particular way in which the questions have been posed and can steer respondents.
In recent times:
TfL carried out a survey in 2022 and 51% supported expansion.
The mayor also consulted in 2022 and something like 60% of respondents were against the expansion.
Some more recent research claimed that around 2/3 of Londoners supported a ULEZ, 1/3 supporting expansion, 1/3 keeping within the existing limits and 1/3 dead against any ULEZ.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Interesting - Shapps wanted to make the congestion charge cover all of inner London but Khan denied him.
That isn’t the way the Daily Mail paint the picture.
https://www.londonworld.com/news/tra...n-zone-4264592
Good. More things need smashing a bit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Londoner here. Support ULEZ 100%. Why should my son have to breathe polluted air because someone else is selfish enough to impose their excessive fumes on the rest of us?They had enough notice too.
BTW it is only the most polluting ICE cars that are banned. Most modern ICE cars are ULEZ compliant, even those with powerful motors like Porsche 911s etc.
Anything, however small, that helps the environment is a good thing.
Has ULEZ been proven to improve air quality in the areas they have implemented it? I thought I read somewhere that studies have shown no difference since the implementation of it, so what are they-doing with the revenue raised?
I was listening to something about this on LBC yesterday, they were saying that the majority of people that supported it live in the middle of the city and aren’t effected by it, and most don’t drive,
The were punting out examples of how unfair it is, one woman lives 1.5 miles outside but works a mile in , she is a night carer so it will cost her £25 per day to go to work, she has resigned, she can’t afford a new car, there are going to be thousands of examples like this.
If it wasn’t a tax why not just ban cars?
- - - Updated - - -
On LBC yesterday they were saying a 1.4% improvement
The evidence is that London air quality has improved considerably. There is debate around the discrete contribution of ULEZ compared to other measures taken. I believe that just getting rid of TfL’s diesel buses and taxis made a huge difference. The introduction of ULEZ in the very outer boroughs is expected to have a minor incremental impact. There’s an ICL report knocking about on the impact of ULEZ on its own which the mayor is not happy with.
TfL has a huge deficit. The mayor has little direct revenue generating authority, just from transport, so he needs the cash from ULEZ and congestion charging.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited by BillyCasper; 24th August 2023 at 20:49.
That is quite a funny post to read. I know you’re in a Tesla now but you hopped out of a Range Rover to be in one.
A young Mick P in the making.
Mr Khan has stated 9 out of 10 cars seen driving in the newly proposed zone are compliant. If that many are compliant then why do we need to expand the zone…hmmmm. Must mean the air quality is good with only 1 in 10 cars badly polluting. This new zone won’t catch out Londoner’s as we are all aware of it. I work outside London and trust me people have no clue about it. Uncle Bob from Suffolk picking up his daughter from Heathrow at 2am is the intended target as he’s easy meat for a £160 fine.
The £12 a day is irrelevant…the holy grail is the staggering amount of fines there will be.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I had to pretty much giveaway a perfectly good car for peanuts because it was non compliant. I know plenty of other people in same boat. So not sure I believe the comments that most Londoners support it.
I was also hit with a £90 fine for driving into the zone without realising it.
I then decided setting up autopay would be a good idea. However to my surprise a month after I’d sold the car I got a £12 ULEZ charge.
I disputed the charge thinking it would be straight forward reversal, however they replied and said as the car was still registered on my auto pay they were entitled to take the charge and it was my responsibility to have removed it. Admittedly I forgot the old car was still on autopay but surely the new owner should of been charged?
Anyway just a cash cow for Sadiq in my view.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
TfL estimates the expansion will generate an extra £200m per year, with a wide +/- tolerance.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Actually the Range Rover would have been ULEZ compliant.
No excessive fumes then?
Admittedly, I know nothing about the technicalities but I was surprised to see that my old diesel is "no charge". Not that I could be tempted to drive in London!
https://vehiclecheck.drive-clean-air...kers/exemption
The story I saw was that ICL had been paid £800,000 to research the impact of ULEZ and the powers that be were annoyed they didn't get the answer they wanted.
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%...ulez-claims%2F
"In private emails seen by The Telegraph, Shirley Rodrigues, the London Mayor’s deputy for environment and energy, told Prof Frank Kelly she was “really disappointed” that Imperial College had publicised findings questioning the effectiveness of Ulez."
Exactly.
The Ulez charge is not going to harm the wealthy or folk who can just buy a new car, it is the poorer folk who may rely on their older cars who are going to get clobbered.
A tax on being poor.
I know there is a scrappage scheme of up to £2000 but what can people buy with that? Another non ULEZ compliant car?
Cheers,
Neil.
Exactly.. just wait for the rich to start bitching and moaning when their cleaners, maintenance men and labourers just don’t bother to turn up for work, because it just ain’t worth it.
As in Wales where next month the 30 mph limit in towns gets reduced to 20 mph....
Plenty of ulez compliant cars on auto trader for under £2k.
Seems to be more about a dislike for the mayor rather than a real issue.
Probably not a good idea for them to go for a stroll in the countryside then given the professors surname, no point in tempting fate.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
So, practically a rounding error then?
Don’t get me wrong, I think improving air quality is a good thing, but with a £200M/pa revenue they should be able to do better, than a tiny improvement…
I live close to Bristol and the ULEZ there again is a joke, it conveniently covers all major routes in and out of the city, but only really touches on the actual inner city parts where I would think the air quality is poorest. But I’m sure that it will make good money for the council….
I think they are touting the reason for the reduction as safety related rather than green. Its definitely not good for the environment driving everywhere in 2nd gear, but yes, they'll get plenty of fines filling the coffers whatever their reasoning.
Everywhere is 20mph here. Don’t see the problem.
The problem I see is when I experiment and try it I have to be in a lower gears than at 30mph. This means I spend more time travelling a set distance at the same revs as before which equals more emissions. Simple maths but it's not a biggy I agree, my point was that the environment can't reasonably be used as a reason for the 20mph limit. Safety yes, the environment no.
Conversely not far from me on the m4 there is a long section with a 50mph limit that they have put in place for environmental reasons. This I can see (except it goes past Port Talbot steelworks which spews out God knows what), as average mpg increases a fair bit on the trip computer over this section as top gear is still usable. Unlike the 20mph limit.
In cities the biggest effect on consumption will be the constant slowing and accelerating to cruising speed due to congestion, lights and whatever. In this regard 20mph will be far more efficient than 30mph.
In a city that certainly makes sense. The quiet residential streets where I live not so much.
Suppose just simpler to have a blanket limit and hopefully will stop drivers being 'caught out'. Our neighbourhood has a 20 limit for safety reasons and means drivers do, say, 25 rather than 35-40 as they would have previously.
As for driving at a steady 20 or 30, looking at the mpg would seem the most accurate way of comparison.
Anything that brings average speed down has to be safer. Even if it means no fewer accidents the difference hitting a kid at 25mph compared to 35mph is massive. Blanket limit is certainly less confusing.
Where is 'here' please? So I can make a mental note of where to avoid. Not that I go anywhere near a town if I can possibly avoid it. Horrible smelly places full of people.
Wales
All towns and villages.
Not sure if dougair is referring to Wales when he says "everywhere here is 20mph" as it doesn't come into force until next month.
Thank you. I do visit Wales, but only the outback, so I can probably get away with it. It is the visitor tax I object to, they haven't got any off me so far though!
Those little villages in the outback are included to so be careful.
Posting Permissions
