Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
ULEZ Checker
Comments
-
Yes, other cities including Bath are bringing in local schemespaulbaconsarnie said:Are any other major uk cities having similar schemes?
there must surely be air quality issues in and around Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow etc.
Why couldn’t an equation using a vehicles mot emmisions test and mileage travelled be used nationwide to put annual charges on the most polluting vehicles?
These are local schemes as inner cities are the places where air quality is an issue. A coastal town, battered by gales from the sea has no air quality issues, so doesn't need a ULEZ scheme1 -
Portsmouth Clean Air Zone coming soonpaulbaconsarnie said:Are any other major uk cities having similar schemes?
there must surely be air quality issues in and around Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow etc.
Why couldn’t an equation using a vehicles mot emmisions test and mileage travelled be used nationwide to put annual charges on the most polluting vehicles?
https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/lifestyle/outdoors/portsmouth-clean-air-zone-what-is-a-clean-air-zone-when-does-it-start-in-portsmouth-what-vehicles-will-be-charged-and-how-much-will-it-cost-3431539
It even says in the article that it's the government's preferred method to address air pollution in cities, so expect more to follow2 -
Birmingham, Bristol and Bath that I know of. I'm sure there are plenty more.paulbaconsarnie said:Are any other major uk cities having similar schemes?
there must surely be air quality issues in and around Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow etc.
Why couldn’t an equation using a vehicles mot emmisions test and mileage travelled be used nationwide to put annual charges on the most polluting vehicles?0 -
Don't be a silly. Caseloads, distances, equipment, safety, we can no longer expect front line key workers to accept getting frozen and soaked through in the course of their demanding jobs.iainment said:
Why?Fortune 82nd Minute said:
My wife used to be a nurse. She worked with a lot of district nurses who had to go out and visit patients. If you think those journeys could be made on a bike, as in the old days, you are absolutely and utterly deluded.iainment said:
Which is why I said most.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Or you're a carer making multiple short journeys, elderly, disabled, delivery driver etc etcvalleynick66 said:
Unless you are carrying a weekly food shop ! But otherwise yes I agree public transport can be better.iainment said:Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.However when I was growing up very few people on my estate had cars.
Carers made home visits, I can clearly remember the nurse cycling around. Deliveries were made using trade bikes. We used to shop locally most of the time with occasional bus trips into Slough if needed.
There is a proportion of people now who have been habituated into a belief that existence without a car is impossible. I accept that without a viable public transport system it might be very hard but London is fantastically well resourced for public transport.As I said most London journeys can better be made without a car.
3 -
If we’re serious about resolving climate change many things have to change. Properly resourced and staffed domicilliary care being one.Wheresmeticket? said:
Don't be a silly. Caseloads, distances, equipment, safety, we can no longer expect front line key workers to accept getting frozen and soaked through in the course of their demanding jobs.iainment said:
Why?Fortune 82nd Minute said:
My wife used to be a nurse. She worked with a lot of district nurses who had to go out and visit patients. If you think those journeys could be made on a bike, as in the old days, you are absolutely and utterly deluded.iainment said:
Which is why I said most.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Or you're a carer making multiple short journeys, elderly, disabled, delivery driver etc etcvalleynick66 said:
Unless you are carrying a weekly food shop ! But otherwise yes I agree public transport can be better.iainment said:Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.However when I was growing up very few people on my estate had cars.
Carers made home visits, I can clearly remember the nurse cycling around. Deliveries were made using trade bikes. We used to shop locally most of the time with occasional bus trips into Slough if needed.
There is a proportion of people now who have been habituated into a belief that existence without a car is impossible. I accept that without a viable public transport system it might be very hard but London is fantastically well resourced for public transport.As I said most London journeys can better be made without a car.2 -
But it’s not about the money really. The idea is to get these vehicles off the road. A daily toll on a polluting vehicle will both discourage its use and encourage the owner to replace it. I really do realise it’s tough but a start has to be made somewhere. The poorest are always going to suffer disproportionately to the well off. All the time our society is based on rich and poor that’s the way it’s going to be.paulbaconsarnie said:Are any other major uk cities having similar schemes?
there must surely be air quality issues in and around Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow etc.
