Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Extension of ULEZ to South Circular
Comments
-
There's no exemption for blue badge holders long term. However there was a grace period until 2027 for vehicles that have a registered disabled passenger vehicle tax class:cantersaddick said:
Anyone know how this works/in enforced in practice? Particularly as a blue bade is registered to a person not a vehicle? Just wondering as my wife's Gran has one but the person that usually drives her on longer journeys car isn't ulez compliant so makes it harder for her to visit us.guinnessaddick said:
I believe they get an exemption, a neighbour of mine has a diesel discovery, he has a blue badge and doesn’t pay ULEZ.Lincsaddick said:Blue Badge holders are exempt from the congestion charge .. does the same apply to Ulez ?
Disabled people whose vehicles are registered with the DVLA as having 'disabled' or 'disabled passenger vehicle' tax class benefit from a grace period which exempts them from paying the ULEZ charge until 24 October 2027. This is valid as long as their vehicle doesn't change tax class. Read the eligibility criteria for the disabled tax class exemption.
1 -
Thanks. Not sure that will help her particular situation.Rob7Lee said:
There's no exemption for blue badge holders long term. However there was a grace period until 2027 for vehicles that have a registered disabled passenger vehicle tax class:cantersaddick said:
Anyone know how this works/in enforced in practice? Particularly as a blue bade is registered to a person not a vehicle? Just wondering as my wife's Gran has one but the person that usually drives her on longer journeys car isn't ulez compliant so makes it harder for her to visit us.guinnessaddick said:
I believe they get an exemption, a neighbour of mine has a diesel discovery, he has a blue badge and doesn’t pay ULEZ.Lincsaddick said:Blue Badge holders are exempt from the congestion charge .. does the same apply to Ulez ?
Disabled people whose vehicles are registered with the DVLA as having 'disabled' or 'disabled passenger vehicle' tax class benefit from a grace period which exempts them from paying the ULEZ charge until 24 October 2027. This is valid as long as their vehicle doesn't change tax class. Read the eligibility criteria for the disabled tax class exemption.0 -
From what you've said, no.cantersaddick said:
Thanks. Not sure that will help her particular situation.Rob7Lee said:
There's no exemption for blue badge holders long term. However there was a grace period until 2027 for vehicles that have a registered disabled passenger vehicle tax class:cantersaddick said:
Anyone know how this works/in enforced in practice? Particularly as a blue bade is registered to a person not a vehicle? Just wondering as my wife's Gran has one but the person that usually drives her on longer journeys car isn't ulez compliant so makes it harder for her to visit us.guinnessaddick said:
I believe they get an exemption, a neighbour of mine has a diesel discovery, he has a blue badge and doesn’t pay ULEZ.Lincsaddick said:Blue Badge holders are exempt from the congestion charge .. does the same apply to Ulez ?
Disabled people whose vehicles are registered with the DVLA as having 'disabled' or 'disabled passenger vehicle' tax class benefit from a grace period which exempts them from paying the ULEZ charge until 24 October 2027. This is valid as long as their vehicle doesn't change tax class. Read the eligibility criteria for the disabled tax class exemption.1 -
Stupid point isn't it. I'm from Bromley, my whole family is in Bromley, I'm returning home later this year. I can comment on whatever I want. Nobody would object to you whining about the US election because you're not American would they?JamesSeed said:
Improving the environment, including the air that we breathe, as well as improving the chances that our children and grandchildren actually have a planet to live on, is probably worth ‘sacrificing [a bit of] our disposable income’. In fact there’s plenty of evidence to suggest we’ll be better off in the long run using renewable energy. All these things improve our quality of life, so how would it be ‘sacrificing our quality of life’?cafcnick1992 said:
That's fine Stig, as long as we're all able to acknowledge that we're all sacrificing our disposable income and general quality of life to make zero impact on climate change. It's one hell of a deal!Stig said:cafcnick1992 said:London could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and it wouldn't make a blip on global carbon emissions.
If people are serious they have to address the real polluters - not attack working class people in Biggin Hill.cafcnick1992 said:
As if punishing people living in Bromley is the goal to fixing climate change.swords_alive said:
Climate change is a bugger isn't it. If only we could roll the clock back and pretend everything is rosy.cafcnick1992 said:Weird how people cheer on a car free existence. I appreciate there are downsides but the reason so many people own cars is because they give you freedom to do the things you love (when they're not being used to commute).
We're championing policies that will ensure our future generations have less freedom than we do/did for very little gain.
Don't worry Xi Jinping and his coal burning empire are closely watching the habits of Charlton fans to understand how to proceed next.
'Don't do anything that affects my life choices. It's everyone else mate. Make them change, not me'.
Classic nimbyism and totally wrong. We all have a part to play. The Mayor of London (the clue is in the job title) as some power to make changes for the better within his city. The only power he has in China or elsewhere is the soft power to demonstrate that we are a city that takes environmental issues seriously and are doing what we can to minimise emissions. It is useless shouting at people overseas to make changes if we don't make them ourselves. We will never stop the global pollution crisis if we turn it into a them against us battle where everyone blames everyone else. We will only be successful if every city makes whatever changes they can and uses their experience to positively influence others.Anyway, why are you so obsessed with commenting on London’s mayor and our environmental controls when you live in Canada?
I'm not even convinced ULEZ will improve the quality of the air compared to the do-nothing scenario. People replace their cars all the time and older cars gradually get phased out. The air quality in London has improved massively compared to 50-60 years ago without a poor tax.3 -
I think there are a couple of points Nick in your response that need addressing. Firstly London's air 50-60 ago was contaminated by coal fires and coal fired power stations. conversely there were without a doubt less cars and lorries on London roads at that time, so the pollution was from different source. There is one other thing that I don't think has been mentioned here, apologies if it has, 90% of journeys by road into London last year were ULEZ compliant. I don't have the breakdown of the 10% but I would suggest that industrial vehicles made up a good percentage of that number, which leaves me wondering who is the anti ULEZ lobby? We've all seen how corporate interests have financed the anti-global warming lobby and I think it's worth be aware that ULEZ does not sit easy with commercial interests in and around London.cafcnick1992 said:
Stupid point isn't it. I'm from Bromley, my whole family is in Bromley, I'm returning home later this year. I can comment on whatever I want. Nobody would object to you whining about the US election because you're not American would they?JamesSeed said:
Improving the environment, including the air that we breathe, as well as improving the chances that our children and grandchildren actually have a planet to live on, is probably worth ‘sacrificing [a bit of] our disposable income’. In fact there’s plenty of evidence to suggest we’ll be better off in the long run using renewable energy. All these things improve our quality of life, so how would it be ‘sacrificing our quality of life’?cafcnick1992 said:
That's fine Stig, as long as we're all able to acknowledge that we're all sacrificing our disposable income and general quality of life to make zero impact on climate change. It's one hell of a deal!Stig said:cafcnick1992 said:London could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and it wouldn't make a blip on global carbon emissions.
If people are serious they have to address the real polluters - not attack working class people in Biggin Hill.cafcnick1992 said:
As if punishing people living in Bromley is the goal to fixing climate change.swords_alive said:
Climate change is a bugger isn't it. If only we could roll the clock back and pretend everything is rosy.cafcnick1992 said:Weird how people cheer on a car free existence. I appreciate there are downsides but the reason so many people own cars is because they give you freedom to do the things you love (when they're not being used to commute).
We're championing policies that will ensure our future generations have less freedom than we do/did for very little gain.
Don't worry Xi Jinping and his coal burning empire are closely watching the habits of Charlton fans to understand how to proceed next.
'Don't do anything that affects my life choices. It's everyone else mate. Make them change, not me'.
Classic nimbyism and totally wrong. We all have a part to play. The Mayor of London (the clue is in the job title) as some power to make changes for the better within his city. The only power he has in China or elsewhere is the soft power to demonstrate that we are a city that takes environmental issues seriously and are doing what we can to minimise emissions. It is useless shouting at people overseas to make changes if we don't make them ourselves. We will never stop the global pollution crisis if we turn it into a them against us battle where everyone blames everyone else. We will only be successful if every city makes whatever changes they can and uses their experience to positively influence others.Anyway, why are you so obsessed with commenting on London’s mayor and our environmental controls when you live in Canada?
