Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Ultra Low Emission Zone
Comments
-
If they are serious about reducing the pollution why not say only electric cars allowed from 2025 (the year not the time)
0 -
Are you blind to every word in my post except the part you’ve highlighted ?!Stu_of_Kunming said:
Then everybody wins, I'm still not sure how this can be seen as a bad thing.alan dugdale said:
It won’t affect the Wayne and Waynetta’s though will it. Not many drive into Central London for the fun of it. Those most affected will be small businesses - market traders, builders, decorators etc. The large companies won’t be affected because they’ll change their fleets anyway.Huskaris said:If pollution was a roaming gang of *insert group of people here* shooting 40,000 people in the face a year I can't help but think that some of the people on here would be calling for change and clutching their pearls 39,999 deaths ago. Something about cars turns normally sane people into morons. Both on the road and off it. Take things about compensation, cash cow accusations, legislation, and the fact that Wayne and Waynetta will be most affected and look at that, but look at the deaths caused by our terrible air first and foremost. Market forces work in 99.9% of cases. When you are doing harm to others through your consumption of a good or service, that is when the market needs intervention.
There are many small businesses who have vans as new as 2014 which will now be obsolete unless the owners decide to pay the charge, adding to their many overheads.1 -
This. Everybody wins except small businesses, apparently !MrOneLung said:
Why have you ignored the sentence before the bit in boldStu_of_Kunming said:
Then everybody wins, I'm still not sure how this can be seen as a bad thing.alan dugdale said:
It won’t affect the Wayne and Waynetta’s though will it. Not many drive into Central London for the fun of it. Those most affected will be small businesses - market traders, builders, decorators etc. The large companies won’t be affected because they’ll change their fleets anyway.Huskaris said:If pollution was a roaming gang of *insert group of people here* shooting 40,000 people in the face a year I can't help but think that some of the people on here would be calling for change and clutching their pearls 39,999 deaths ago. Something about cars turns normally sane people into morons. Both on the road and off it. Take things about compensation, cash cow accusations, legislation, and the fact that Wayne and Waynetta will be most affected and look at that, but look at the deaths caused by our terrible air first and foremost. Market forces work in 99.9% of cases. When you are doing harm to others through your consumption of a good or service, that is when the market needs intervention.
There are many small businesses who have vans as new as 2014 which will now be obsolete unless the owners decide to pay the charge, adding to their many overheads.0 -
Yeah, everybody wins. Except the smaller businesses who can’t afford itStu_of_Kunming said:
Then everybody wins, I'm still not sure how this can be seen as a bad thing.alan dugdale said:
It won’t affect the Wayne and Waynetta’s though will it. Not many drive into Central London for the fun of it. Those most affected will be small businesses - market traders, builders, decorators etc. The large companies won’t be affected because they’ll change their fleets anyway.Huskaris said:If pollution was a roaming gang of *insert group of people here* shooting 40,000 people in the face a year I can't help but think that some of the people on here would be calling for change and clutching their pearls 39,999 deaths ago. Something about cars turns normally sane people into morons. Both on the road and off it. Take things about compensation, cash cow accusations, legislation, and the fact that Wayne and Waynetta will be most affected and look at that, but look at the deaths caused by our terrible air first and foremost. Market forces work in 99.9% of cases. When you are doing harm to others through your consumption of a good or service, that is when the market needs intervention.
There are many small businesses who have vans as new as 2014 which will now be obsolete unless the owners decide to pay the charge, adding to their many overheads.0 -
He didn't word it well but I think he is trying to say that if it makes some people change their behaviour (the whole point of using a market force like this) then the intervention has worked and there will be a reduction in polluting vehicles. Which is a reduction in pollution a reduction in negative externalities. Health improves and NHS have to teat less cases etc etc....3
-
Apart from people not being able to afford fruit and veg from their local grocer as prices gone up to pay for his deliveries in nice shiny vans.0
-
Something has to be done to compensate people as lots of people bought vehicles unaware they would be rendered worthless due to forthcoming legislation. Diesels were sold as the solution at one stage when the concern was C02 and now advisors have changed tack.
