Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
ULEZ Checker
Comments
-
First "offence" was usually a warning.soapy_jones said:Still smarting over grabbing a McDs at The Yorkshire Grey before the rugby at Well Hall last year.
Not being a local for a number of years, I poodled down the Rochester Way from my dads place at Ruxley, down memory lane past The Dutchouse, right at Wadhan Stringers roundabout where mum used to work in the office...
Couple of days later, £70 ULEZ fine from Citizen Karnt!!! So a quick cheeseburger and a coke cost me nearly £80.
I now know the entrance to McDs is IN the zone, the exit outside the zone...0 -
Lon0
-
London Borough of Bromley have also responded against the extension of the Zone. Fat lot of good it will do though1
-
As I say mate, only took that route as a trip down memory lane, with time to kill and was a bit peckish before the Rugby.Crusty54 said:
First "offence" was usually a warning.soapy_jones said:Still smarting over grabbing a McDs at The Yorkshire Grey before the rugby at Well Hall last year.
Not being a local for a number of years, I poodled down the Rochester Way from my dads place at Ruxley, down memory lane past The Dutchouse, right at Wadhan Stringers roundabout where mum used to work in the office...
Couple of days later, £70 ULEZ fine from Citizen Karnt!!! So a quick cheeseburger and a coke cost me nearly £80.
I now know the entrance to McDs is IN the zone, the exit outside the zone...
If I had gone my normal route through the top of Eltham to Well Hall, and hadn't fancied a snack I would never of touched the ULEZ.
You live and learn. Had paid the ULEZ a few weeks before to take my step mother to City Airport. Just never twigged.0 -
-
Yes, my son got a warning driving to a Charlton game in his Fiat Panda Multijet. He has only driven in his car once since and paid the £12.50.Crusty54 said:
First "offence" was usually a warning.soapy_jones said:Still smarting over grabbing a McDs at The Yorkshire Grey before the rugby at Well Hall last year.
Not being a local for a number of years, I poodled down the Rochester Way from my dads place at Ruxley, down memory lane past The Dutchouse, right at Wadhan Stringers roundabout where mum used to work in the office...
Couple of days later, £70 ULEZ fine from Citizen Karnt!!! So a quick cheeseburger and a coke cost me nearly £80.
I now know the entrance to McDs is IN the zone, the exit outside the zone...0 -
I actually think they are missing the point. Bexley village has a historic air quality problem due to its natural geography of being in a dip. This has resulted in a much higher incidence of asthma and other respiratory diseases (and non-respiratory including eczema) amongst children that are born and grow up there. The number of people in the borough that drive 4x4's for no reason is insane. If even a handful of them switch to a less polluting car the next time they trade in or upgrade then that will make a difference.Raith_C_Chattonell said:Bexley council's response to the proposed extension of ULEZ on 29th August 2023.
https://www.bexley.gov.uk/your-say-on-plans-to-extend-ulez/response-ulez-consultation5 -
I agree that the timing to bring this in is too fast, but I don't agree with some of the financial arguments here. I have a 20 year old petrol car which passes the ULEZ, so it's not as if private car owners face having to buy a new electric car or expensive secondhand model to comply. It's van drivers who face a bigger issue, due to older vans all being diesel, but even then how many small businesses only operate in Bexley and don't already have to cross the current ULEZ border of the A205 to visit clients?Raith_C_Chattonell said:Bexley council's response to the proposed extension of ULEZ on 29th August 2023.
https://www.bexley.gov.uk/your-say-on-plans-to-extend-ulez/response-ulez-consultation
This is about air quality, I imagine that with the school run congestion the air quality next to schools isn't great, and removing some of the dirtiest vehicles will go a long way to improving things.5 -
Yes I live in Sidcup so outside the ULEZ ( not for much longer? ).killerandflash said:I wonder is any Charlton fans from outside the ULEZ have changed the way they come to games because of the ULEZ?
Now I use the train, Sidcup to Charlton via Erith, or change at Lewisham is a bit quicker.
I’m becoming ‘proper Charlton’.