I'm not even convinced ULEZ will improve the quality of the air compared to the do-nothing scenario. People replace their cars all the time and older cars gradually get phased out. The air quality in London has improved massively compared to 50-60 years ago without a poor tax.1 -
1) there is evidence that shows the first 2 stages of the ULEZ did improve air quality so that supports the theory that this expansion will also do so.cafcnick1992 said:
Stupid point isn't it. I'm from Bromley, my whole family is in Bromley, I'm returning home later this year. I can comment on whatever I want. Nobody would object to you whining about the US election because you're not American would they?JamesSeed said:
Improving the environment, including the air that we breathe, as well as improving the chances that our children and grandchildren actually have a planet to live on, is probably worth ‘sacrificing [a bit of] our disposable income’. In fact there’s plenty of evidence to suggest we’ll be better off in the long run using renewable energy. All these things improve our quality of life, so how would it be ‘sacrificing our quality of life’?cafcnick1992 said:
That's fine Stig, as long as we're all able to acknowledge that we're all sacrificing our disposable income and general quality of life to make zero impact on climate change. It's one hell of a deal!Stig said:cafcnick1992 said:London could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and it wouldn't make a blip on global carbon emissions.
If people are serious they have to address the real polluters - not attack working class people in Biggin Hill.cafcnick1992 said:
As if punishing people living in Bromley is the goal to fixing climate change.swords_alive said:
Climate change is a bugger isn't it. If only we could roll the clock back and pretend everything is rosy.cafcnick1992 said:Weird how people cheer on a car free existence. I appreciate there are downsides but the reason so many people own cars is because they give you freedom to do the things you love (when they're not being used to commute).
We're championing policies that will ensure our future generations have less freedom than we do/did for very little gain.
Don't worry Xi Jinping and his coal burning empire are closely watching the habits of Charlton fans to understand how to proceed next.
'Don't do anything that affects my life choices. It's everyone else mate. Make them change, not me'.
Classic nimbyism and totally wrong. We all have a part to play. The Mayor of London (the clue is in the job title) as some power to make changes for the better within his city. The only power he has in China or elsewhere is the soft power to demonstrate that we are a city that takes environmental issues seriously and are doing what we can to minimise emissions. It is useless shouting at people overseas to make changes if we don't make them ourselves. We will never stop the global pollution crisis if we turn it into a them against us battle where everyone blames everyone else. We will only be successful if every city makes whatever changes they can and uses their experience to positively influence others.Anyway, why are you so obsessed with commenting on London’s mayor and our environmental controls when you live in Canada?
I'm not even convinced ULEZ will improve the quality of the air compared to the do-nothing scenario. People replace their cars all the time and older cars gradually get phased out. The air quality in London has improved massively compared to 50-60 years ago without a poor tax.
2) yes people replace their cars all the time. This scheme uses behavioural science techniques to nudge people in an economically efficient way to make that upgrade sooner or to switch modes or to pay towards the pollution they create.1 -
You are right that air quality in London is better than in the city's recent history, but it is wrong to imagine that this has happened by 'doing nothing'. The reason that air quality has improved is because there has been the political will to make it happen. Here are the four key items of legislation that forced the city to clean up.cafcnick1992 said:
Stupid point isn't it. I'm from Bromley, my whole family is in Bromley, I'm returning home later this year. I can comment on whatever I want. Nobody would object to you whining about the US election because you're not American would they?JamesSeed said:
Improving the environment, including the air that we breathe, as well as improving the chances that our children and grandchildren actually have a planet to live on, is probably worth ‘sacrificing [a bit of] our disposable income’. In fact there’s plenty of evidence to suggest we’ll be better off in the long run using renewable energy. All these things improve our quality of life, so how would it be ‘sacrificing our quality of life’?cafcnick1992 said:
That's fine Stig, as long as we're all able to acknowledge that we're all sacrificing our disposable income and general quality of life to make zero impact on climate change. It's one hell of a deal!Stig said:cafcnick1992 said:London could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and it wouldn't make a blip on global carbon emissions.
If people are serious they have to address the real polluters - not attack working class people in Biggin Hill.cafcnick1992 said:
As if punishing people living in Bromley is the goal to fixing climate change.swords_alive said:
Climate change is a bugger isn't it. If only we could roll the clock back and pretend everything is rosy.cafcnick1992 said:Weird how people cheer on a car free existence. I appreciate there are downsides but the reason so many people own cars is because they give you freedom to do the things you love (when they're not being used to commute).
We're championing policies that will ensure our future generations have less freedom than we do/did for very little gain.
Don't worry Xi Jinping and his coal burning empire are closely watching the habits of Charlton fans to understand how to proceed next.
'Don't do anything that affects my life choices. It's everyone else mate. Make them change, not me'.
Classic nimbyism and totally wrong. We all have a part to play. The Mayor of London (the clue is in the job title) as some power to make changes for the better within his city. The only power he has in China or elsewhere is the soft power to demonstrate that we are a city that takes environmental issues seriously and are doing what we can to minimise emissions. It is useless shouting at people overseas to make changes if we don't make them ourselves. We will never stop the global pollution crisis if we turn it into a them against us battle where everyone blames everyone else. We will only be successful if every city makes whatever changes they can and uses their experience to positively influence others.Anyway, why are you so obsessed with commenting on London’s mayor and our environmental controls when you live in Canada?
I'm not even convinced ULEZ will improve the quality of the air compared to the do-nothing scenario. People replace their cars all the time and older cars gradually get phased out. The air quality in London has improved massively compared to 50-60 years ago without a poor tax.- Clean Air Act (1956): Control of smoke emissions from factories, enabled local authorities to declare smoke free areas in which only smokeless fuels could be burned, introduced grants for people to convert their fireplaces.
- Clean Air Act (1968): Increased minimum chimney height, prohibited the emission of ‘dark smoke’.
- Environment Act (1995): Creation of the Environment Agency, introduced a National Air Quality Strategy.
- Air Quality Standards Regulations (2010): Requires local authorities to monitor air quality and to implement action plans to address areas of poor air quality, sets legally binding limits on concentrations of all major air pollutants.
5 -
Regarding point 2 the issue for me was the lack of notice for people at a time when cash was / is short for many. So less a nudge more a shove.cantersaddick said:
1) there is evidence that shows the first 2 stages of the ULEZ did improve air quality so that supports the theory that this expansion will also do so.cafcnick1992 said:
Stupid point isn't it. I'm from Bromley, my whole family is in Bromley, I'm returning home later this year. I can comment on whatever I want. Nobody would object to you whining about the US election because you're not American would they?JamesSeed said:
Improving the environment, including the air that we breathe, as well as improving the chances that our children and grandchildren actually have a planet to live on, is probably worth ‘sacrificing [a bit of] our disposable income’. In fact there’s plenty of evidence to suggest we’ll be better off in the long run using renewable energy. All these things improve our quality of life, so how would it be ‘sacrificing our quality of life’?cafcnick1992 said:
That's fine Stig, as long as we're all able to acknowledge that we're all sacrificing our disposable income and general quality of life to make zero impact on climate change. It's one hell of a deal!Stig said:cafcnick1992 said:London could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and it wouldn't make a blip on global carbon emissions.
If people are serious they have to address the real polluters - not attack working class people in Biggin Hill.cafcnick1992 said:
As if punishing people living in Bromley is the goal to fixing climate change.swords_alive said:
Climate change is a bugger isn't it. If only we could roll the clock back and pretend everything is rosy.cafcnick1992 said:Weird how people cheer on a car free existence. I appreciate there are downsides but the reason so many people own cars is because they give you freedom to do the things you love (when they're not being used to commute).
We're championing policies that will ensure our future generations have less freedom than we do/did for very little gain.
Don't worry Xi Jinping and his coal burning empire are closely watching the habits of Charlton fans to understand how to proceed next.
'Don't do anything that affects my life choices. It's everyone else mate. Make them change, not me'.
Classic nimbyism and totally wrong. We all have a part to play. The Mayor of London (the clue is in the job title) as some power to make changes for the better within his city. The only power he has in China or elsewhere is the soft power to demonstrate that we are a city that takes environmental issues seriously and are doing what we can to minimise emissions. It is useless shouting at people overseas to make changes if we don't make them ourselves. We will never stop the global pollution crisis if we turn it into a them against us battle where everyone blames everyone else. We will only be successful if every city makes whatever changes they can and uses their experience to positively influence others.Anyway, why are you so obsessed with commenting on London’s mayor and our environmental controls when you live in Canada?
I'm not even convinced ULEZ will improve the quality of the air compared to the do-nothing scenario. People replace their cars all the time and older cars gradually get phased out. The air quality in London has improved massively compared to 50-60 years ago without a poor tax.
