Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
ULEZ Checker
Comments
-
Someone explain this to me then
https://youtu.be/fMJwAlT7kdA
It would make a few things make more sense such as the higher rate of respiratory illness in London as most Londoners get around the place on the underground
If air quality was as desperately awful as the picture that is being painted why not go the whole hog and ban and non-compliant vehicles full stop. Electric only which definitely don't leave a colossal carbon footprint or kick a huge ecological can down the road2 -
It's been done before but the economics and behavioural science of this is sound. A ban is an incredibly blunt instrument. A tax on the polluter which is what this essentially is has been proven to work. It gives people choice. Those who can easily adapt or upgrade do so and those who cant do so, they pay for the pollution they produce (or rather towards it). And so the most efficient way of reaching the targeted level of pollution reduction is reached. It works.Carter said:Someone explain this to me thenhttps://youtu.be/fMJwAlT7kdA
It would make a few things make more sense such as the higher rate of respiratory illness in London as most Londoners get around the place on the underground
If air quality was as desperately awful as the picture that is being painted why not go the whole hog and ban and non-compliant vehicles full stop. Electric only which definitely don't leave a colossal carbon footprint or kick a huge ecological can down the road
As for your last sentence. I don't think anyone thinks that the current generation of battery electric cars are the long term solution but they are a step on the way there. The tech will develop and improve as recent breakthroughs in battery tech proves. They're gonna look massively different in 10 years time. But without that intermediate step the progress can't and won't happen.15 -
Just gonna highlight this bit again so you see how much of a problem it is.cantersaddick said:
And Bath Bristol and others are having ULEZ brought in.Rothko said:
It’s about the same, hence why Birmingham and Manchester have government backed and funded Clean Air Zones that charge those driving high emission carsChiAddick said:Genuine question: Is the air quality in Greater London really less than that of other cities in the UK - notably, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool etc... It does seem Londoners are being punished.
The difference between those places and greater London is that the majority of the population of those city's don't actually live in the areas with the pollution problem. The problem is in a much smaller area. They live in the outskirts and travel in. Whereas in London it's very common for people to spend the majority of their time in the greater London area and very normal for people to not leave the area for months on end. The damage to people's body's is awful.
Incidence rates of non- smoking lung cancers are 1 in 5 million in the UK. Or 1 in 5,000 in greater London. Thats a horrendous difference.2 -
I'm not sure but I suspect that the Mayor does not have the power to ban cars from the roads.3
-
They are remarkable stats.
there are 67 million people in the UK
there are 9 million people in London.
In a defined timeframe, there will be 11 incidents of non smoking related lung cancer outside of London, and 1,800 in London?
What is that timeframe and where are these stats from?1 -
Don't give him ideas, he will put a dirty air charge on every passenger using the tube. Its a shame he didn't have any say in the smoking ban. Smokers could have given the landlord a tenner and carried on smoking.Carter said:Someone explain this to me thenhttps://youtu.be/fMJwAlT7kdA
It would make a few things make more sense such as the higher rate of respiratory illness in London as most Londoners get around the place on the underground
If air quality was as desperately awful as the picture that is being painted why not go the whole hog and ban and non-compliant vehicles full stop. Electric only which definitely don't leave a colossal carbon footprint or kick a huge ecological can down the road0 -
Shaun Bailey isn't running.Friend Or Defoe said:
Massive increase in council houses and he's frozen tube and bus fares. The mayor has far less powers than people seem to think. Even the ULEZ expansion was forced on him...Carter said:Yeah I think it will, the inner London population seem to love him and I'll say I prefer him to that shithouse Johnson but extending the ULEZ is something else that just batters people who can't afford to take any more financial battering.
What has he done during his term in office that has genuinely improved life for Londoners and not just cost people money?
He stays as mayor (if he runs again) as there won't be a better alternative from the opposition. Shaun Bailey is a joke.
Susan Hall is the Tory candidate - she defeated Moz Hossain for selection and that only after Daniel Korski stepped down from the short list after Daisy Goodwin accused him of a groping offence.
Shaun Bailey below enjoying himself at a Covid Party. Do we really get the politicians we deserve?