PS.. 05 plate Vauxhall Astra diesel for sale £800
12 months mot, just had full service.0 -
Even though the mayor’s ULEZ expansion policy is causing me angst and will cause me to give up car ownership altogether, I do understand & support the ULEZ expansion because I suffer from emphysema.
The transport ‘freedom pass’ is a brilliant idea.5 -
Sponsored links:
-
As most of the outer London Boroughs are non Socialist controlledaddick1956 said:My contention with Ulez is that the MOT test checks cars for pollution on a yearly basis. I wonder why this test cannot be made stricter. Surely it should be to remove polluting vehicles, not allow them to plough on for a fee. That doesn't clean any atmosphere. This makes me think it is about money .
I have an EV so remain unaffected but there are plenty of people reliant on older cars whose continued work in key places I am reliant upon.
If this were a Tory scheme do you think Bexley would oppose it ? Because I don't.
This may have a lot to get money that Boris has withdrawn in funding Tfl etc.
Do you think that this is a Khan plan to stick it to them because,using your logic, i do.
The Tfi lost a lot of its income because its customers were encouraged to stay at home because of Covid and were supported financially to do that by the wicked Tory government. They need to recover that income, which will be hard, because so many people are still working from home.
0 -
Ban them or don’t.Don’t let people get away with it just cause they can afford to pay it
you don’t go into the pub and pay an extra tenner to be allowed to smoke.4 -
Absolutely SHOCKED Bexley and Bromley would oppose this.1
-
But that's complete bollocks tho isn't it. All the arguments are that this will hit people hard and that many can't afford to upgrade their car etc etc. Completely true and valid arguments. Imagine how hard it would hit them if suddenly their car was banned from the road.MrOneLung said:Ban them or don’t.Don’t let people get away with it just cause they can afford to pay it
you don’t go into the pub and pay an extra tenner to be allowed to smoke.
The economics of this is sound. There is an issue with air pollution. Cars are a big part of this. Identify the worst polluting Cars and give an incentive for them not use it in those areas. If people are unable to or dont want to upgrade they don't have to but they do have to pay for the pollution they produce, there is still an incentive for them to reduce the amount they travel into that zone. So will still have a positive impact.
This works. So many people have modified their behaviour. So many examples of people changing mode of transport or travelling less. My partners dad lives in medway and works from home. Every now and then he has to drive into London for work. He's started taking his wife's car rather than his as a result of this. That's a win.7 -
As much as I don't like khanage I wouldnt be surprised if this comes from above him from shapps. I also think even with those boroughs opposing the scheme it's coming whether we like it or not. Then we will have a pay per mile scheme.
It would be nice if Sadiq and Co could lead by example and swap their big gas guzzlers too.0 -
Agreed. And a total ban would penalise very low mileage drivers who might only use their older car occasionally, and at quiet times. Someone using their car say 6 times a year within the ULEZ will be contributing minimal pollution when compared to drivers who drive to work every day in rush hourcantersaddick said:
But that's complete bollocks tho isn't it. All the arguments are that this will hit people hard and that many can't afford to upgrade their car etc etc. Completely true and valid arguments. Imagine how hard it would hit them if suddenly their car was banned from the road.MrOneLung said:Ban them or don’t.Don’t let people get away with it just cause they can afford to pay it
you don’t go into the pub and pay an extra tenner to be allowed to smoke.
The economics of this is sound. There is an issue with air pollution. Cars are a big part of this. Identify the worst polluting Cars and give an incentive for them not use it in those areas. If people are unable to or domt want to upgrade they don't have to but they do have to pay for the pollution they produce, there is still an incentive for them to reduce the amount they travel into that zone. So will still have a positive impact.