2) yes people replace their cars all the time. This scheme uses behavioural science techniques to nudge people in an economically efficient way to make that upgrade sooner or to switch modes or to pay towards the pollution they create.The timing was not great.It could have been done in a way to first win hearts and minds but was not.I’m still wondering about the lack of published MI on number of fines issued, revenue actually collected (not billed), number of repeat offenders and registered address analysis of where non compliant cars are. I think that will be interesting.1 -
The result of the next US election will affect the whole world, efforts to reduce air pollution in London will have no effect on anyone living in Vancouver. But yes, hopefully the air in Bromley is better now than it would have been five or ten years ago, and it’s certainly better than it was when I lived there in the 60s.cafcnick1992 said:
Stupid point isn't it. I'm from Bromley, my whole family is in Bromley, I'm returning home later this year. I can comment on whatever I want. Nobody would object to you whining about the US election because you're not American would they?JamesSeed said:
Improving the environment, including the air that we breathe, as well as improving the chances that our children and grandchildren actually have a planet to live on, is probably worth ‘sacrificing [a bit of] our disposable income’. In fact there’s plenty of evidence to suggest we’ll be better off in the long run using renewable energy. All these things improve our quality of life, so how would it be ‘sacrificing our quality of life’?cafcnick1992 said:
That's fine Stig, as long as we're all able to acknowledge that we're all sacrificing our disposable income and general quality of life to make zero impact on climate change. It's one hell of a deal!Stig said:cafcnick1992 said:London could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and it wouldn't make a blip on global carbon emissions.
If people are serious they have to address the real polluters - not attack working class people in Biggin Hill.cafcnick1992 said:
As if punishing people living in Bromley is the goal to fixing climate change.swords_alive said:
Climate change is a bugger isn't it. If only we could roll the clock back and pretend everything is rosy.cafcnick1992 said:Weird how people cheer on a car free existence. I appreciate there are downsides but the reason so many people own cars is because they give you freedom to do the things you love (when they're not being used to commute).
We're championing policies that will ensure our future generations have less freedom than we do/did for very little gain.
Don't worry Xi Jinping and his coal burning empire are closely watching the habits of Charlton fans to understand how to proceed next.
'Don't do anything that affects my life choices. It's everyone else mate. Make them change, not me'.
Classic nimbyism and totally wrong. We all have a part to play. The Mayor of London (the clue is in the job title) as some power to make changes for the better within his city. The only power he has in China or elsewhere is the soft power to demonstrate that we are a city that takes environmental issues seriously and are doing what we can to minimise emissions. It is useless shouting at people overseas to make changes if we don't make them ourselves. We will never stop the global pollution crisis if we turn it into a them against us battle where everyone blames everyone else. We will only be successful if every city makes whatever changes they can and uses their experience to positively influence others.Anyway, why are you so obsessed with commenting on London’s mayor and our environmental controls when you live in Canada?
I'm not even convinced ULEZ will improve the quality of the air compared to the do-nothing scenario. People replace their cars all the time and older cars gradually get phased out. The air quality in London has improved massively compared to 50-60 years ago without a poor tax.
2 -
3 months on and I still fail to see how my non compliant car that averaged a 1000 miles a year pollutes the air more than a compliant car doing over 10000 miles a year.4
- Sponsored links:
-
I used to get told I shouldn't comment on Brexit because I live abroad, didn't see you rushing to my defence Nick?cafcnick1992 said:
Stupid point isn't it. I'm from Bromley, my whole family is in Bromley, I'm returning home later this year. I can comment on whatever I want. Nobody would object to you whining about the US election because you're not American would they?JamesSeed said:
Improving the environment, including the air that we breathe, as well as improving the chances that our children and grandchildren actually have a planet to live on, is probably worth ‘sacrificing [a bit of] our disposable income’. In fact there’s plenty of evidence to suggest we’ll be better off in the long run using renewable energy. All these things improve our quality of life, so how would it be ‘sacrificing our quality of life’?cafcnick1992 said:
That's fine Stig, as long as we're all able to acknowledge that we're all sacrificing our disposable income and general quality of life to make zero impact on climate change. It's one hell of a deal!Stig said:cafcnick1992 said:London could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and it wouldn't make a blip on global carbon emissions.
If people are serious they have to address the real polluters - not attack working class people in Biggin Hill.cafcnick1992 said:
As if punishing people living in Bromley is the goal to fixing climate change.swords_alive said:
Climate change is a bugger isn't it. If only we could roll the clock back and pretend everything is rosy.cafcnick1992 said:Weird how people cheer on a car free existence. I appreciate there are downsides but the reason so many people own cars is because they give you freedom to do the things you love (when they're not being used to commute).
We're championing policies that will ensure our future generations have less freedom than we do/did for very little gain.
Don't worry Xi Jinping and his coal burning empire are closely watching the habits of Charlton fans to understand how to proceed next.
'Don't do anything that affects my life choices. It's everyone else mate. Make them change, not me'.
Classic nimbyism and totally wrong. We all have a part to play. The Mayor of London (the clue is in the job title) as some power to make changes for the better within his city. The only power he has in China or elsewhere is the soft power to demonstrate that we are a city that takes environmental issues seriously and are doing what we can to minimise emissions. It is useless shouting at people overseas to make changes if we don't make them ourselves. We will never stop the global pollution crisis if we turn it into a them against us battle where everyone blames everyone else. We will only be successful if every city makes whatever changes they can and uses their experience to positively influence others.Anyway, why are you so obsessed with commenting on London’s mayor and our environmental controls when you live in Canada?
I'm not even convinced ULEZ will improve the quality of the air compared to the do-nothing scenario. People replace their cars all the time and older cars gradually get phased out. The air quality in London has improved massively compared to 50-60 years ago without a poor tax.
3 -
You have evidence to the contrary? If not…tangoflash said:
You really believe that being a vegetarian is HELPING the planet?seth plum said:If a job is worth doing it is worth doing badly.
The environment is in crisis, me being a veggie to help the planet......
Jesus wept.
Jesus wept.2 -
And air quality has improved significantly since the introduction of ULEZ.cafcnick1992 said:
Stupid point isn't it. I'm from Bromley, my whole family is in Bromley, I'm returning home later this year. I can comment on whatever I want. Nobody would object to you whining about the US election because you're not American would they?JamesSeed said:
Improving the environment, including the air that we breathe, as well as improving the chances that our children and grandchildren actually have a planet to live on, is probably worth ‘sacrificing [a bit of] our disposable income’. In fact there’s plenty of evidence to suggest we’ll be better off in the long run using renewable energy. All these things improve our quality of life, so how would it be ‘sacrificing our quality of life’?cafcnick1992 said:
That's fine Stig, as long as we're all able to acknowledge that we're all sacrificing our disposable income and general quality of life to make zero impact on climate change. It's one hell of a deal!Stig said:cafcnick1992 said:London could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and it wouldn't make a blip on global carbon emissions.
If people are serious they have to address the real polluters - not attack working class people in Biggin Hill.cafcnick1992 said:
As if punishing people living in Bromley is the goal to fixing climate change.swords_alive said:
Climate change is a bugger isn't it. If only we could roll the clock back and pretend everything is rosy.cafcnick1992 said:Weird how people cheer on a car free existence. I appreciate there are downsides but the reason so many people own cars is because they give you freedom to do the things you love (when they're not being used to commute).
We're championing policies that will ensure our future generations have less freedom than we do/did for very little gain.
Don't worry Xi Jinping and his coal burning empire are closely watching the habits of Charlton fans to understand how to proceed next.
'Don't do anything that affects my life choices. It's everyone else mate. Make them change, not me'.
Classic nimbyism and totally wrong. We all have a part to play. The Mayor of London (the clue is in the job title) as some power to make changes for the better within his city. The only power he has in China or elsewhere is the soft power to demonstrate that we are a city that takes environmental issues seriously and are doing what we can to minimise emissions. It is useless shouting at people overseas to make changes if we don't make them ourselves. We will never stop the global pollution crisis if we turn it into a them against us battle where everyone blames everyone else. We will only be successful if every city makes whatever changes they can and uses their experience to positively influence others.Anyway, why are you so obsessed with commenting on London’s mayor and our environmental controls when you live in Canada?
I'm not even convinced ULEZ will improve the quality of the air compared to the do-nothing scenario. People replace their cars all the time and older cars gradually get phased out. The air quality in London has improved massively compared to 50-60 years ago without a poor tax.3 -
Not yet quantified for outer London of course where the starting point was not as bad.AddicksAddict said:
And air quality has improved significantly since the introduction of ULEZ.cafcnick1992 said:
Stupid point isn't it. I'm from Bromley, my whole family is in Bromley, I'm returning home later this year. I can comment on whatever I want. Nobody would object to you whining about the US election because you're not American would they?JamesSeed said:
Improving the environment, including the air that we breathe, as well as improving the chances that our children and grandchildren actually have a planet to live on, is probably worth ‘sacrificing [a bit of] our disposable income’. In fact there’s plenty of evidence to suggest we’ll be better off in the long run using renewable energy. All these things improve our quality of life, so how would it be ‘sacrificing our quality of life’?cafcnick1992 said:
That's fine Stig, as long as we're all able to acknowledge that we're all sacrificing our disposable income and general quality of life to make zero impact on climate change. It's one hell of a deal!Stig said:cafcnick1992 said:London could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and it wouldn't make a blip on global carbon emissions.