Why couldn’t an equation using a vehicles mot emmisions test and mileage travelled be used nationwide to put annual charges on the most polluting vehicles?4 -
You could increase the number of carers 10 and it would still be unacceptable to expect them to cycle around.iainment said:
If we’re serious about resolving climate change many things have to change. Properly resourced and staffed domicilliary care being one.Wheresmeticket? said:
Don't be a silly. Caseloads, distances, equipment, safety, we can no longer expect front line key workers to accept getting frozen and soaked through in the course of their demanding jobs.iainment said:
Why?Fortune 82nd Minute said:
My wife used to be a nurse. She worked with a lot of district nurses who had to go out and visit patients. If you think those journeys could be made on a bike, as in the old days, you are absolutely and utterly deluded.iainment said:
Which is why I said most.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Or you're a carer making multiple short journeys, elderly, disabled, delivery driver etc etcvalleynick66 said:
Unless you are carrying a weekly food shop ! But otherwise yes I agree public transport can be better.iainment said:Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.However when I was growing up very few people on my estate had cars.
Carers made home visits, I can clearly remember the nurse cycling around. Deliveries were made using trade bikes. We used to shop locally most of the time with occasional bus trips into Slough if needed.
There is a proportion of people now who have been habituated into a belief that existence without a car is impossible. I accept that without a viable public transport system it might be very hard but London is fantastically well resourced for public transport.As I said most London journeys can better be made without a car.
However, the ULEZ charge seems like a fantastic idea and hopefully it’s rolled out to every city in the UK, or Europe, or the World ASAP! Whilst a total ban would be better, the management of such a ban would be a nightmare, better to take small considered steps.
Anyone claiming this hasn’t week well advertised must live with their head firmly down a hole.6 -
That’s true but it’s different to what’s expected of a visiting nurse. Not everyone on their list of calls is either wanting or needing to go into domicilliary care. Some people are young fit and healthy who might need a post surgery dressing change.
0 -
As I said earlier this where e cargo bikes come in.Stu_of_Kunming said:
You could increase the number of carers 10 and it would still be unacceptable to expect them to cycle around.iainment said:
If we’re serious about resolving climate change many things have to change. Properly resourced and staffed domicilliary care being one.Wheresmeticket? said:
Don't be a silly. Caseloads, distances, equipment, safety, we can no longer expect front line key workers to accept getting frozen and soaked through in the course of their demanding jobs.iainment said:
Why?Fortune 82nd Minute said:
My wife used to be a nurse. She worked with a lot of district nurses who had to go out and visit patients. If you think those journeys could be made on a bike, as in the old days, you are absolutely and utterly deluded.iainment said:
Which is why I said most.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Or you're a carer making multiple short journeys, elderly, disabled, delivery driver etc etcvalleynick66 said:
Unless you are carrying a weekly food shop ! But otherwise yes I agree public transport can be better.iainment said:Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.However when I was growing up very few people on my estate had cars.
Carers made home visits, I can clearly remember the nurse cycling around. Deliveries were made using trade bikes. We used to shop locally most of the time with occasional bus trips into Slough if needed.
There is a proportion of people now who have been habituated into a belief that existence without a car is impossible. I accept that without a viable public transport system it might be very hard but London is fantastically well resourced for public transport.As I said most London journeys can better be made without a car.
However, the ULEZ charge seems like a fantastic idea and hopefully it’s rolled out to every city in the UK, or Europe, or the World ASAP! Whilst a total ban would be better, the management of such a ban would be a nightmare, better to take small considered steps.