This is a very good question. Personally, I have no qualms with government employing punative measures to dissuade undesirable behaviour, bur surely these have to be balanced with incentives for good behaviour.
If you bought a relatively new vehicle in good faith and then shortly after buying it are informed you can no longer use it due to a change in the law unless you pay a daily fee then you're going to feel aggrieved. Some diesels run happily for 15-20 years.How can it be about emissions. I will have to get rid of my 2012 1.6litre low emmisions diesel car (99g/km) or pay the charge. Or I could buy a 14 year old gas guzzling shit spewing 4.8 petrol engine (324g/km) and not pay the charge!!!
Choice of your replacement vehicle is piss easy tho isn't it?
In all seriousness, your 2012 diesel pumps out an ever increasing amount of noxious particulates, injurious to the health of all your fellow city dwellers plus its cynically misquoted amount of CO2.
Cruising about the metropolis in your shiny petrol V8, with catalysed exhausts, you'll cough up a compensatory amount in fuel duty, feeling much much comfier and happier on your commute, with no trailing cloud of soot and free radicals.
For the absence of doubt: the motor manufacturers' quoted CO2 figures are all cynically distorted perversions of a practically meaningless one-eyed measurement of nothing terribly relevant. There never was any real virtue in your clattery small capacity diesel. If you've kept it 6 years already you'll shortly be looking down the barrel of some significantly expensive parts replacement. Get thee with all haste to a purveyor of multi cylindered luxo barges, flipping your middle digit to the delusional enviromentalists - they'll thank you, eventually.
Not everyone can afford to replace a vehicle so what compensation is on offer?
If you're having to get rid of a
The ULEZ threat has worked, I’ve traded in my anti-social diesel gas guzzler and ordered a petrol one that goes faster but doesn’t do as many miles per gallon0 -
Not at all. The bigger companies have always changed their fleets every couple of years anyway.cantersaddick said:He didn't word it well but I think he is trying to say that if it makes some people change their behaviour (the whole point of using a market force like this) then the intervention has worked and there will be a reduction in polluting vehicles. Which is a reduction in pollution a reduction in negative externalities. Health improves and NHS have to teat less cases etc etc....0 -
That's exactly what I meant, if it forces some people to change their behavious everyone benefits from it, we cannot continue with what we're currently doing if we want ro protect our future generations, financial hardship, is, Imo, far less important.cantersaddick said:He didn't word it well but I think he is trying to say that if it makes some people change their behaviour (the whole point of using a market force like this) then the intervention has worked and there will be a reduction in polluting vehicles. Which is a reduction in pollution a reduction in negative externalities. Health improves and NHS have to teat less cases etc etc....
No, they will 100% benefit from less polluting vehicles on the.road.stackitsteve said:
Yeah, everybody wins. Except the smaller businesses who can’t afford itStu_of_Kunming said:
Then everybody wins, I'm still not sure how this can be seen as a bad thing.alan dugdale said:
It won’t affect the Wayne and Waynetta’s though will it. Not many drive into Central London for the fun of it. Those most affected will be small businesses - market traders, builders, decorators etc. The large companies won’t be affected because they’ll change their fleets anyway.Huskaris said:If pollution was a roaming gang of *insert group of people here* shooting 40,000 people in the face a year I can't help but think that some of the people on here would be calling for change and clutching their pearls 39,999 deaths ago. Something about cars turns normally sane people into morons. Both on the road and off it. Take things about compensation, cash cow accusations, legislation, and the fact that Wayne and Waynetta will be most affected and look at that, but look at the deaths caused by our terrible air first and foremost. Market forces work in 99.9% of cases. When you are doing harm to others through your consumption of a good or service, that is when the market needs intervention.