If people are serious they have to address the real polluters - not attack working class people in Biggin Hill.cafcnick1992 said:
As if punishing people living in Bromley is the goal to fixing climate change.swords_alive said:
Climate change is a bugger isn't it. If only we could roll the clock back and pretend everything is rosy.cafcnick1992 said:Weird how people cheer on a car free existence. I appreciate there are downsides but the reason so many people own cars is because they give you freedom to do the things you love (when they're not being used to commute).
We're championing policies that will ensure our future generations have less freedom than we do/did for very little gain.
Don't worry Xi Jinping and his coal burning empire are closely watching the habits of Charlton fans to understand how to proceed next.
'Don't do anything that affects my life choices. It's everyone else mate. Make them change, not me'.
Classic nimbyism and totally wrong. We all have a part to play. The Mayor of London (the clue is in the job title) as some power to make changes for the better within his city. The only power he has in China or elsewhere is the soft power to demonstrate that we are a city that takes environmental issues seriously and are doing what we can to minimise emissions. It is useless shouting at people overseas to make changes if we don't make them ourselves. We will never stop the global pollution crisis if we turn it into a them against us battle where everyone blames everyone else. We will only be successful if every city makes whatever changes they can and uses their experience to positively influence others.Anyway, why are you so obsessed with commenting on London’s mayor and our environmental controls when you live in Canada?
I'm not even convinced ULEZ will improve the quality of the air compared to the do-nothing scenario. People replace their cars all the time and older cars gradually get phased out. The air quality in London has improved massively compared to 50-60 years ago without a poor tax.Believe TFL said it will be many months before measurements can be taken to show what level of change.1 -
Bound to take a while to see positive results. After all, 20 years after leaded petrol was banned there's still lead in the air.1
-
They won't publish the figures until after the London election incase they show no improvement !valleynick66 said:Not yet quantified for outer London of course where the starting point was not as bad.Believe TFL said it will be many months before measurements can be taken to show what level of change.
1 -
You can provide all the evidence that something is effective or not working and it still won't be enough in this era of fake news and misinformation.1
-
Lack of notice? The first discussion on this was 8 years before it was brought in. First announcement 5 years before it actually happened (was delayed slightly I think). It was all over the news and discussed everywhere for the last 2 years before it was in place. I simply don't buy that argument.valleynick66 said:
Regarding point 2 the issue for me was the lack of notice for people at a time when cash was / is short for many. So less a nudge more a shove.cantersaddick said:
1) there is evidence that shows the first 2 stages of the ULEZ did improve air quality so that supports the theory that this expansion will also do so.cafcnick1992 said:
Stupid point isn't it. I'm from Bromley, my whole family is in Bromley, I'm returning home later this year. I can comment on whatever I want. Nobody would object to you whining about the US election because you're not American would they?JamesSeed said:
Improving the environment, including the air that we breathe, as well as improving the chances that our children and grandchildren actually have a planet to live on, is probably worth ‘sacrificing [a bit of] our disposable income’. In fact there’s plenty of evidence to suggest we’ll be better off in the long run using renewable energy. All these things improve our quality of life, so how would it be ‘sacrificing our quality of life’?cafcnick1992 said:
That's fine Stig, as long as we're all able to acknowledge that we're all sacrificing our disposable income and general quality of life to make zero impact on climate change. It's one hell of a deal!Stig said:cafcnick1992 said:London could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and it wouldn't make a blip on global carbon emissions.
If people are serious they have to address the real polluters - not attack working class people in Biggin Hill.cafcnick1992 said:
As if punishing people living in Bromley is the goal to fixing climate change.swords_alive said:
Climate change is a bugger isn't it. If only we could roll the clock back and pretend everything is rosy.cafcnick1992 said:Weird how people cheer on a car free existence. I appreciate there are downsides but the reason so many people own cars is because they give you freedom to do the things you love (when they're not being used to commute).
We're championing policies that will ensure our future generations have less freedom than we do/did for very little gain.
Don't worry Xi Jinping and his coal burning empire are closely watching the habits of Charlton fans to understand how to proceed next.
'Don't do anything that affects my life choices. It's everyone else mate. Make them change, not me'.
Classic nimbyism and totally wrong. We all have a part to play. The Mayor of London (the clue is in the job title) as some power to make changes for the better within his city. The only power he has in China or elsewhere is the soft power to demonstrate that we are a city that takes environmental issues seriously and are doing what we can to minimise emissions. It is useless shouting at people overseas to make changes if we don't make them ourselves. We will never stop the global pollution crisis if we turn it into a them against us battle where everyone blames everyone else. We will only be successful if every city makes whatever changes they can and uses their experience to positively influence others.Anyway, why are you so obsessed with commenting on London’s mayor and our environmental controls when you live in Canada?
I'm not even convinced ULEZ will improve the quality of the air compared to the do-nothing scenario. People replace their cars all the time and older cars gradually get phased out. The air quality in London has improved massively compared to 50-60 years ago without a poor tax.
2) yes people replace their cars all the time. This scheme uses behavioural science techniques to nudge people in an economically efficient way to make that upgrade sooner or to switch modes or to pay towards the pollution they create.The timing was not great.It could have been done in a way to first win hearts and minds but was not.I’m still wondering about the lack of published MI on number of fines issued, revenue actually collected (not billed), number of repeat offenders and registered address analysis of where non compliant cars are. I think that will be interesting.
Also I think you're thinking about it wrong. Terms like "repeat offenders" don't make sense. It's a scheme based on the polluter pays principle - I.e. you can either not pollute or you can pay for the damage you do.1 -
I am certain a lot of voters will have been alienated by the present London administration, however it may well also be that the London administration will gain votes from people who feel what they are doing is relatable.
It is possible those two forces will balance out.0 -
What do you base that on?valleynick66 said:
Not yet quantified for outer London of course where the starting point was not as bad.AddicksAddict said:
And air quality has improved significantly since the introduction of ULEZ.cafcnick1992 said:
Stupid point isn't it. I'm from Bromley, my whole family is in Bromley, I'm returning home later this year. I can comment on whatever I want. Nobody would object to you whining about the US election because you're not American would they?JamesSeed said:
Improving the environment, including the air that we breathe, as well as improving the chances that our children and grandchildren actually have a planet to live on, is probably worth ‘sacrificing [a bit of] our disposable income’. In fact there’s plenty of evidence to suggest we’ll be better off in the long run using renewable energy. All these things improve our quality of life, so how would it be ‘sacrificing our quality of life’?cafcnick1992 said:
That's fine Stig, as long as we're all able to acknowledge that we're all sacrificing our disposable income and general quality of life to make zero impact on climate change. It's one hell of a deal!Stig said:cafcnick1992 said:London could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and it wouldn't make a blip on global carbon emissions.
If people are serious they have to address the real polluters - not attack working class people in Biggin Hill.cafcnick1992 said:
As if punishing people living in Bromley is the goal to fixing climate change.swords_alive said:
Climate change is a bugger isn't it. If only we could roll the clock back and pretend everything is rosy.cafcnick1992 said:Weird how people cheer on a car free existence. I appreciate there are downsides but the reason so many people own cars is because they give you freedom to do the things you love (when they're not being used to commute).
We're championing policies that will ensure our future generations have less freedom than we do/did for very little gain.
Don't worry Xi Jinping and his coal burning empire are closely watching the habits of Charlton fans to understand how to proceed next.
'Don't do anything that affects my life choices. It's everyone else mate. Make them change, not me'.
Classic nimbyism and totally wrong. We all have a part to play. The Mayor of London (the clue is in the job title) as some power to make changes for the better within his city. The only power he has in China or elsewhere is the soft power to demonstrate that we are a city that takes environmental issues seriously and are doing what we can to minimise emissions. It is useless shouting at people overseas to make changes if we don't make them ourselves. We will never stop the global pollution crisis if we turn it into a them against us battle where everyone blames everyone else. We will only be successful if every city makes whatever changes they can and uses their experience to positively influence others.Anyway, why are you so obsessed with commenting on London’s mayor and our environmental controls when you live in Canada?
I'm not even convinced ULEZ will improve the quality of the air compared to the do-nothing scenario. People replace their cars all the time and older cars gradually get phased out. The air quality in London has improved massively compared to 50-60 years ago without a poor tax.Believe TFL said it will be many months before measurements can be taken to show what level of change.