Anyone claiming this hasn’t week well advertised must live with their head firmly down a hole.0 -
So you’d happily put carers at an increased risk rather than finding much easier ways of improving the environment?iainment said:
As I said earlier this where e cargo bikes come in.Stu_of_Kunming said:
You could increase the number of carers 10 and it would still be unacceptable to expect them to cycle around.iainment said:
If we’re serious about resolving climate change many things have to change. Properly resourced and staffed domicilliary care being one.Wheresmeticket? said:
Don't be a silly. Caseloads, distances, equipment, safety, we can no longer expect front line key workers to accept getting frozen and soaked through in the course of their demanding jobs.iainment said:
Why?Fortune 82nd Minute said:
My wife used to be a nurse. She worked with a lot of district nurses who had to go out and visit patients. If you think those journeys could be made on a bike, as in the old days, you are absolutely and utterly deluded.iainment said:
Which is why I said most.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Or you're a carer making multiple short journeys, elderly, disabled, delivery driver etc etcvalleynick66 said:
Unless you are carrying a weekly food shop ! But otherwise yes I agree public transport can be better.iainment said:Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.However when I was growing up very few people on my estate had cars.
Carers made home visits, I can clearly remember the nurse cycling around. Deliveries were made using trade bikes. We used to shop locally most of the time with occasional bus trips into Slough if needed.
There is a proportion of people now who have been habituated into a belief that existence without a car is impossible. I accept that without a viable public transport system it might be very hard but London is fantastically well resourced for public transport.As I said most London journeys can better be made without a car.
However, the ULEZ charge seems like a fantastic idea and hopefully it’s rolled out to every city in the UK, or Europe, or the World ASAP! Whilst a total ban would be better, the management of such a ban would be a nightmare, better to take small considered steps.
Anyone claiming this hasn’t week well advertised must live with their head firmly down a hole.0 - Sponsored links:
-
I agree but asking care / health workers with high caseloads and who need to carry equipment to cycle around from patient to patient is probably not the most obvious target? I would say that doesn't count as properly resourcing. Buying them electric cars might be a more obvious solution?iainment said:
If we’re serious about resolving climate change many things have to change. Properly resourced and staffed domicilliary care being one.Wheresmeticket? said:
Don't be a silly. Caseloads, distances, equipment, safety, we can no longer expect front line key workers to accept getting frozen and soaked through in the course of their demanding jobs.iainment said:
Why?Fortune 82nd Minute said:
My wife used to be a nurse. She worked with a lot of district nurses who had to go out and visit patients. If you think those journeys could be made on a bike, as in the old days, you are absolutely and utterly deluded.iainment said:
Which is why I said most.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Or you're a carer making multiple short journeys, elderly, disabled, delivery driver etc etcvalleynick66 said:
Unless you are carrying a weekly food shop ! But otherwise yes I agree public transport can be better.iainment said:Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.However when I was growing up very few people on my estate had cars.
Carers made home visits, I can clearly remember the nurse cycling around. Deliveries were made using trade bikes. We used to shop locally most of the time with occasional bus trips into Slough if needed.
There is a proportion of people now who have been habituated into a belief that existence without a car is impossible. I accept that without a viable public transport system it might be very hard but London is fantastically well resourced for public transport.As I said most London journeys can better be made without a car.0 -
Do you think this will improve recruitment?iainment said:
As I said earlier this where e cargo bikes come in.Stu_of_Kunming said:
You could increase the number of carers 10 and it would still be unacceptable to expect them to cycle around.iainment said:
If we’re serious about resolving climate change many things have to change. Properly resourced and staffed domicilliary care being one.Wheresmeticket? said:
Don't be a silly. Caseloads, distances, equipment, safety, we can no longer expect front line key workers to accept getting frozen and soaked through in the course of their demanding jobs.iainment said:
Why?Fortune 82nd Minute said:
My wife used to be a nurse. She worked with a lot of district nurses who had to go out and visit patients. If you think those journeys could be made on a bike, as in the old days, you are absolutely and utterly deluded.iainment said:
Which is why I said most.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Or you're a carer making multiple short journeys, elderly, disabled, delivery driver etc etcvalleynick66 said:
Unless you are carrying a weekly food shop ! But otherwise yes I agree public transport can be better.iainment said:Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.However when I was growing up very few people on my estate had cars.