There are many small businesses who have vans as new as 2014 which will now be obsolete unless the owners decide to pay the charge, adding to their many overheads.3 -
I’m with you but TBF it’s not much of a benefit to them if it’s their polluting vehicle that not on the road and they can’t afford another one.Stu_of_Kunming said:
That's exactly what I meant, if it forces some people to change their behavious everyone benefits from it, we cannot continue with what we're currently doing if we want ro protect our future generations, financial hardship, is, Imo, far less important.cantersaddick said:He didn't word it well but I think he is trying to say that if it makes some people change their behaviour (the whole point of using a market force like this) then the intervention has worked and there will be a reduction in polluting vehicles. Which is a reduction in pollution a reduction in negative externalities. Health improves and NHS have to teat less cases etc etc....
No, they will 100% benefit from less polluting vehicles on the.road.stackitsteve said:
Yeah, everybody wins. Except the smaller businesses who can’t afford itStu_of_Kunming said:
Then everybody wins, I'm still not sure how this can be seen as a bad thing.alan dugdale said:
It won’t affect the Wayne and Waynetta’s though will it. Not many drive into Central London for the fun of it. Those most affected will be small businesses - market traders, builders, decorators etc. The large companies won’t be affected because they’ll change their fleets anyway.Huskaris said:If pollution was a roaming gang of *insert group of people here* shooting 40,000 people in the face a year I can't help but think that some of the people on here would be calling for change and clutching their pearls 39,999 deaths ago. Something about cars turns normally sane people into morons. Both on the road and off it. Take things about compensation, cash cow accusations, legislation, and the fact that Wayne and Waynetta will be most affected and look at that, but look at the deaths caused by our terrible air first and foremost. Market forces work in 99.9% of cases. When you are doing harm to others through your consumption of a good or service, that is when the market needs intervention.
There are many small businesses who have vans as new as 2014 which will now be obsolete unless the owners decide to pay the charge, adding to their many overheads.0 - Sponsored links:
-
I understand that it's crappy for some people, especially as the very recent advise given was wrong but what is the alternative? Clearly something has to change.0
-
Nothing to do with the Government for once This is down purely to the Mayor.Stig said:
This is a very good question. Personally, I have no qualms with government employing punative measures to dissuade undesirable behaviour, bur surely these have to be balanced with incentives for good behaviour.
If you bought a relatively new vehicle in good faith and then shortly after buying it are informed you can no longer use it due to a change in the law unless you pay a daily fee then you're going to feel aggrieved. Some diesels run happily for 15-20 years. Not everyone can afford to replace a vehicle so what compensation is on offer?How can it be about emissions. I will have to get rid of my 2012 1.6litre low emmisions diesel car (99g/km) or pay the charge. Or I could buy a 14 year old gas guzzling shit spewing 4.8 petrol engine (324g/km) and not pay the charge!!!
Choice of your replacement vehicle is piss easy tho isn't it? In all seriousness, your 2012 diesel pumps out an ever increasing amount of noxious particulates, injurious to the health of all your fellow city dwellers plus its cynically misquoted amount of CO2. Cruising about the metropolis in your shiny petrol V8, with catalysed exhausts, you'll cough up a compensatory amount in fuel duty, feeling much much comfier and happier on your commute, with no trailing cloud of soot and free radicals. For the absence of doubt: the motor manufacturers' quoted CO2 figures are all cynically distorted perversions of a practically meaningless one-eyed measurement of nothing terribly relevant. There never was any real virtue in your clattery small capacity diesel. If you've kept it 6 years already you'll shortly be looking down the barrel of some significantly expensive parts replacement. Get thee with all haste to a purveyor of multi cylindered luxo barges, flipping your middle digit to the delusional enviromentalists - they'll thank you, eventually.
Someone above also hoped there would be a short period where fines were not enforced. Not a hope in hell of that. TFL's finances are in a complete mess and they will be looking to fill their coffers with fines and charges from day one.2 -
Substitute “some people” for (a) Poor people and/or (b) Hard working smaller business people.Stu_of_Kunming said:I understand that it's crappy for some people, especially as the very recent advise given was wrong but what is the alternative? Clearly something has to change.1 -
So this is my biggest issue, I have no problem at all with financial penalties for this sort of stuff, as I believe it's the only way to make people act.Fortune 82nd Minute said:
Nothing to do with the Government for once This is down purely to the Mayor.Stig said:
This is a very good question. Personally, I have no qualms with government employing punative measures to dissuade undesirable behaviour, bur surely these have to be balanced with incentives for good behaviour.