This works. So many people have modified their behaviour. So many examples of people changing mode of transport or travelling less. My partners dad lives in medway and works from home. Every now and then he has to drive into London for work. He's started taking his wife's car rather than his as a rest of this. That's a win.2 -
I think that irksome Swedish environmentalist gnome "Grotty Beefberg" suggested as much in one of her forgettable emotional media tirades. (((((Yawn))))clb74 said:Wont be long before we are being charged for the air that we breathe.0 -
Just checked my Motorhome and it's 300 quid a day... ridiculous.0
-
Whilst his wife drives his car polluting Medway?cantersaddick said:
But that's complete bollocks tho isn't it. All the arguments are that this will hit people hard and that many can't afford to upgrade their car etc etc. Completely true and valid arguments. Imagine how hard it would hit them if suddenly their car was banned from the road.MrOneLung said:Ban them or don’t.Don’t let people get away with it just cause they can afford to pay it
you don’t go into the pub and pay an extra tenner to be allowed to smoke.
The economics of this is sound. There is an issue with air pollution. Cars are a big part of this. Identify the worst polluting Cars and give an incentive for them not use it in those areas. If people are unable to or dont want to upgrade they don't have to but they do have to pay for the pollution they produce, there is still an incentive for them to reduce the amount they travel into that zone. So will still have a positive impact.
This works. So many people have modified their behaviour. So many examples of people changing mode of transport or travelling less. My partners dad lives in medway and works from home. Every now and then he has to drive into London for work. He's started taking his wife's car rather than his as a result of this. That's a win.0 -
It's going to happen, imagine all the cameras going up for it. I wonder what they will be used for in the future....0
-
Sponsored links:
-
A) no. They both wfh mostly and tend to go in on different days.MrOneLung said:
Whilst his wife drives his car polluting Medway?cantersaddick said:
But that's complete bollocks tho isn't it. All the arguments are that this will hit people hard and that many can't afford to upgrade their car etc etc. Completely true and valid arguments. Imagine how hard it would hit them if suddenly their car was banned from the road.MrOneLung said:Ban them or don’t.Don’t let people get away with it just cause they can afford to pay it
you don’t go into the pub and pay an extra tenner to be allowed to smoke.
The economics of this is sound. There is an issue with air pollution. Cars are a big part of this. Identify the worst polluting Cars and give an incentive for them not use it in those areas. If people are unable to or dont want to upgrade they don't have to but they do have to pay for the pollution they produce, there is still an incentive for them to reduce the amount they travel into that zone. So will still have a positive impact.
This works. So many people have modified their behaviour. So many examples of people changing mode of transport or travelling less. My partners dad lives in medway and works from home. Every now and then he has to drive into London for work. He's started taking his wife's car rather than his as a result of this. That's a win.
b) the problem this is trying to solve is localised air pollution. Medway is not in the local area that has the issues bad enough to require a ULEZ. This behavioural change will still be having a positive impact.1 -
Can anyone explain why a vehicle can be top rate of road fund licence (£630 p/a) and yet ULEZ compliant?0
-
Again nope that doesn't work. See my previous answer.addick1956 said:
Possibly but he hasn't collected the .money from the last phase of Ulez. This started to help pollution but is seen in Central Office as a money cow 🐄.Bromley Graham said:
As most of the outer London Boroughs are non Socialist controlledaddick1956 said:My contention with Ulez is that the MOT test checks cars for pollution on a yearly basis. I wonder why this test cannot be made stricter. Surely it should be to remove polluting vehicles, not allow them to plough on for a fee. That doesn't clean any atmosphere. This makes me think it is about money .
I have an EV so remain unaffected but there are plenty of people reliant on older cars whose continued work in key places I am reliant upon.
If this were a Tory scheme do you think Bexley would oppose it ? Because I don't.
This may have a lot to get money that Boris has withdrawn in funding Tfl etc.
Do you think that this is a Khan plan to stick it to them because,using your logic, i do.
The Tfi lost a lot of its income because its customers were encouraged to stay at home because of Covid and were supported financially to do that by the wicked Tory government. They need to recover that income, which will be hard, because so many people are still working from home.
There is no doubt a war between the former mayor and Khan. This is ridiculous because this country needs a functioning capital.