Carers made home visits, I can clearly remember the nurse cycling around. Deliveries were made using trade bikes. We used to shop locally most of the time with occasional bus trips into Slough if needed.
There is a proportion of people now who have been habituated into a belief that existence without a car is impossible. I accept that without a viable public transport system it might be very hard but London is fantastically well resourced for public transport.As I said most London journeys can better be made without a car.
However, the ULEZ charge seems like a fantastic idea and hopefully it’s rolled out to every city in the UK, or Europe, or the World ASAP! Whilst a total ban would be better, the management of such a ban would be a nightmare, better to take small considered steps.
Anyone claiming this hasn’t week well advertised must live with their head firmly down a hole.0 -
Goodbye ULEZ thread
3 -
Cut and paste from gumtree ad for a battered 11 year old Renault van offered at £2,200
"Reason for the relatively high price given the dent is that the van market is high at the moment."
Gotta love the cheek.0 -
There's a British company called Arrival that is designing commercial electric vehicles.
The engines are modular and plug and play. The body materials are new, lightweight and recyclable. Production lines can be set up in months into micro factories and UPS have ordered 10,000 vans already.
Think this company could be going places especially in this climate (pun intended).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZCrd704g20
2 -
"Colourful Russian Billionaire"
0 -
https://www.roads.org.uk/blog/no-smoke-without-ire
A very good (and balanced) article explaining how the various ULEZ schemes across the country work, and why they're happening - I hadn't realised how much the Department for Transport is involved.3 -
I avoid the shithole of our capital, so they won't be getting my money
2 -
Hold on - so NOW you are advocating electric bikes?iainment said:
As I said earlier this where e cargo bikes come in.Stu_of_Kunming said:
You could increase the number of carers 10 and it would still be unacceptable to expect them to cycle around.iainment said:
If we’re serious about resolving climate change many things have to change. Properly resourced and staffed domicilliary care being one.Wheresmeticket? said:
Don't be a silly. Caseloads, distances, equipment, safety, we can no longer expect front line key workers to accept getting frozen and soaked through in the course of their demanding jobs.iainment said:
Why?Fortune 82nd Minute said:
My wife used to be a nurse. She worked with a lot of district nurses who had to go out and visit patients. If you think those journeys could be made on a bike, as in the old days, you are absolutely and utterly deluded.iainment said:
Which is why I said most.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Or you're a carer making multiple short journeys, elderly, disabled, delivery driver etc etcvalleynick66 said:
Unless you are carrying a weekly food shop ! But otherwise yes I agree public transport can be better.iainment said:Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.However when I was growing up very few people on my estate had cars.
Carers made home visits, I can clearly remember the nurse cycling around. Deliveries were made using trade bikes. We used to shop locally most of the time with occasional bus trips into Slough if needed.
There is a proportion of people now who have been habituated into a belief that existence without a car is impossible. I accept that without a viable public transport system it might be very hard but London is fantastically well resourced for public transport.As I said most London journeys can better be made without a car.
However, the ULEZ charge seems like a fantastic idea and hopefully it’s rolled out to every city in the UK, or Europe, or the World ASAP! Whilst a total ban would be better, the management of such a ban would be a nightmare, better to take small considered steps.
Anyone claiming this hasn’t week well advertised must live with their head firmly down a hole.0 - Sponsored links:
-
I’m a self employed courier. I drive a 13 plate van that falls into ULEZ charge. Today I had a customer asking me to collect from Armstrong Road SE18 over to Great Dunmow. Usually I would go Blackwall tunnel but that meant as soon as I go past the ferry roundabout it’s boom £12.50 for Mr Khan, so Dartford tunnel it was then! The only reason I have the older van was because my previous one was stolen and I needed to stay on the road and in business as I couldn’t afford an all out ULEZ compliant van two years ago. This is such a tax not a charge to help TFL. If it wasn’t no vehicle would be allowed at all but all it says is you drive your non compliant vehicle in the area if you pay the £12.50 as paying that will make the air better! Remember when pubs stopped smokers smoking inside if that was the case the landlord could have said no smoking in here mate but if you pay me £10 you can smoke in here!3
-
But it is about the money.ShootersHillGuru said:
But it’s not about the money really. The idea is to get these vehicles off the road. A daily toll on a polluting vehicle will both discourage its use and encourage the owner to replace it. I really do realise it’s tough but a start has to be made somewhere. The poorest are always going to suffer disproportionately to the well off. All the time our society is based on rich and poor that’s the way it’s going to be.paulbaconsarnie said:Are any other major uk cities having similar schemes?
