Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
ULEZ Checker
Comments
-
So what happens if everyone just pays the charge ?0
-
So every-time go to The Valley, it’s £12.50 less to spend in the pub, great.Car is only bloody ten years old and I didn’t even want a diesel, but at the time there were so few Petrol S-Max’s about.1
-
-
Saga Lout said:I find it interesting that all these apparently "green" schemes miraculously increase revenue for the government... There was even someone saying that when everyone (or the majority, at least) has moved to ULEZ compliant vehicles, they'll have to start taxing them as well to keep their revenue up. Government, national and local seem to have no end of things to spend our money on.1
-
Should have been announced ten years ago, giving people enough time to make their next purchase compliant.
3 -
cantersaddick said:hoof_it_up_to_benty said:cantersaddick said:hoof_it_up_to_benty said:killerandflash said:hoof_it_up_to_benty said:killerandflash said:swords_alive said:The negative impacts of the extended ULEZ are undoubtedly being overblown in some quarters. This is likely because it could have been implemented more sympathetically (with a scrappage scheme or vouchers as done in Coventry), and weak communications from TFL haven't helped.
The whole point is to remove the more polluting vehicles which surely everyone would agree is better for human health but this point seems to be commonly forgotten. Also there aren't that many vehicles affected (c.100,000 i think i heard recently).
I hear reports on the radio that fail to highlight that only specific older cars/vans are covered by the ULEZ charge- I.e. those that do not meet the euro4 and euro6 standards respectively.
There are probably thousands of people now avoiding the inner London roads on the false belief that there is a blanket charge.
From the RAC website;"Which vehicles will be affected by the London ULEZ?
Cars: Any diesel not conforming to Euro 6 emission standards and any petrol not conforming to Euro 4 emission standards
Petrol cars that meet the ULEZ standards are generally those registered with the DVLA after 2005, although cars that meet the standards have been available since 2001.Diesel cars that meet the standards are generally those registered with the DVLA after September 2015.
Vans: Minimum standards - Petrol: Euro 4; Diesel: Euro 6.
The ULEZ will be enforced based on the declared emissions of the vehicle rather than the age, however:
- All new diesel vans sold from September 2016 should meet the Euro 6 standard
- All petrol vans registered with the DVLA from January 2006 meet the Euro 4 standard
- HGVs: All vehicles in this category will need to meet Euro VI standards
Motorcycles and mopeds: All vehicles will need to meet Euro 3 emissions standards.
The ULEZ will be enforced based on the declared emissions of the vehicle rather than the age - but generally speaking Euro 3 engines as those registered with the DVLA after July 2007."
It's all fine unless it affects you.
A better compensation scheme would have helped.
If the scheme were completly green then why allow polluting diesels to continue access to the zone if they pay a fee - that's a nonsense.
Khan is also backing the Silvertown Tunnel which is an utterly ludicrous scheme.
The bit in bold is pretty ignorant. Its about gradual changes. In the short term it provides a disincentive to the use of the worst polluting cars in areas of high pollution so that they reduce journeys through that area, take alternative routes or they pay a cost for that pollution (money which is then spent on green schemes). In the medium term you get a shift away from the worse polluting vehicles as people choose better alternatives when you upgrade.
Dont really see what Khan or Silvertown have to do with this tbh.
Khan presents himself as focused on green issues yet is happy to support the polluting Silvertown scheme - that's why I highlighted it. I'd rather have a mayor in charge who was a bit more consistent in his thinking.
If such a large number of people are still unaware it hardly suggests the publicity has been a resounding success.
4 -
DaveMehmet said:Saga Lout said:I find it interesting that all these apparently "green" schemes miraculously increase revenue for the government... There was even someone saying that when everyone (or the majority, at least) has moved to ULEZ compliant vehicles, they'll have to start taxing them as well to keep their revenue up. Government, national and local seem to have no end of things to spend our money on.
Also the target for this is localised air quality so a blanket ban would be incredibly wasteful if it forced people into changing vehicles when they never travelled to these localised areas. This targets the emissions in the problem areas, improves the air quality, offers a choice and is economically efficient. Bar being an inconvenience to those who have apparently been driving the south circular every day but not noticed any of signs (or letters or advertising campaigns) that tell them its happening and so got a shock, I can't see a downside of it.5 -
EastTerrace said:Should have been announced ten years ago, giving people enough time to make their next purchase compliant.2
-
TBH I didn’t know there was already a ULEZ within the congestion charge zone until mentioned on another thread a while back.0
-
cantersaddick said:DaveMehmet said:Saga Lout said:I find it interesting that all these apparently "green" schemes miraculously increase revenue for the government... There was even someone saying that when everyone (or the majority, at least) has moved to ULEZ compliant vehicles, they'll have to start taxing them as well to keep their revenue up. Government, national and local seem to have no end of things to spend our money on.
Also the target for this is localised air quality so a blanket ban would be incredibly wasteful if it forced people into changing vehicles when they never travelled to these localised areas. This targets the emissions in the problem areas, improves the air quality, offers a choice and is economically efficient. Bar being an inconvenience to those who have apparently been driving the south circular every day but not noticed any of signs (or letters or advertising campaigns) that tell them its happening and so got a shock, I can't see a downside of it.