It varies from place to place but there are plenty of places just as bad as central London. I have posted research on this before. I use Bexley as the example because it stood out to me (where I grew up) and is relevant to a lot of people here. Basically because of its unique topography (it sits in a dip) and prevailing winds it basically gets central London pollution dumped across the Borough. This has led to the highest childhood incidence rate of things like asthma of all the London boroughs. There was a clear problem here that needed solving, action has been taken to solve it. Is it a perfect solution? No but when is there ever a perfect solution.4 - Sponsored links:
-
Yes lack of notice. The imposition for outer London had limited notice and was post Covid when the poorer paid had less cash in many cases to make the adjustment.cantersaddick said:
Lack of notice? The first discussion on this was 8 years before it was brought in. First announcement 5 years before it actually happened (was delayed slightly I think). It was all over the news and discussed everywhere for the last 2 years before it was in place. I simply don't buy that argument.valleynick66 said:
Regarding point 2 the issue for me was the lack of notice for people at a time when cash was / is short for many. So less a nudge more a shove.cantersaddick said:
1) there is evidence that shows the first 2 stages of the ULEZ did improve air quality so that supports the theory that this expansion will also do so.cafcnick1992 said:
Stupid point isn't it. I'm from Bromley, my whole family is in Bromley, I'm returning home later this year. I can comment on whatever I want. Nobody would object to you whining about the US election because you're not American would they?JamesSeed said:
Improving the environment, including the air that we breathe, as well as improving the chances that our children and grandchildren actually have a planet to live on, is probably worth ‘sacrificing [a bit of] our disposable income’. In fact there’s plenty of evidence to suggest we’ll be better off in the long run using renewable energy. All these things improve our quality of life, so how would it be ‘sacrificing our quality of life’?cafcnick1992 said:
That's fine Stig, as long as we're all able to acknowledge that we're all sacrificing our disposable income and general quality of life to make zero impact on climate change. It's one hell of a deal!Stig said:cafcnick1992 said:London could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and it wouldn't make a blip on global carbon emissions.
If people are serious they have to address the real polluters - not attack working class people in Biggin Hill.cafcnick1992 said:
As if punishing people living in Bromley is the goal to fixing climate change.swords_alive said:
Climate change is a bugger isn't it. If only we could roll the clock back and pretend everything is rosy.cafcnick1992 said:Weird how people cheer on a car free existence. I appreciate there are downsides but the reason so many people own cars is because they give you freedom to do the things you love (when they're not being used to commute).
We're championing policies that will ensure our future generations have less freedom than we do/did for very little gain.
Don't worry Xi Jinping and his coal burning empire are closely watching the habits of Charlton fans to understand how to proceed next.
'Don't do anything that affects my life choices. It's everyone else mate. Make them change, not me'.
Classic nimbyism and totally wrong. We all have a part to play. The Mayor of London (the clue is in the job title) as some power to make changes for the better within his city. The only power he has in China or elsewhere is the soft power to demonstrate that we are a city that takes environmental issues seriously and are doing what we can to minimise emissions. It is useless shouting at people overseas to make changes if we don't make them ourselves. We will never stop the global pollution crisis if we turn it into a them against us battle where everyone blames everyone else. We will only be successful if every city makes whatever changes they can and uses their experience to positively influence others.Anyway, why are you so obsessed with commenting on London’s mayor and our environmental controls when you live in Canada?
I'm not even convinced ULEZ will improve the quality of the air compared to the do-nothing scenario. People replace their cars all the time and older cars gradually get phased out. The air quality in London has improved massively compared to 50-60 years ago without a poor tax.
2) yes people replace their cars all the time. This scheme uses behavioural science techniques to nudge people in an economically efficient way to make that upgrade sooner or to switch modes or to pay towards the pollution they create.The timing was not great.It could have been done in a way to first win hearts and minds but was not.I’m still wondering about the lack of published MI on number of fines issued, revenue actually collected (not billed), number of repeat offenders and registered address analysis of where non compliant cars are. I think that will be interesting.
Also I think you're thinking about it wrong. Terms like "repeat offenders" don't make sense. It's a scheme based on the polluter pays principle - I.e. you can either not pollute or you can pay for the damage you do.Repeat offenders are interesting to me. If someone inadvertently gets a fine and corrects their behaviour that is good. If they don’t but pay the fine that’s an interesting insight on their ability to afford an alternative car. If they repeat and don’t pay the fines they are arseholes!0 -
A quick look at the opening page of this thread suggests that this might not be the case.valleynick66 said:
Yes lack of notice. The imposition for outer London had limited notice and was post Covid when the poorer paid had less cash in many cases to make the adjustment.cantersaddick said:
Lack of notice? The first discussion on this was 8 years before it was brought in. First announcement 5 years before it actually happened (was delayed slightly I think). It was all over the news and discussed everywhere for the last 2 years before it was in place. I simply don't buy that argument.valleynick66 said:
Regarding point 2 the issue for me was the lack of notice for people at a time when cash was / is short for many. So less a nudge more a shove.cantersaddick said:
1) there is evidence that shows the first 2 stages of the ULEZ did improve air quality so that supports the theory that this expansion will also do so.cafcnick1992 said:
Stupid point isn't it. I'm from Bromley, my whole family is in Bromley, I'm returning home later this year. I can comment on whatever I want. Nobody would object to you whining about the US election because you're not American would they?JamesSeed said:
Improving the environment, including the air that we breathe, as well as improving the chances that our children and grandchildren actually have a planet to live on, is probably worth ‘sacrificing [a bit of] our disposable income’. In fact there’s plenty of evidence to suggest we’ll be better off in the long run using renewable energy. All these things improve our quality of life, so how would it be ‘sacrificing our quality of life’?cafcnick1992 said:
That's fine Stig, as long as we're all able to acknowledge that we're all sacrificing our disposable income and general quality of life to make zero impact on climate change. It's one hell of a deal!Stig said:cafcnick1992 said:London could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and it wouldn't make a blip on global carbon emissions.
If people are serious they have to address the real polluters - not attack working class people in Biggin Hill.cafcnick1992 said:
As if punishing people living in Bromley is the goal to fixing climate change.swords_alive said:
Climate change is a bugger isn't it. If only we could roll the clock back and pretend everything is rosy.cafcnick1992 said:Weird how people cheer on a car free existence. I appreciate there are downsides but the reason so many people own cars is because they give you freedom to do the things you love (when they're not being used to commute).
We're championing policies that will ensure our future generations have less freedom than we do/did for very little gain.
Don't worry Xi Jinping and his coal burning empire are closely watching the habits of Charlton fans to understand how to proceed next.
'Don't do anything that affects my life choices. It's everyone else mate. Make them change, not me'.
Classic nimbyism and totally wrong. We all have a part to play. The Mayor of London (the clue is in the job title) as some power to make changes for the better within his city. The only power he has in China or elsewhere is the soft power to demonstrate that we are a city that takes environmental issues seriously and are doing what we can to minimise emissions. It is useless shouting at people overseas to make changes if we don't make them ourselves. We will never stop the global pollution crisis if we turn it into a them against us battle where everyone blames everyone else. We will only be successful if every city makes whatever changes they can and uses their experience to positively influence others.Anyway, why are you so obsessed with commenting on London’s mayor and our environmental controls when you live in Canada?
I'm not even convinced ULEZ will improve the quality of the air compared to the do-nothing scenario. People replace their cars all the time and older cars gradually get phased out. The air quality in London has improved massively compared to 50-60 years ago without a poor tax.
2) yes people replace their cars all the time. This scheme uses behavioural science techniques to nudge people in an economically efficient way to make that upgrade sooner or to switch modes or to pay towards the pollution they create.The timing was not great.It could have been done in a way to first win hearts and minds but was not.I’m still wondering about the lack of published MI on number of fines issued, revenue actually collected (not billed), number of repeat offenders and registered address analysis of where non compliant cars are. I think that will be interesting.