there must surely be air quality issues in and around Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow etc.
Why couldn’t an equation using a vehicles mot emmisions test and mileage travelled be used nationwide to put annual charges on the most polluting vehicles?
Otherwise we would find ourselves with a scheme similar to the one in Berlin. Just before COVID hit, I drove to Berlin. In order to get into their LEZ you need to have a green sticker in your windscreen with your number plate written in it. You apply to the City web site to get one. It costs 6 Euros, which might just about cover their costs and postage I suppose. It pitched up amazingly quickly and lasts for as long as you have the car. It is also good for any other German City that has a similar scheme.
So, what happens if you drive (or park) in Berlin in a car without a green sticker? You get fined 80 Euros.
In short, you are just not allowed in the City centre with a non-compliant vehicle. Berlin is getting towards having cleaner air. Rather than the dumb system London has introduced where the polluter pays but is allowed to carry on polluting. Bonkers.2 -
@killerandflash, agreed, but then why not make countrywide rules? Air quality falls below level 'x', 'y' ULEZ charge applies? Because then people will moan at the Government, not the local authorities. Instead, the Government have passed the back to the local area. I'm not saying Governments of other parties wouldn't do the same but it's pretty clear that's what's happened.killerandflash said:
It's only big cities which NEED clean air zones, and that's a local issue. It would be daft making rural areas follow the same rules as inner London or Birmingham, when air quality isn't a problem thereAddicksAddict said:
He's using his power to try to save lives, and with the backing of the Government. Indeed, the Government wants (mainly Labour) city officials doing their dirty air work for them so people like you get annoyed at them. Good on Khan. I'd be happy if everything but electric or hydrogen was banned from London (except my Bonneville, of course, special exemption for British motorbikes).thickandthin63 said:I got a lot of stick on here some time ago when I moaned about Khan putting up the congestion charge,well surprise surprise,he is now using his power to fleece even more from the motorist.How did this dictatorial pipsqueak get re-elected,presumably no one else wanted the job.0 -
I think cargo bikes being used for a days work are an exception that is a good thing.MrOneLung said:
Hold on - so NOW you are advocating electric bikes?iainment said:
As I said earlier this where e cargo bikes come in.Stu_of_Kunming said:
You could increase the number of carers 10 and it would still be unacceptable to expect them to cycle around.iainment said:
If we’re serious about resolving climate change many things have to change. Properly resourced and staffed domicilliary care being one.Wheresmeticket? said:
Don't be a silly. Caseloads, distances, equipment, safety, we can no longer expect front line key workers to accept getting frozen and soaked through in the course of their demanding jobs.iainment said:
Why?Fortune 82nd Minute said:
My wife used to be a nurse. She worked with a lot of district nurses who had to go out and visit patients. If you think those journeys could be made on a bike, as in the old days, you are absolutely and utterly deluded.iainment said:
Which is why I said most.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Or you're a carer making multiple short journeys, elderly, disabled, delivery driver etc etcvalleynick66 said:
Unless you are carrying a weekly food shop ! But otherwise yes I agree public transport can be better.iainment said:Most London journeys can better be done by public transport, walking or cycling.However when I was growing up very few people on my estate had cars.
Carers made home visits, I can clearly remember the nurse cycling around. Deliveries were made using trade bikes. We used to shop locally most of the time with occasional bus trips into Slough if needed.