1 -
I wasn't saying Lord Bailey was running, just pointing out he's a joke. Susan Hall is hardly a top tier candidate.Raith_C_Chattonell said:
Shaun Bailey isn't running.Friend Or Defoe said:
Massive increase in council houses and he's frozen tube and bus fares. The mayor has far less powers than people seem to think. Even the ULEZ expansion was forced on him...Carter said:Yeah I think it will, the inner London population seem to love him and I'll say I prefer him to that shithouse Johnson but extending the ULEZ is something else that just batters people who can't afford to take any more financial battering.
What has he done during his term in office that has genuinely improved life for Londoners and not just cost people money?
He stays as mayor (if he runs again) as there won't be a better alternative from the opposition. Shaun Bailey is a joke.
Susan Hall is the Tory candidate - she defeated Moz Hossain for selection and that only after Daniel Korski stepped down from the short list after Daisy Goodwin accused him of a groping offence.
Shaun Bailey below enjoying himself at a Covid Party. Do we really get the politicians we deserve?3 -
Not sure if it's been mentioned on other threads but a toll is on its way for the blackwall tunnel too.0
- Sponsored links:
-
It doesn't address the issue of actual.air quality though does it? I'm not completely dismissing what you are saying, I just don't believe Sadiq Khan or whoever is responsible for expanding ULEZ are thinking of anything beyond revenue generation and squeezing motorists.cantersaddick said:
It's been done before but the economics and behavioural science of this is sound. A ban is an incredibly blunt instrument. A tax on the polluter which is what this essentially is has been proven to work. It gives people choice. Those who can easily adapt or upgrade do so and those who cant do so, they pay for the pollution they produce (or rather towards it). And so the most efficient way of reaching the targeted level of pollution reduction is reached. It works.Carter said:Someone explain this to me thenhttps://youtu.be/fMJwAlT7kdA
It would make a few things make more sense such as the higher rate of respiratory illness in London as most Londoners get around the place on the underground
If air quality was as desperately awful as the picture that is being painted why not go the whole hog and ban and non-compliant vehicles full stop. Electric only which definitely don't leave a colossal carbon footprint or kick a huge ecological can down the road
As for your last sentence. I don't think anyone thinks that the current generation of battery electric cars are the long term solution but they are a step on the way there. The tech will develop and improve as recent breakthroughs in battery tech proves. They're gonna look massively different in 10 years time. But without that intermediate step the progress can't and won't happen.
The other key in all this, once local authorities see how much cash this generates they will all want some of the action because they have lost their central government funding and will see this as a kill switch to bankruptcy. The big advantage London has is a genuinely excellent public transport network, arguably as far out as Bexley too.
Forgetting the fact I need a van for my work and my employers will only pass on these costs to end users as EVs are still horribly impractical for anyone doing more than 50 miles in a day and even then the poxy things are hardly convenient to charge in places like Dover, Maidstone, Chatham.
It costs more to get a return bus to Chatham or Maidstone from where I live than it does to drive and park and even then it is a long, long way from a reliable or regular service. If governments or local authorities were serious about this they would put the infrastructure in place first but that costs money so they won't
And coming back to the discovery on the video. The air quality is dangerously bad on the tube and good quality next to a road out in the open assuming the bloke in the video isn't playing a trick
0 -
This is really disappointing. People in Biggin Hill driving 10 year old diesel cars are not killing anyone.0
-
You cruel bastard. Of course they are. (But it’s OK if they pay to kill them).cafcnick1992 said:This is really disappointing. People in Biggin Hill driving 10 year old diesel cars are not killing anyone.5 -
It looks, from various reports of the AA & RAC, that just under 10% of cars are affected in the current ULEZ area. They believe that this rises to 15% for vehicles registered in the extended zone. Even those figures could be overstated as I have a 2002 Focus which shows as compliant, even though those reports suggest it’s pre-2006 (for petrol) cars which are likely to be non-compliant. I certainly wouldn’t get £2K for it, but would snap your hands off if someone wants to offer me that.