Also I think you're thinking about it wrong. Terms like "repeat offenders" don't make sense. It's a scheme based on the polluter pays principle - I.e. you can either not pollute or you can pay for the damage you do.Repeat offenders are interesting to me. If someone inadvertently gets a fine and corrects their behaviour that is good. If they don’t but pay the fine that’s an interesting insight on their ability to afford an alternative car. If they repeat and don’t pay the fines they are arseholes!1 -
Can you point me to’ the evidence that says pollutants in Bexley (not just any individual blackspot) are worse than inner London post ULEZ?cantersaddick said:
What do you base that on?valleynick66 said:
Not yet quantified for outer London of course where the starting point was not as bad.AddicksAddict said:
And air quality has improved significantly since the introduction of ULEZ.cafcnick1992 said:
Stupid point isn't it. I'm from Bromley, my whole family is in Bromley, I'm returning home later this year. I can comment on whatever I want. Nobody would object to you whining about the US election because you're not American would they?JamesSeed said:
Improving the environment, including the air that we breathe, as well as improving the chances that our children and grandchildren actually have a planet to live on, is probably worth ‘sacrificing [a bit of] our disposable income’. In fact there’s plenty of evidence to suggest we’ll be better off in the long run using renewable energy. All these things improve our quality of life, so how would it be ‘sacrificing our quality of life’?cafcnick1992 said:
That's fine Stig, as long as we're all able to acknowledge that we're all sacrificing our disposable income and general quality of life to make zero impact on climate change. It's one hell of a deal!Stig said:cafcnick1992 said:London could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and it wouldn't make a blip on global carbon emissions.
If people are serious they have to address the real polluters - not attack working class people in Biggin Hill.cafcnick1992 said:
As if punishing people living in Bromley is the goal to fixing climate change.swords_alive said:
Climate change is a bugger isn't it. If only we could roll the clock back and pretend everything is rosy.cafcnick1992 said:Weird how people cheer on a car free existence. I appreciate there are downsides but the reason so many people own cars is because they give you freedom to do the things you love (when they're not being used to commute).
We're championing policies that will ensure our future generations have less freedom than we do/did for very little gain.
Don't worry Xi Jinping and his coal burning empire are closely watching the habits of Charlton fans to understand how to proceed next.
'Don't do anything that affects my life choices. It's everyone else mate. Make them change, not me'.
Classic nimbyism and totally wrong. We all have a part to play. The Mayor of London (the clue is in the job title) as some power to make changes for the better within his city. The only power he has in China or elsewhere is the soft power to demonstrate that we are a city that takes environmental issues seriously and are doing what we can to minimise emissions. It is useless shouting at people overseas to make changes if we don't make them ourselves. We will never stop the global pollution crisis if we turn it into a them against us battle where everyone blames everyone else. We will only be successful if every city makes whatever changes they can and uses their experience to positively influence others.Anyway, why are you so obsessed with commenting on London’s mayor and our environmental controls when you live in Canada?
I'm not even convinced ULEZ will improve the quality of the air compared to the do-nothing scenario. People replace their cars all the time and older cars gradually get phased out. The air quality in London has improved massively compared to 50-60 years ago without a poor tax.Believe TFL said it will be many months before measurements can be taken to show what level of change.
It varies from place to place but there are plenty of places just as bad as central London. I have posted research on this before. I use Bexley as the example because it stood out to me (where I grew up) and is relevant to a lot of people here. Basically because of its unique topography (it sits in a dip) and prevailing winds it basically gets central London pollution dumped across the Borough. This has led to the highest childhood incidence rate of things like asthma of all the London boroughs. There was a clear problem here that needed solving, action has been taken to solve it. Is it a perfect solution? No but when is there ever a perfect solution.As a resident of Bexley I dont perceive that I am routinely breathing particularly poor air relative to any suburban area.Of course there will be better / cleaner areas outside of London butHappy to be corrected.0 -
.0
-
Really ? How much notice is acceptable do you think post COVID / middle of a cost of living crisis?Stig said:
A quick look at the opening page of this thread suggests that this might not be the case.valleynick66 said:
Yes lack of notice. The imposition for outer London had limited notice and was post Covid when the poorer paid had less cash in many cases to make the adjustment.cantersaddick said:
Lack of notice? The first discussion on this was 8 years before it was brought in. First announcement 5 years before it actually happened (was delayed slightly I think). It was all over the news and discussed everywhere for the last 2 years before it was in place. I simply don't buy that argument.valleynick66 said:
Regarding point 2 the issue for me was the lack of notice for people at a time when cash was / is short for many. So less a nudge more a shove.cantersaddick said:
1) there is evidence that shows the first 2 stages of the ULEZ did improve air quality so that supports the theory that this expansion will also do so.cafcnick1992 said:
Stupid point isn't it. I'm from Bromley, my whole family is in Bromley, I'm returning home later this year. I can comment on whatever I want. Nobody would object to you whining about the US election because you're not American would they?JamesSeed said:
Improving the environment, including the air that we breathe, as well as improving the chances that our children and grandchildren actually have a planet to live on, is probably worth ‘sacrificing [a bit of] our disposable income’. In fact there’s plenty of evidence to suggest we’ll be better off in the long run using renewable energy. All these things improve our quality of life, so how would it be ‘sacrificing our quality of life’?cafcnick1992 said:
That's fine Stig, as long as we're all able to acknowledge that we're all sacrificing our disposable income and general quality of life to make zero impact on climate change. It's one hell of a deal!Stig said:cafcnick1992 said:London could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and it wouldn't make a blip on global carbon emissions.
If people are serious they have to address the real polluters - not attack working class people in Biggin Hill.cafcnick1992 said:
As if punishing people living in Bromley is the goal to fixing climate change.swords_alive said:
Climate change is a bugger isn't it. If only we could roll the clock back and pretend everything is rosy.cafcnick1992 said:Weird how people cheer on a car free existence. I appreciate there are downsides but the reason so many people own cars is because they give you freedom to do the things you love (when they're not being used to commute).
We're championing policies that will ensure our future generations have less freedom than we do/did for very little gain.
Don't worry Xi Jinping and his coal burning empire are closely watching the habits of Charlton fans to understand how to proceed next.
'Don't do anything that affects my life choices. It's everyone else mate. Make them change, not me'.
Classic nimbyism and totally wrong. We all have a part to play. The Mayor of London (the clue is in the job title) as some power to make changes for the better within his city. The only power he has in China or elsewhere is the soft power to demonstrate that we are a city that takes environmental issues seriously and are doing what we can to minimise emissions. It is useless shouting at people overseas to make changes if we don't make them ourselves. We will never stop the global pollution crisis if we turn it into a them against us battle where everyone blames everyone else. We will only be successful if every city makes whatever changes they can and uses their experience to positively influence others.Anyway, why are you so obsessed with commenting on London’s mayor and our environmental controls when you live in Canada?
I'm not even convinced ULEZ will improve the quality of the air compared to the do-nothing scenario. People replace their cars all the time and older cars gradually get phased out. The air quality in London has improved massively compared to 50-60 years ago without a poor tax.
2) yes people replace their cars all the time. This scheme uses behavioural science techniques to nudge people in an economically efficient way to make that upgrade sooner or to switch modes or to pay towards the pollution they create.The timing was not great.It could have been done in a way to first win hearts and minds but was not.I’m still wondering about the lack of published MI on number of fines issued, revenue actually collected (not billed), number of repeat offenders and registered address analysis of where non compliant cars are. I think that will be interesting.
Also I think you're thinking about it wrong. Terms like "repeat offenders" don't make sense. It's a scheme based on the polluter pays principle - I.e. you can either not pollute or you can pay for the damage you do.Repeat offenders are interesting to me. If someone inadvertently gets a fine and corrects their behaviour that is good. If they don’t but pay the fine that’s an interesting insight on their ability to afford an alternative car. If they repeat and don’t pay the fines they are arseholes!
It was only confirmed in late 2022 as I understand : Mayor Khan announced on 25 November 2022 that the ULEZ would be extended to the rest of Greater London on 29 August 2023.
The point being the 'timing' of it was difficult for many.1 -
valleynick66 said:
Really ? How much notice is acceptable do you think post COVID / middle of a cost of living crisis?Stig said:
A quick look at the opening page of this thread suggests that this might not be the case.valleynick66 said:
Yes lack of notice. The imposition for outer London had limited notice and was post Covid when the poorer paid had less cash in many cases to make the adjustment.cantersaddick said:
Lack of notice? The first discussion on this was 8 years before it was brought in. First announcement 5 years before it actually happened (was delayed slightly I think). It was all over the news and discussed everywhere for the last 2 years before it was in place. I simply don't buy that argument.valleynick66 said:
Regarding point 2 the issue for me was the lack of notice for people at a time when cash was / is short for many. So less a nudge more a shove.cantersaddick said:
1) there is evidence that shows the first 2 stages of the ULEZ did improve air quality so that supports the theory that this expansion will also do so.cafcnick1992 said:
Stupid point isn't it. I'm from Bromley, my whole family is in Bromley, I'm returning home later this year. I can comment on whatever I want. Nobody would object to you whining about the US election because you're not American would they?JamesSeed said:
Improving the environment, including the air that we breathe, as well as improving the chances that our children and grandchildren actually have a planet to live on, is probably worth ‘sacrificing [a bit of] our disposable income’. In fact there’s plenty of evidence to suggest we’ll be better off in the long run using renewable energy. All these things improve our quality of life, so how would it be ‘sacrificing our quality of life’?cafcnick1992 said:
That's fine Stig, as long as we're all able to acknowledge that we're all sacrificing our disposable income and general quality of life to make zero impact on climate change. It's one hell of a deal!Stig said:cafcnick1992 said:London could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and it wouldn't make a blip on global carbon emissions.