If you bought a relatively new vehicle in good faith and then shortly after buying it are informed you can no longer use it due to a change in the law unless you pay a daily fee then you're going to feel aggrieved. Some diesels run happily for 15-20 years. Not everyone can afford to replace a vehicle so what compensation is on offer?How can it be about emissions. I will have to get rid of my 2012 1.6litre low emmisions diesel car (99g/km) or pay the charge. Or I could buy a 14 year old gas guzzling shit spewing 4.8 petrol engine (324g/km) and not pay the charge!!!
Choice of your replacement vehicle is piss easy tho isn't it? In all seriousness, your 2012 diesel pumps out an ever increasing amount of noxious particulates, injurious to the health of all your fellow city dwellers plus its cynically misquoted amount of CO2. Cruising about the metropolis in your shiny petrol V8, with catalysed exhausts, you'll cough up a compensatory amount in fuel duty, feeling much much comfier and happier on your commute, with no trailing cloud of soot and free radicals. For the absence of doubt: the motor manufacturers' quoted CO2 figures are all cynically distorted perversions of a practically meaningless one-eyed measurement of nothing terribly relevant. There never was any real virtue in your clattery small capacity diesel. If you've kept it 6 years already you'll shortly be looking down the barrel of some significantly expensive parts replacement. Get thee with all haste to a purveyor of multi cylindered luxo barges, flipping your middle digit to the delusional enviromentalists - they'll thank you, eventually.
Someone above also hoped there would be a short period where fines were not enforced. Not a hope in hell of that. TFL's finances are in a complete mess and they will be looking to fill their coffers with fines and charges from day one.
However this money should not be used to fill any coffers, it should be reinvested back into reducing environmental damage and pollution reduction, sadly, I think we all know what will happen.1 -
The ULEZ is a half baked idea which will just be used to generate revenue. It's ludicrous there is no compensation scheme in place and it will unfairly target the poor who can't afford to replace their vehicles.
Perfectly serviceable vehicles will end up being scrapped which doesn't seem very green and there is no account taken of how much pollution each individual generates. It seems a bit daft to imply somebody who drives a few hundred miles a year in the emission zone should be treated the same as someone who drives thousands.
Khan doesn't have a clue.3 -
The vehicles won't necessarily be scrapped, as they'll still be usable elsewhere. I imagine their secondhand value though will drop, whereas secondhand Euro VI diesel prices will be strongerhoof_it_up_to_benty said:The ULEZ is a half baked idea which will just be used to generate revenue. It's ludicrous there is no compensation scheme in place and it will unfairly target the poor who can't afford to replace their vehicles.
Perfectly serviceable vehicles will end up being scrapped which doesn't seem very green and there is no account taken of how much pollution each individual generates. It seems a bit daft to imply somebody who drives a few hundred miles a year in the emission zone should be treated the same as someone who drives thousands.
Khan doesn't have a clue.
The charge is a daily charge, so the person driving in every day will pay far more than someone only coming into inner London say once a month0 -
They won't be treated the same though, will they? I'm no fan of Khan, but let's not just make things up to have a pop at him.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:The ULEZ is a half baked idea which will just be used to generate revenue. It's ludicrous there is no compensation scheme in place and it will unfairly target the poor who can't afford to replace their vehicles.
Perfectly serviceable vehicles will end up being scrapped which doesn't seem very green and there is no account taken of how much pollution each individual generates. It seems a bit daft to imply somebody who drives a few hundred miles a year in the emission zone should be treated the same as someone who drives thousands.
Khan doesn't have a clue.0 -
If I remember correctly there was little sympathy for black cab drivers, from some quarters, due to the advent of new technology and the rise of Uber. Some comments were akin to 'well, technology moves forward and if they can't/don't adapt then it's their own fault'.