There is a proportion of people now who have been habituated into a belief that existence without a car is impossible. I accept that without a viable public transport system it might be very hard but London is fantastically well resourced for public transport.As I said most London journeys can better be made without a car.
However, the ULEZ charge seems like a fantastic idea and hopefully it’s rolled out to every city in the UK, or Europe, or the World ASAP! Whilst a total ban would be better, the management of such a ban would be a nightmare, better to take small considered steps.
Anyone claiming this hasn’t week well advertised must live with their head firmly down a hole.0 -
If you read the article I posted (from roads.org) that's exactly how it works. If air quality falls below a certain level, the local authority in England has to introduce an ULEZ or find other ways of improving air qualityAddicksAddict said:
@killerandflash, agreed, but then why not make countrywide rules? Air quality falls below level 'x', 'y' ULEZ charge applies? Because then people will moan at the Government, not the local authorities. Instead, the Government have passed the back to the local area. I'm not saying Governments of other parties wouldn't do the same but it's pretty clear that's what's happened.killerandflash said:
It's only big cities which NEED clean air zones, and that's a local issue. It would be daft making rural areas follow the same rules as inner London or Birmingham, when air quality isn't a problem thereAddicksAddict said:
He's using his power to try to save lives, and with the backing of the Government. Indeed, the Government wants (mainly Labour) city officials doing their dirty air work for them so people like you get annoyed at them. Good on Khan. I'd be happy if everything but electric or hydrogen was banned from London (except my Bonneville, of course, special exemption for British motorbikes).thickandthin63 said:I got a lot of stick on here some time ago when I moaned about Khan putting up the congestion charge,well surprise surprise,he is now using his power to fleece even more from the motorist.How did this dictatorial pipsqueak get re-elected,presumably no one else wanted the job.1 -
I'd have thought someone on their last lung would be a bit more concerned about air quality.MrOneLung said:TBH I didn’t know there was already a ULEZ within the congestion charge zone until mentioned on another thread a while back.1 -
Cabs are much more environmentally friendly than private cars, especially if they're electric. One vehicle being used reasonably constantly by lots of people or lots of vehicles being used occasionally by one or two people. I know which one makes more sense.O-Randy-Hunt said: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 -
It's all about money. Years ago we were advised that diesel cars were better for the environment. Now they've changed their minds as Khan can see 'a quick buck.'hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
But you won't get a decent price for your second hand diesel car - a lot of people bought them in good faith. You can replace it but be out of pocket.killerandflash said:
The difference for car owners is that there are loads of compliant secondhand petrol cars out there, whereas the stock of secondhand compliant vans will be tinyhoof_it_up_to_benty said:
I know loads of tradespeople who have been hammered by it - quite a cost involved. As for cars a lot of people will have to sell relatively new diesels and not get any help with replacing them.killerandflash said:
Van drivers are the ones most affected, as until recently the vast majority of vans were diesel powered. I imagine the cost of second hand Euro 6 vans has sky rocketedswords_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.3 -
If I had to drive into the zone on work, I'd do the same if my vehicle wasn't exempt.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ulez-congestion-charge-mps-expenses-b1942174.html
At least MPs can claim the charges on expenses - brilliant!2 -
LenGlover said:
It's all about money. Years ago we were advised that diesel cars were better for the environment. Now they've changed their minds as Khan can see 'a quick buck.'hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
But you won't get a decent price for your second hand diesel car - a lot of people bought them in good faith. You can replace it but be out of pocket.killerandflash said:
The difference for car owners is that there are loads of compliant secondhand petrol cars out there, whereas the stock of secondhand compliant vans will be tinyhoof_it_up_to_benty said:
I know loads of tradespeople who have been hammered by it - quite a cost involved. As for cars a lot of people will have to sell relatively new diesels and not get any help with replacing them.killerandflash said:
Van drivers are the ones most affected, as until recently the vast majority of vans were diesel powered. I imagine the cost of second hand Euro 6 vans has sky rocketedswords_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.
Yeh. It was Khan's idea that diesels are bad for the environment. Not the science.6