If people are serious they have to address the real polluters - not attack working class people in Biggin Hill.cafcnick1992 said:
As if punishing people living in Bromley is the goal to fixing climate change.swords_alive said:
Climate change is a bugger isn't it. If only we could roll the clock back and pretend everything is rosy.cafcnick1992 said:Weird how people cheer on a car free existence. I appreciate there are downsides but the reason so many people own cars is because they give you freedom to do the things you love (when they're not being used to commute).
We're championing policies that will ensure our future generations have less freedom than we do/did for very little gain.
Don't worry Xi Jinping and his coal burning empire are closely watching the habits of Charlton fans to understand how to proceed next.
'Don't do anything that affects my life choices. It's everyone else mate. Make them change, not me'.
Classic nimbyism and totally wrong. We all have a part to play. The Mayor of London (the clue is in the job title) as some power to make changes for the better within his city. The only power he has in China or elsewhere is the soft power to demonstrate that we are a city that takes environmental issues seriously and are doing what we can to minimise emissions. It is useless shouting at people overseas to make changes if we don't make them ourselves. We will never stop the global pollution crisis if we turn it into a them against us battle where everyone blames everyone else. We will only be successful if every city makes whatever changes they can and uses their experience to positively influence others.Anyway, why are you so obsessed with commenting on London’s mayor and our environmental controls when you live in Canada?
I'm not even convinced ULEZ will improve the quality of the air compared to the do-nothing scenario. People replace their cars all the time and older cars gradually get phased out. The air quality in London has improved massively compared to 50-60 years ago without a poor tax.
2) yes people replace their cars all the time. This scheme uses behavioural science techniques to nudge people in an economically efficient way to make that upgrade sooner or to switch modes or to pay towards the pollution they create.The timing was not great.It could have been done in a way to first win hearts and minds but was not.I’m still wondering about the lack of published MI on number of fines issued, revenue actually collected (not billed), number of repeat offenders and registered address analysis of where non compliant cars are. I think that will be interesting.
Also I think you're thinking about it wrong. Terms like "repeat offenders" don't make sense. It's a scheme based on the polluter pays principle - I.e. you can either not pollute or you can pay for the damage you do.Repeat offenders are interesting to me. If someone inadvertently gets a fine and corrects their behaviour that is good. If they don’t but pay the fine that’s an interesting insight on their ability to afford an alternative car. If they repeat and don’t pay the fines they are arseholes!
It was only confirmed in late 2022 as I understand : Mayor Khan announced on 25 November 2022 that the ULEZ would be extended to the rest of Greater London on 29 August 2023.
The point being the 'timing' of it was difficult for many. To be clear I'm referring to the extension to the outer London area now NOT the previous South circular boundary.
0 -
I don’t know why you’re so against making every effort to improve air quality. It’s improved massively where I live, and one of my boys has asthma, so it matters. You seem to think it’s some sort of conspiracy to rip people off. I don’t think it is.valleynick66 said:
Not yet quantified for outer London of course where the starting point was not as bad.AddicksAddict said:
And air quality has improved significantly since the introduction of ULEZ.cafcnick1992 said:
Stupid point isn't it. I'm from Bromley, my whole family is in Bromley, I'm returning home later this year. I can comment on whatever I want. Nobody would object to you whining about the US election because you're not American would they?JamesSeed said:
Improving the environment, including the air that we breathe, as well as improving the chances that our children and grandchildren actually have a planet to live on, is probably worth ‘sacrificing [a bit of] our disposable income’. In fact there’s plenty of evidence to suggest we’ll be better off in the long run using renewable energy. All these things improve our quality of life, so how would it be ‘sacrificing our quality of life’?cafcnick1992 said:
That's fine Stig, as long as we're all able to acknowledge that we're all sacrificing our disposable income and general quality of life to make zero impact on climate change. It's one hell of a deal!Stig said:cafcnick1992 said:London could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and it wouldn't make a blip on global carbon emissions.
If people are serious they have to address the real polluters - not attack working class people in Biggin Hill.cafcnick1992 said:
As if punishing people living in Bromley is the goal to fixing climate change.swords_alive said:
Climate change is a bugger isn't it. If only we could roll the clock back and pretend everything is rosy.cafcnick1992 said:Weird how people cheer on a car free existence. I appreciate there are downsides but the reason so many people own cars is because they give you freedom to do the things you love (when they're not being used to commute).
We're championing policies that will ensure our future generations have less freedom than we do/did for very little gain.
Don't worry Xi Jinping and his coal burning empire are closely watching the habits of Charlton fans to understand how to proceed next.
'Don't do anything that affects my life choices. It's everyone else mate. Make them change, not me'.
Classic nimbyism and totally wrong. We all have a part to play. The Mayor of London (the clue is in the job title) as some power to make changes for the better within his city. The only power he has in China or elsewhere is the soft power to demonstrate that we are a city that takes environmental issues seriously and are doing what we can to minimise emissions. It is useless shouting at people overseas to make changes if we don't make them ourselves. We will never stop the global pollution crisis if we turn it into a them against us battle where everyone blames everyone else. We will only be successful if every city makes whatever changes they can and uses their experience to positively influence others.Anyway, why are you so obsessed with commenting on London’s mayor and our environmental controls when you live in Canada?
I'm not even convinced ULEZ will improve the quality of the air compared to the do-nothing scenario. People replace their cars all the time and older cars gradually get phased out. The air quality in London has improved massively compared to 50-60 years ago without a poor tax.Believe TFL said it will be many months before measurements can be taken to show what level of change.1 -
I’m really confused now. I thought you said you live in Vancouver?valleynick66 said:
Can you point me to’ the evidence that says pollutants in Bexley (not just any individual blackspot) are worse than inner London post ULEZ?cantersaddick said:
What do you base that on?valleynick66 said:
Not yet quantified for outer London of course where the starting point was not as bad.AddicksAddict said:
And air quality has improved significantly since the introduction of ULEZ.cafcnick1992 said:
Stupid point isn't it. I'm from Bromley, my whole family is in Bromley, I'm returning home later this year. I can comment on whatever I want. Nobody would object to you whining about the US election because you're not American would they?JamesSeed said:
Improving the environment, including the air that we breathe, as well as improving the chances that our children and grandchildren actually have a planet to live on, is probably worth ‘sacrificing [a bit of] our disposable income’. In fact there’s plenty of evidence to suggest we’ll be better off in the long run using renewable energy. All these things improve our quality of life, so how would it be ‘sacrificing our quality of life’?cafcnick1992 said:
That's fine Stig, as long as we're all able to acknowledge that we're all sacrificing our disposable income and general quality of life to make zero impact on climate change. It's one hell of a deal!Stig said:cafcnick1992 said:London could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and it wouldn't make a blip on global carbon emissions.
If people are serious they have to address the real polluters - not attack working class people in Biggin Hill.cafcnick1992 said:
As if punishing people living in Bromley is the goal to fixing climate change.swords_alive said:
Climate change is a bugger isn't it. If only we could roll the clock back and pretend everything is rosy.cafcnick1992 said:Weird how people cheer on a car free existence. I appreciate there are downsides but the reason so many people own cars is because they give you freedom to do the things you love (when they're not being used to commute).
We're championing policies that will ensure our future generations have less freedom than we do/did for very little gain.
Don't worry Xi Jinping and his coal burning empire are closely watching the habits of Charlton fans to understand how to proceed next.
'Don't do anything that affects my life choices. It's everyone else mate. Make them change, not me'.
Classic nimbyism and totally wrong. We all have a part to play. The Mayor of London (the clue is in the job title) as some power to make changes for the better within his city. The only power he has in China or elsewhere is the soft power to demonstrate that we are a city that takes environmental issues seriously and are doing what we can to minimise emissions. It is useless shouting at people overseas to make changes if we don't make them ourselves. We will never stop the global pollution crisis if we turn it into a them against us battle where everyone blames everyone else. We will only be successful if every city makes whatever changes they can and uses their experience to positively influence others.Anyway, why are you so obsessed with commenting on London’s mayor and our environmental controls when you live in Canada?