Khan is passionate about this as an asthma sufferer himself, but Labour do need to get more control of the narrative here. The Tories will use it as a stick to beat Labour for both the Mayoral & General Elections next year and they need to make sure that Shapps & the Tory Government is shown to be driving this as much as Khan is.2 -
It’s compliant now, but do you think when everyone’s cars are compliant, they’ll just junk the millions and millions in infrastructure and let everyone drive everywhere for free again?Jints said:You can easily buy a compliant car for £500 and sell a non -compliant one for at least as much. Not sure why this is considered a tax on the poor.2 -
Exactly - if a working class family were lucky enough for their old car to scrape by the rules now, they're still doomed in the longer term.0
-
Fair play didn’t recall that.Friend Or Defoe said:valleynick66 said:
No. Not to my knowledge.se9addick said:Wasn’t the expansion of ULEZ actually a condition placed on the Mayor by the Government in exchange for effectively bailing out TFL during the pandemic?
His choice alone.
Nor do I recall what any subsequent directions from DoT said after this date. Very surprised in the by election this wasn’t more used to counter the conservative campaign.Follow on question, if we read that as you must extend ULEZ what changes were made to LEZ and the Congestion Charge or is that meant to read only extend ULEZ ?
Regardless my prediction is this won’t generate the revenue projected. People can’t afford it and will work around it. Then we might face a scenario of cost that isn’t being covered. Then there is still a hole in the TFL budget.We will see in time.0 -
Maybe the mass vandalism of ULEZ cameras will become unsustainable0
-
But there won’t be, as there wasn’t when the congestion charge came in, or the LEZ or the extended ULEZ.cafcnick1992 said:Maybe the mass vandalism of ULEZ cameras will become unsustainable0 -
Covers a much smaller, and wealthier area.Rothko said:
But there won’t be, as there wasn’t when the congestion charge came in, or the LEZ or the extended ULEZ.cafcnick1992 said:Maybe the mass vandalism of ULEZ cameras will become unsustainable1 - Sponsored links:
-
Is this inaccurate?:Friend Or Defoe said:valleynick66 said:
No. Not to my knowledge.se9addick said:Wasn’t the expansion of ULEZ actually a condition placed on the Mayor by the Government in exchange for effectively bailing out TFL during the pandemic?
His choice alone.It was the Mayor's proposal and his decision in 2021 to expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to the North and South Circular Roads, to raise extra money for TfL and improve its finances. It was not a requirement from the government.
Sadiq Khan's subsequent decision to expand ULEZ to the whole of Greater London was also not a requirement of the TfL deal. In fact, the government explicitly told the Mayor in the final settlement letter (August 2022) that he was not allowed to use the bailout money on the ULEZ expansion
2 -
They're not going to concede to vandals, imagine the precedent that would set.cafcnick1992 said:
Covers a much smaller, and wealthier area.Rothko said:
But there won’t be, as there wasn’t when the congestion charge came in, or the LEZ or the extended ULEZ.cafcnick1992 said:Maybe the mass vandalism of ULEZ cameras will become unsustainable0 -
Then your knowledge is woefully inadequate.valleynick66 said:
No. Not to my knowledge.se9addick said:Wasn’t the expansion of ULEZ actually a condition placed on the Mayor by the Government in exchange for effectively bailing out TFL during the pandemic?
His choice alone.0 -
Who says he's used the bailout money on the ULEZ expansion?valleynick66 said:
Is this inaccurate?:Friend Or Defoe said:valleynick66 said:
No. Not to my knowledge.se9addick said:Wasn’t the expansion of ULEZ actually a condition placed on the Mayor by the Government in exchange for effectively bailing out TFL during the pandemic?
His choice alone.It was the Mayor's proposal and his decision in 2021 to expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to the North and South Circular Roads, to raise extra money for TfL and improve its finances. It was not a requirement from the government.
Sadiq Khan's subsequent decision to expand ULEZ to the whole of Greater London was also not a requirement of the TfL deal. In fact, the government explicitly told the Mayor in the final settlement letter (August 2022) that he was not allowed to use the bailout money on the ULEZ expansion
0 -
The world is full of strong leaders that are pricks. It's good leadership that matters.Friend Or Defoe said:
He's not a weak leader.SporadicAddick said:
Certainly not his narrative. He was stating very clearly today that it was his decision. From the point of political expediency, why isn't he passing the buck?Friend Or Defoe said:
Massive increase in council houses and he's frozen tube and bus fares. The mayor has far less powers than people seem to think. Even the ULEZ expansion was forced on him...Carter said:Yeah I think it will, the inner London population seem to love him and I'll say I prefer him to that shithouse Johnson but extending the ULEZ is something else that just batters people who can't afford to take any more financial battering.