0 - Sponsored links:
-
hoof_it_up_to_benty said:cantersaddick said:DaveMehmet said:Saga Lout said:I find it interesting that all these apparently "green" schemes miraculously increase revenue for the government... There was even someone saying that when everyone (or the majority, at least) has moved to ULEZ compliant vehicles, they'll have to start taxing them as well to keep their revenue up. Government, national and local seem to have no end of things to spend our money on.
Also the target for this is localised air quality so a blanket ban would be incredibly wasteful if it forced people into changing vehicles when they never travelled to these localised areas. This targets the emissions in the problem areas, improves the air quality, offers a choice and is economically efficient. Bar being an inconvenience to those who have apparently been driving the south circular every day but not noticed any of signs (or letters or advertising campaigns) that tell them its happening and so got a shock, I can't see a downside of it.
Or if you get to the Yorkshire Grey and turn towards Eltham rather than Lee...0 -
EastTerrace said:Should have been announced ten years ago, giving people enough time to make their next purchase compliant.2
-
cantersaddick said:EastTerrace said:Should have been announced ten years ago, giving people enough time to make their next purchase compliant.1
-
hoof_it_up_to_benty said:cantersaddick said:EastTerrace said:Should have been announced ten years ago, giving people enough time to make their next purchase compliant.
On the other hand apparently people are dying or suffering significant health problems as a result of poor air quality. I don't know what else could be done to manage air pollution or should we just put up with it as one of the costs of living in a densly populated urban area?
What does seem odd to me is that the area immediately along the south circular has some of the worst pollution, but you can still drive any old piece of crap along it.0 -
It’s just going to effect those less well off the most, those that can’t afford just to buy a new car.
I’m fairly comfortable but I can’t afford to shell out for a like for like replacement of the car we have, outright, finance or leasing.
Some won’t even notice it or just buy a few car, for others it’s a pain and for those who find it hard financially, it hits the most. Fantastic.
0 -
And cantersaddick said:EastTerrace said:Should have been announced ten years ago, giving people enough time to make their next purchase compliant.0
-
cantersaddick said:EastTerrace said:Should have been announced ten years ago, giving people enough time to make their next purchase compliant.
Indeed the idea was first suggested when Boris was mayor1 -
cantersaddick said:What feels tough about this is the timing post Covid when household budgets are stretched for many. There is an argument it could have been delayed or perhaps the cost more gradually introduced.However, that is a similar argument for not implementing any tax changes in the economy more generally, not cutting the temporary universal credit uplift, free school meals in holiday time etc. Not easy financial choices and never the right time.So on balance if not now then when.But where I do take issue is believing the sums raised will be diverted to worthy green initiatives and not swallowed into the overall budgets in London or TFL. I have little faith too that if invested in green things they will be well planned or thought through - look at the ridiculous bus lanes/cycle lanes on the lower road near the Valley to see how bad traffic is or the cycle Lane bollards that were installed and then removed (as they needed to be) on Shooters Hill Road.This will be a revenue stream albeit with the right reasons at its heart.1
-
Mixed feelings on this and I do feel for those worst affected but the fact is that this was announced a long time ago. Enough time in my view for the vast majority of people to have planned ahead. Some people will never make plans no matter how long they have to do it. That’s just a fact of life. Bottom line is that something had to be done. It is done now and those hardest hit will now find a way to make the changes they should have been looking to do before midnight on 24th October. Change of any type is always brutal.5
-
EastTerrace said:It’s just going to effect those less well off the most, those that can’t afford just to buy a new car.
I’m fairly comfortable but I can’t afford to shell out for a like for like replacement of the car we have, outright, finance or leasing.
Some won’t even notice it or just buy a few car, for others it’s a pain and for those who find it hard financially, it hits the most. Fantastic.3 - Sponsored links:
-
I am hoping it will get extended to inside the M25 at a suitable time.
Certainly within the next decade.2 -
cantersaddick said:EastTerrace said:It’s just going to effect those less well off the most, those that can’t afford just to buy a new car.
I’m fairly comfortable but I can’t afford to shell out for a like for like replacement of the car we have, outright, finance or leasing.
Some won’t even notice it or just buy a few car, for others it’s a pain and for those who find it hard financially, it hits the most. Fantastic.
I don't think you understand the struggle some people have.
Lower life expectancy has many more factors than air quality as you well know.
In the long term a lot of poorer people will be driven off the road...
0 -
Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.2
-
"Decile". I'm out.1
-
iainment said:Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.0
-
iainment said:Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.0
-
valleynick66 said:iainment said:Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.0
-
The income spent on green initiatives my arse. Tfl are broke and have been for many years. They have nearly 600 staff on the gravy train earning 6 figure salaries. If the air was so deadly they wouldnt allow the well off to pay the 12.50 per day to drive the deadly vehicles. Force them into paying £100 per day and see them switch then.
'Your vehicle is too deadly to drive within the south/north circular unless you can afford to pay the £12.50 then it's all good'
Then let's not forget tfl licensed another 470 vehicles in one week to drive on their roads, 300+ the week before and I'd guess another 3 to 400 this week all because they make £300 per vehicle.3 -
EastTerrace said:Should have been announced ten years ago, giving people enough time to make their next purchase compliant.1
-
Crusty54 said:EastTerrace said:Should have been announced ten years ago, giving people enough time to make their next purchase compliant.0