I'm not even convinced ULEZ will improve the quality of the air compared to the do-nothing scenario. People replace their cars all the time and older cars gradually get phased out. The air quality in London has improved massively compared to 50-60 years ago without a poor tax.Believe TFL said it will be many months before measurements can be taken to show what level of change.
It varies from place to place but there are plenty of places just as bad as central London. I have posted research on this before. I use Bexley as the example because it stood out to me (where I grew up) and is relevant to a lot of people here. Basically because of its unique topography (it sits in a dip) and prevailing winds it basically gets central London pollution dumped across the Borough. This has led to the highest childhood incidence rate of things like asthma of all the London boroughs. There was a clear problem here that needed solving, action has been taken to solve it. Is it a perfect solution? No but when is there ever a perfect solution.As a resident of Bexley I dont perceive that I am routinely breathing particularly poor air relative to any suburban area.Of course there will be better / cleaner areas outside of London butHappy to be corrected.0 -
He didntJamesSeed said:
I’m really confused now. I thought you said you live in Vancouver?valleynick66 said:
Can you point me to’ the evidence that says pollutants in Bexley (not just any individual blackspot) are worse than inner London post ULEZ?cantersaddick said:
What do you base that on?valleynick66 said:
Not yet quantified for outer London of course where the starting point was not as bad.AddicksAddict said:
And air quality has improved significantly since the introduction of ULEZ.cafcnick1992 said:
Stupid point isn't it. I'm from Bromley, my whole family is in Bromley, I'm returning home later this year. I can comment on whatever I want. Nobody would object to you whining about the US election because you're not American would they?JamesSeed said:
Improving the environment, including the air that we breathe, as well as improving the chances that our children and grandchildren actually have a planet to live on, is probably worth ‘sacrificing [a bit of] our disposable income’. In fact there’s plenty of evidence to suggest we’ll be better off in the long run using renewable energy. All these things improve our quality of life, so how would it be ‘sacrificing our quality of life’?cafcnick1992 said:
That's fine Stig, as long as we're all able to acknowledge that we're all sacrificing our disposable income and general quality of life to make zero impact on climate change. It's one hell of a deal!Stig said:cafcnick1992 said:London could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and it wouldn't make a blip on global carbon emissions.
If people are serious they have to address the real polluters - not attack working class people in Biggin Hill.cafcnick1992 said:
As if punishing people living in Bromley is the goal to fixing climate change.swords_alive said:
Climate change is a bugger isn't it. If only we could roll the clock back and pretend everything is rosy.cafcnick1992 said:Weird how people cheer on a car free existence. I appreciate there are downsides but the reason so many people own cars is because they give you freedom to do the things you love (when they're not being used to commute).
We're championing policies that will ensure our future generations have less freedom than we do/did for very little gain.
Don't worry Xi Jinping and his coal burning empire are closely watching the habits of Charlton fans to understand how to proceed next.
'Don't do anything that affects my life choices. It's everyone else mate. Make them change, not me'.
Classic nimbyism and totally wrong. We all have a part to play. The Mayor of London (the clue is in the job title) as some power to make changes for the better within his city. The only power he has in China or elsewhere is the soft power to demonstrate that we are a city that takes environmental issues seriously and are doing what we can to minimise emissions. It is useless shouting at people overseas to make changes if we don't make them ourselves. We will never stop the global pollution crisis if we turn it into a them against us battle where everyone blames everyone else. We will only be successful if every city makes whatever changes they can and uses their experience to positively influence others.Anyway, why are you so obsessed with commenting on London’s mayor and our environmental controls when you live in Canada?
I'm not even convinced ULEZ will improve the quality of the air compared to the do-nothing scenario. People replace their cars all the time and older cars gradually get phased out. The air quality in London has improved massively compared to 50-60 years ago without a poor tax.Believe TFL said it will be many months before measurements can be taken to show what level of change.
It varies from place to place but there are plenty of places just as bad as central London. I have posted research on this before. I use Bexley as the example because it stood out to me (where I grew up) and is relevant to a lot of people here. Basically because of its unique topography (it sits in a dip) and prevailing winds it basically gets central London pollution dumped across the Borough. This has led to the highest childhood incidence rate of things like asthma of all the London boroughs. There was a clear problem here that needed solving, action has been taken to solve it. Is it a perfect solution? No but when is there ever a perfect solution.As a resident of Bexley I dont perceive that I am routinely breathing particularly poor air relative to any suburban area.Of course there will be better / cleaner areas outside of London butHappy to be corrected.1 -
I'm not against the motivation of improving air quality.JamesSeed said:
I don’t know why you’re so against making every effort to improve air quality. It’s improved massively where I live, and one of my boys has asthma, so it matters. You seem to think it’s some sort of conspiracy to rip people off. I don’t think it is.valleynick66 said:
Not yet quantified for outer London of course where the starting point was not as bad.AddicksAddict said:
And air quality has improved significantly since the introduction of ULEZ.cafcnick1992 said:
Stupid point isn't it. I'm from Bromley, my whole family is in Bromley, I'm returning home later this year. I can comment on whatever I want. Nobody would object to you whining about the US election because you're not American would they?JamesSeed said:
Improving the environment, including the air that we breathe, as well as improving the chances that our children and grandchildren actually have a planet to live on, is probably worth ‘sacrificing [a bit of] our disposable income’. In fact there’s plenty of evidence to suggest we’ll be better off in the long run using renewable energy. All these things improve our quality of life, so how would it be ‘sacrificing our quality of life’?cafcnick1992 said:
That's fine Stig, as long as we're all able to acknowledge that we're all sacrificing our disposable income and general quality of life to make zero impact on climate change. It's one hell of a deal!Stig said:cafcnick1992 said:London could disappear off the face of the earth tomorrow and it wouldn't make a blip on global carbon emissions.
If people are serious they have to address the real polluters - not attack working class people in Biggin Hill.cafcnick1992 said:
As if punishing people living in Bromley is the goal to fixing climate change.swords_alive said:
Climate change is a bugger isn't it. If only we could roll the clock back and pretend everything is rosy.cafcnick1992 said:Weird how people cheer on a car free existence. I appreciate there are downsides but the reason so many people own cars is because they give you freedom to do the things you love (when they're not being used to commute).
We're championing policies that will ensure our future generations have less freedom than we do/did for very little gain.
Don't worry Xi Jinping and his coal burning empire are closely watching the habits of Charlton fans to understand how to proceed next.
'Don't do anything that affects my life choices. It's everyone else mate. Make them change, not me'.
Classic nimbyism and totally wrong. We all have a part to play. The Mayor of London (the clue is in the job title) as some power to make changes for the better within his city. The only power he has in China or elsewhere is the soft power to demonstrate that we are a city that takes environmental issues seriously and are doing what we can to minimise emissions. It is useless shouting at people overseas to make changes if we don't make them ourselves. We will never stop the global pollution crisis if we turn it into a them against us battle where everyone blames everyone else. We will only be successful if every city makes whatever changes they can and uses their experience to positively influence others.Anyway, why are you so obsessed with commenting on London’s mayor and our environmental controls when you live in Canada?
I'm not even convinced ULEZ will improve the quality of the air compared to the do-nothing scenario. People replace their cars all the time and older cars gradually get phased out. The air quality in London has improved massively compared to 50-60 years ago without a poor tax.Believe TFL said it will be many months before measurements can be taken to show what level of change.
I don't believe there is any data yet to say air quality in outer London has massively improved since this started a (relatively) few months back. We will see (only in time) if the marginal improvement in say Bexley is going to be at a significant pace to that which would have happened anyway as more people have generally better vehicles.
I have stated several times my reservation is the cost at this particular time when revenues are tight and many things need public funding.
What TFL / are spending on this I fear could be cash negative in the short term. I fear the infrastructure cost and outsourcing arrangements may not actually be cash positive for very long. If we believe the claim that many cars were already compliant and logically many through natural churn would of acquired a compliant car anyway it feels this may be a sledge hammer to crack a nut. That is why I'm genuinely interested in he MI from fines/compliance when (if?) published. In other words I'm not saying it is there just to rip people off rather it will be a drain on the London combined public coffers
I have a nagging doubt fines issued will not equate to cash received and many non complaint cars will be those registered outside of Greater London.
On a similar point; having recently had cause to use the Dartford Bridge after many years of not using it its actually very easy to not fully register the signage & not realise you've triggered fee and may forget to pay within the 24 hrs etc - I assure likewise for many occasional visitors to Outer London for ULEZ. Again that's why I think the MI will be interesting - potentially lots of one off (very infrequent) offenders who potentially correct their future plans and aren't cash cows to be exploited.
The MI will be interesting as I say.0