What has he done during his term in office that has genuinely improved life for Londoners and not just cost people money?
He stays as mayor (if he runs again) as there won't be a better alternative from the opposition. Shaun Bailey is a joke.
You say that ULEZ expansion was "forced on him". That implies he is implementing it against his will. He clearly states it's his decision. On that basis your use of the word "forced" is mischievous.
You also say he has less powers than people think. I'd hate to see him with more based on what he is implementing. Is ploughing ahead against the likely interest of your electorate strong leadership or hubris?1 -
Still amazed at these stats.cantersaddick said:
And Bath Bristol and others are having ULEZ brought in.Rothko said:
It’s about the same, hence why Birmingham and Manchester have government backed and funded Clean Air Zones that charge those driving high emission carsChiAddick said:Genuine question: Is the air quality in Greater London really less than that of other cities in the UK - notably, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool etc... It does seem Londoners are being punished.
The difference between those places and greater London is that the majority of the population of those city's don't actually live in the areas with the pollution problem. The problem is in a much smaller area. They live in the outskirts and travel in. Whereas in London it's very common for people to spend the majority of their time in the greater London area and very normal for people to not leave the area for months on end. The damage to people's body's is awful.
Incidence rates of non- smoking lung cancers are 1 in 5 million in the UK. Or 1 in 5,000 in greater London. Thats a horrendous difference.
there are 67 million people in the UK
there are 9 million people in London.
Thise numbers suggest that, in a defined timeframe, there will be 11 incidents of non smoking related lung cancer outside of London, and 1,800 in London?
What is that timeframe and where are these stats from?
0 -
Not that part of the article. The bit about the latest expansion being a requirement of TFL support.AddicksAddict said:
Who says he's used the bailout money on the ULEZ expansion?valleynick66 said:
Is this inaccurate?:Friend Or Defoe said:valleynick66 said:
No. Not to my knowledge.se9addick said:Wasn’t the expansion of ULEZ actually a condition placed on the Mayor by the Government in exchange for effectively bailing out TFL during the pandemic?
His choice alone.It was the Mayor's proposal and his decision in 2021 to expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to the North and South Circular Roads, to raise extra money for TfL and improve its finances. It was not a requirement from the government.
Sadiq Khan's subsequent decision to expand ULEZ to the whole of Greater London was also not a requirement of the TfL deal. In fact, the government explicitly told the Mayor in the final settlement letter (August 2022) that he was not allowed to use the bailout money on the ULEZ expansion
0 -
Apologies I missed your earlier post as I was distracted by the cricket.SporadicAddick said:
Still amazed at these stats.cantersaddick said:
And Bath Bristol and others are having ULEZ brought in.Rothko said:
It’s about the same, hence why Birmingham and Manchester have government backed and funded Clean Air Zones that charge those driving high emission carsChiAddick said:Genuine question: Is the air quality in Greater London really less than that of other cities in the UK - notably, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool etc... It does seem Londoners are being punished.
The difference between those places and greater London is that the majority of the population of those city's don't actually live in the areas with the pollution problem. The problem is in a much smaller area. They live in the outskirts and travel in. Whereas in London it's very common for people to spend the majority of their time in the greater London area and very normal for people to not leave the area for months on end. The damage to people's body's is awful.
Incidence rates of non- smoking lung cancers are 1 in 5 million in the UK. Or 1 in 5,000 in greater London. Thats a horrendous difference.
there are 67 million people in the UK
there are 9 million people in London.
Thise numbers suggest that, in a defined timeframe, there will be 11 incidents of non smoking related lung cancer outside of London, and 1,800 in London?
What is that timeframe and where are these stats from?
The stats are from a BBC article I saw a while ago about London Air quality because of the ULEZ and think I shared it on one of the threads on here. I can't remember the source that used but I'll try and find the post where I shared it and re-link. I'll admit I'm quoting from memory (I'm an analyst numbers are my thing) this time but that stat has stuck with me since I've seen it not least because a family member had just been diagnosed with an incredibly rare non-smoking lung cancer after living in a lower ground floor flat in Notting Hill all her life.