I see this as being little different from that so it's interesting to see some that had no sympathy for black cab drivers all of a sudden being impacted and not liking it.
3 -
Big_Bad_World said:
If I remember correctly there was little sympathy for black cab drivers, from some quarters, due to the advent of new technology and the rise of Uber. Some comments were akin to 'well, technology moves forward and if they can't/don't adapt then it's their own fault'.
I see this as being little different from that so it's interesting to see some that had no sympathy for black cab drivers all of a sudden being impacted and not liking it.
It was West ham fans who thought that3 -
I'll try and make it simple for you. If you own an old diesel, use it three times a week in the emission zone and drive say six miles then under ULEZ you will pay £37.50 to do so.Stu_of_Kunming said:
They won't be treated the same though, will they? I'm no fan of Khan, but let's not just make things up to have a pop at him.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:The ULEZ is a half baked idea which will just be used to generate revenue. It's ludicrous there is no compensation scheme in place and it will unfairly target the poor who can't afford to replace their vehicles.
Perfectly serviceable vehicles will end up being scrapped which doesn't seem very green and there is no account taken of how much pollution each individual generates. It seems a bit daft to imply somebody who drives a few hundred miles a year in the emission zone should be treated the same as someone who drives thousands.
Khan doesn't have a clue.
Somebody else who drives say 500 miles in a newer vehicle won't be charged despite generating more emissions.
Who generates more emissions?
3 - Sponsored links:
-
Don’t have a pop at Khan ? The man who brought this scheme forward 17 months ?
Buy electric is, apparently, an option. Great. Where do we charge the vehicles ?
This is about raising money and about votes. Brought forward because he’s skinted TfL and because there’s an election in 2020.
For every 2 white van men sitting in their vans at traffic lights, you’ll see 15 long bearded hipsters on bikes, commuting from Hackney to the City. 15 votes against 2. And those 2 probably live in Kent and Essex anyway.2 -
Perhaps the person who only drives their old diesel for roughly 2 miles a day will be encouraged to walk, or cycle.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
I'll try and make it simple for you. If you own an old diesel, use it three times a week in the emission zone and drive say six miles then under ULEZ you will pay £37.50 to do so.Stu_of_Kunming said:
They won't be treated the same though, will they? I'm no fan of Khan, but let's not just make things up to have a pop at him.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:The ULEZ is a half baked idea which will just be used to generate revenue. It's ludicrous there is no compensation scheme in place and it will unfairly target the poor who can't afford to replace their vehicles.
Perfectly serviceable vehicles will end up being scrapped which doesn't seem very green and there is no account taken of how much pollution each individual generates. It seems a bit daft to imply somebody who drives a few hundred miles a year in the emission zone should be treated the same as someone who drives thousands.
Khan doesn't have a clue.
Somebody else who drives say 500 miles in a newer vehicle won't be charged despite generating more emissions.
Who generates more emissions?
Whilst I accept the system is not perfect, we need to do something to reduce the emissions we produce and the number of cars on the road.
What do you propose we do about it, as I assume we agree doing nothing is out of the question.0 -
We probably aren’t going to have the generating capacity for existing needs then let alone additional capacity for charging cars as well.MrOneLung said:If they are serious about reducing the pollution why not say only electric cars allowed from 2025 (the year not the time)
Generating electricity isnt always clean either.0 -
The high mileage newer vehicle presumably, though that would depend on how dirty the older vehicle was. Remember this is targeting NOx and soot, not CO2.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
I'll try and make it simple for you. If you own an old diesel, use it three times a week in the emission zone and drive say six miles then under ULEZ you will pay £37.50 to do so.Stu_of_Kunming said:
They won't be treated the same though, will they? I'm no fan of Khan, but let's not just make things up to have a pop at him.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:The ULEZ is a half baked idea which will just be used to generate revenue. It's ludicrous there is no compensation scheme in place and it will unfairly target the poor who can't afford to replace their vehicles.