If this was a completely genuine clean air policy just get rid of the pollution nightmare cars and stiffen the emissions test on the MOT.cantersaddick said:
But that's complete bollocks tho isn't it. All the arguments are that this will hit people hard and that many can't afford to upgrade their car etc etc. Completely true and valid arguments. Imagine how hard it would hit them if suddenly their car was banned from the road.MrOneLung said:Ban them or don’t.Don’t let people get away with it just cause they can afford to pay it
you don’t go into the pub and pay an extra tenner to be allowed to smoke.
The economics of this is sound. There is an issue with air pollution. Cars are a big part of this. Identify the worst polluting Cars and give an incentive for them not use it in those areas. If people are unable to or dont want to upgrade they don't have to but they do have to pay for the pollution they produce, there is still an incentive for them to reduce the amount they travel into that zone. So will still have a positive impact.
This works. So many people have modified their behaviour. So many examples of people changing mode of transport or travelling less. My partners dad lives in medway and works from home. Every now and then he has to drive into London for work. He's started taking his wife's car rather than his as a result of this. That's a win.
1 -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63754724Don’t know how we’re going to be able afford a similar family car0
-
Yep, we’re in the same boat. We bought a Diesel Qashqai 4 years ago because the government said we should which is still a fab car, really reliable and exactly what we need and love but thanks to that prick, I’m now going to have to find £10k in the next 7 months to buy an equivalent car that does the same bloody thing and try to flog mine somehow for peanuts. Not happy.EastTerrace said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-63754724Don’t know how we’re going to be able afford a similar family car0 -
We got our now 11 year old S-Max in 2014. We didn’t even want a diesel at the time but the vast majority are.
It’s a great car for us size wise, having three kids…. and although it’s getting a few niggly issues, it still has years in it.
Get some old petrol aging banger I guess unless again 10k appears from somewhere.
0 -
This from Bexley council's leader:- 24/1/23
We are continuing to campaign against the Mayor of London's plan to expand the ULEZ into the borough.
Our opposition to the proposal was one of our manifesto commitments at the elections last May, so we have a mandate for the campaign from our residents. The response to the consultation the Mayor carried out last year – which he is choosing to ignore – made clear that our residents continue to oppose the proposal.
We have refused to allow the Mayor of London to put his cameras on our street furniture, but he may have the powers to do so without our consent. We are working with other boroughs to gain further information from the Mayor to ascertain the lawfulness of the decisions he has taken recently. We are not currently engaging with TfL to progress agreements to allow works on our roads.
We believe that the expansion of the ULEZ into outer London with have a hugely negative impact on residents and businesses, particularly those on low incomes.
A growing coalition of London councils has written to the Mayor of London insisting on more evidence for his ill-conceived ULEZ expansion plans that stand to cause misery and chaos for residents and visitors to the outer boroughs.
The London boroughs of Bexley, Bromley, Harrow and Hillingdon are requesting the Mayor demonstrate the lawfulness of the proposals and the data behind them.
Until they have seen compelling evidence to the contrary, it remains the councils' position that the scheme will not translate successfully to outer London boroughs and that the negative impact to local households and economies will far outweigh the negligible air quality benefits.
2 -
A bit late lol but yes. Mainly because I pay the top rate car tax.Gribbo said:Can anyone explain why a vehicle can be top rate of road fund licence (£630 p/a) and yet ULEZ compliant?
The ULEZ is allegedly all to do with reducing NOx and PM (Nitrous Oxide and Particulate Matter. The latter being a diesel problem really.) This is stuff that is directly harmful to health.
Whereas car tax is set based upon CO2 emissions - the global warming gas. My car knocks out a lot of CO2 at 288g/km but not much in the way of harmful pollutants. So I don't pay to get in the ULEZ.
I also don't do a high milage so I'm probably better for the planet than say a low CO2 per km car doing a lot of miles.3 -
£110 million pound scrappage scheme launched yesterday.
Car drivers - who receive certain benefits - can apply for a £2000 grant to scrap or replace non-compliant vehicles.
The ULEZ van and minibus scrappage scheme is for eligible sole traders, micro businesses or charities with a registered address in London, to scrap or retrofit a van or minibus that does not meet the ULEZ emissions standard.
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/scrappage-schemes
0 -
2