I'll dig out the bbc article and share again.
2 -
It absolutely does. The aim is not hit get rid of all pollution but to bring it down to an acceptable less harmful level. There will be a target level of air quality they are aiming for which will translate into a number of journeys/miles travelled in high polluting Cars reduction. Using price elasticities they can pretty accurately target that reduction. Its not a stab in the dark.Carter said:
It doesn't address the issue of actual.air quality though does it? I'm not completely dismissing what you are saying, I just don't believe Sadiq Khan or whoever is responsible for expanding ULEZ are thinking of anything beyond revenue generation and squeezing motorists.cantersaddick said:
It's been done before but the economics and behavioural science of this is sound. A ban is an incredibly blunt instrument. A tax on the polluter which is what this essentially is has been proven to work. It gives people choice. Those who can easily adapt or upgrade do so and those who cant do so, they pay for the pollution they produce (or rather towards it). And so the most efficient way of reaching the targeted level of pollution reduction is reached. It works.Carter said:Someone explain this to me thenhttps://youtu.be/fMJwAlT7kdA
It would make a few things make more sense such as the higher rate of respiratory illness in London as most Londoners get around the place on the underground
If air quality was as desperately awful as the picture that is being painted why not go the whole hog and ban and non-compliant vehicles full stop. Electric only which definitely don't leave a colossal carbon footprint or kick a huge ecological can down the road
As for your last sentence. I don't think anyone thinks that the current generation of battery electric cars are the long term solution but they are a step on the way there. The tech will develop and improve as recent breakthroughs in battery tech proves. They're gonna look massively different in 10 years time. But without that intermediate step the progress can't and won't happen.
The other key in all this, once local authorities see how much cash this generates they will all want some of the action because they have lost their central government funding and will see this as a kill switch to bankruptcy. The big advantage London has is a genuinely excellent public transport network, arguably as far out as Bexley too.
Forgetting the fact I need a van for my work and my employers will only pass on these costs to end users as EVs are still horribly impractical for anyone doing more than 50 miles in a day and even then the poxy things are hardly convenient to charge in places like Dover, Maidstone, Chatham.
It costs more to get a return bus to Chatham or Maidstone from where I live than it does to drive and park and even then it is a long, long way from a reliable or regular service. If governments or local authorities were serious about this they would put the infrastructure in place first but that costs money so they won't
And coming back to the discovery on the video. The air quality is dangerously bad on the tube and good quality next to a road out in the open assuming the bloke in the video isn't playing a trick
As I said the economics and behavioural science of the polluter plays principle works. It achieves the reduction and is the most efficient way to get there. There have been numerous examples around the world of this. We have similar for factory pollution, there are examples in shipping and air freight.4 -
2021 expansion, which no one complained about, he had to do for funding, which the government had slashed.valleynick66 said:
Is this inaccurate?:Friend Or Defoe said:valleynick66 said:
No. Not to my knowledge.se9addick said:Wasn’t the expansion of ULEZ actually a condition placed on the Mayor by the Government in exchange for effectively bailing out TFL during the pandemic?
His choice alone.It was the Mayor's proposal and his decision in 2021 to expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to the North and South Circular Roads, to raise extra money for TfL and improve its finances. It was not a requirement from the government.
Sadiq Khan's subsequent decision to expand ULEZ to the whole of Greater London was also not a requirement of the TfL deal. In fact, the government explicitly told the Mayor in the final settlement letter (August 2022) that he was not allowed to use the bailout money on the ULEZ expansion
The Greater London expansion, which from that letter was his call, has caused the uproar.
Make of that what you will!
Seems most of the uproar is about some event that may happen in the future with the restrictions getting tighter rather than the current proposals. The air quality in London has massively improved since i was a kid when 1 in 8 had Asthma, it's about about 1 in 11 now. The new cars aren't perfect but they are miles better than the older cars, and a complaint one is like £500. Fuel has advanced too from the days of leaded petrol. As an asthma suffered myself walking behind a bus with it's engine on used to be horrible, now with them being electric it's no issue at all. I grew up in an outer borough for the record.
2