Perfectly serviceable vehicles will end up being scrapped which doesn't seem very green and there is no account taken of how much pollution each individual generates. It seems a bit daft to imply somebody who drives a few hundred miles a year in the emission zone should be treated the same as someone who drives thousands.
Khan doesn't have a clue.
Somebody else who drives say 500 miles in a newer vehicle won't be charged despite generating more emissions.
Who generates more emissions?
And the number of people who drive 2 miles 3 times a week will be tiny.0 -
Disposing of the batteries is also a huge problem.letthegoodtimesroll said:
We probably aren’t going to have the generating capacity for existing needs then let alone additional capacity for charging cars as well.MrOneLung said:If they are serious about reducing the pollution why not say only electric cars allowed from 2025 (the year not the time)
Generating electricity is always clean either.
My main form of transport has been electric for the last 7 years and batter quality has improved ten fold, which is good news.0 -
I'm glad your pancakes are nicer now, can't stand soggy fish and chips either!Stu_of_Kunming said:
Disposing of the batteries is also a huge problem.letthegoodtimesroll said:
We probably aren’t going to have the generating capacity for existing needs then let alone additional capacity for charging cars as well.MrOneLung said:If they are serious about reducing the pollution why not say only electric cars allowed from 2025 (the year not the time)
Generating electricity is always clean either.
My main form of transport has been electric for the last 7 years and batter quality has improved ten fold, which is good news.3 -
Wasn’t aware of this. I have a diesel Campervan (2011) and a diesel Audi A5 (2013) and neither are clean enough u fed these rules. I live inside the enlarged zone and so although I do hardly any miles, if I go to Sainsbury’s it’s going to cost me a tenner.
if I go away for the weekend in the Campervan it’s going to cost me £20.
Sounds annoying to me as I thought when I bought both that diesel was greener.0 -
Leave AFKA and his stature out of thiskillerandflash said:
The high mileage newer vehicle presumably, though that would depend on how dirty the older vehicle was. Remember this is targeting NOx and soot, not CO2.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
I'll try and make it simple for you. If you own an old diesel, use it three times a week in the emission zone and drive say six miles then under ULEZ you will pay £37.50 to do so.Stu_of_Kunming said:
They won't be treated the same though, will they? I'm no fan of Khan, but let's not just make things up to have a pop at him.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:The ULEZ is a half baked idea which will just be used to generate revenue. It's ludicrous there is no compensation scheme in place and it will unfairly target the poor who can't afford to replace their vehicles.
Perfectly serviceable vehicles will end up being scrapped which doesn't seem very green and there is no account taken of how much pollution each individual generates. It seems a bit daft to imply somebody who drives a few hundred miles a year in the emission zone should be treated the same as someone who drives thousands.
Khan doesn't have a clue.
Somebody else who drives say 500 miles in a newer vehicle won't be charged despite generating more emissions.
Who generates more emissions?
And the number of people who drive 2 miles 3 times a week will be tiny.2 -
Yes a few years back we were all told diesel was 'greener' so invested in them. Company car drivers even accepted the 3% surcharge on their private benefit in order to be 'green'.Alwaysneil said:Wasn’t aware of this. I have a diesel Campervan (2011) and a diesel Audi A5 (2013) and neither are clean enough u fed these rules. I live inside the enlarged zone and so although I do hardly any miles, if I go to Sainsbury’s it’s going to cost me a tenner.
if I go away for the weekend in the Campervan it’s going to cost me £20.
Sounds annoying to me as I thought when I bought both that diesel was greener.
Needless to say now so many are committed to diesel the thieving bastards move the goal posts to extort more money from decent ordinary working people.
Man made climate change is just a money making scam to enable the ruling class to extort more money from those that cannot afford it.
Those that can afford it will be miraculously 'exempt' for some reason or it will be paid by their employer even if that employer is the government quango that enforced the charge in the first place.
Scam, scam, scam.
3 -
I suppose the earth is flat too.
How some can still deny man made climate change is a real thing is beyond me.5
