Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
ULEZ Checker
Comments
-
Because he has been acting arrogantly about the whole thing i.e. not what he was voted in to do, and now needs to acknowledge public feedback.Dansk_Red said:The scrapage scheme has now been extended to anyone owning a non-compliant car within the ULEZ area, the mayor has added £50m to the scheme. I wonder why he did not do it do this when he first announced the extended zone (Political Pressure?).7 -
I think I'll go out and buy a dozen old bangers for about £300 each.
Then scrap them for 2k each.
If nothing else I'm a financial genius.2 -
The Millers is your best bet mate.blackpool72 said:I think I'll go out and buy a dozen old bangers for about £300 each.
Then scrap them for 2k each.
If nothing else I'm a financial genius.13 -
Berlin's (and other German cities) scheme permits cars meeting EU4 emissions standards I believe, so even diesels made after 2006 are ok, which is a lot more generous than Khan's cut off. I had to get one of these permits for my 2012 diesel when we drove it to Budapest last year. Still have the sticker.0
-
I'm not brave enough now day's.DaveMehmet said:
The Millers is your best bet mate.blackpool72 said:I think I'll go out and buy a dozen old bangers for about £300 each.
Then scrap them for 2k each.
If nothing else I'm a financial genius.0 -
by this logic the inner city speed limit should be 40 or 50 mph everywhere because at a constant speed around those values most catalyst exhaust ICE cars run at their most efficient and emit CO2, water and barely any soot. Bugger the road safety aspect of slower speeds.cafcfan said:
But in the sensible and pragmatic Germany, that is exactly what has happened. You cannot drive in Berlin unless your vehicle meets the emissions standards. To prove this you have to buy a green sticker for your windscreen which lasts the life of the car (or until the ink fades). No green sticker - not allowed to enter Berlin. The sticker including postage costs €6. That's all. You need one as a tourist too. Not £12.50 each day!daveydanger said:
Exactly. The idea that if the Mayor really cared he would ‘simply ban’ your car. Think about that scenario for 10 seconds and you’ll probably realise how unworkable it is, and how much more you’d be kicking off about it.colthe3rd said:
But why can't it be both? TfL desperately requires more funding and they have to find different ways of doing so as constantly hiking fares for tube is unsustainable hence this and scrapping things like travel cards. At the same time air pollution in London is a serious issue and needs to be tackled so clearly expanding ulez is a start but we need more.Fortune 82nd Minute said:I'm amazed that anyone really thinks that this ULEZ scheme is about tackling pollution - if it was, all non-compliant cars would simply be banned, none of this pay £12.50 nonsense and carry on driving.
No the scheme is all about trying to restore TfL's finances that Khan has trashed and much more importantly, using the ULEZ technology as a trojan horse to bring in a pay to drive scheme in London.
It is estimated that the ULEZ scheme will cease to cover its costs in only 2 or 3 years time. So what will Khan do then to cover the money he has lost?
The answer is introduce a pay to drive scheme which uses the ULEZ cameras to enforce.
Khan may deny it but I can tell you for a fact his officials are already working on such a scheme. One technology under consideration is requiring everyone to have an app on their phone which will need to be turned on when driving in London.
In fairness, many in the transport world (in which i have worked all my life) view pay per drive as the way forward as the Chancellor faces losing almost a third of the revenue he gets from fuel duty from cars before the end of the decade because of the move to green motoring. But when I worked on this issue, the deal was that Fuel Duty would be reduced as pay per mile charges were introduced. Khan, of course, can't do this as he has no control over Treasury taxes so any pay per drive charges he introduces will be additional to current motoring taxes.
So it's pretty clear. If you want to pay every time you want to drive in London, vote for Khan. If not, vote for a party that will scrap the ULEZ.
As with most things it isn't black and white. What you propose though is voting for a party that over the past decade has run public services even further into the ground. No doubt their aim would be to fully privatise public transport within London and we all know how well privatisation has been elsewhere in the country.
It's interesting you mention fuel duty because for far too long this country has pandered to the motorist, taxation on motoring has fallen in real terms over the past decade whilst public transportation charges have sky rocketed yet we arguably have a worse public transportation infrastructure over that time yet even more cars on the road. So yes maybe we do need to start charging more for cars coming in to London.
I also say this as someone living inside the south circular who owns a car. It's ridiculous at times trying to drive anywhere and anecdotally you only have to go and stand on the SC for 10 minutes to see how many single occupancy cars there are. We need to change our habits and asking people nicely doesn't work. And what definitely doesn't work is voting for a party with a history of lowering taxation and selling off public assets.
The same system has been adopted elsewhere, Paris and Vienna for example. So why is London different? Are we right and they are wrong? It is only because the slimeball Khan needs the money for TfL. There is no other reason. If it was really about pollution, miscreant cars would be banned: not charged a fee for the right to kill people.
Khan's hypocrisy is demonstrated by the stupidity of the 20 mph zones with the sleeping policemen and other "traffic calming" measures. These all increase emissions as people slow down and then accelerate for the bumps and we all know about the increased pollution caused by bus lanes which lead to more traffic jams.
Reduced speeds for road safety and minimising emissions are non-congruent goals obviously. Both have their merits - all centred on reducing avoidable fatalities
But let's not let that sort of uber pinko woke virtue signalling bullshine get in the way of one-eyed dogmatic ranting FFS.
FWIW most of the 'bus-lane problems' arise from the tiny minority of selfish fuckers who disregard the bus lanes and bung the whole system up for everybody else.
TfL's 9000 bus fleet is all at least Euro 6 compliant. 1000 of them have zero tailpipe emissions (H2 fuel cell and EV) the majority of the rest are hybrid stop-start vehicles emitting virtually nothing when stationary and on takeoff. Sorry to drench your polemic in inconvenient truth.4 -
Kahn's vicious poor baiting unjustifiable cash grab ULEZ expansion can be circumvented simply by having a car built 40+ years ago. A lot of them will be cheap too. 1983 not exactly the dark ages for car development.
If in spite of all the myriad alternatives, you absolutely have to commute by car into/through the zone and want/need to save £60 - £80 a week consider a "historic vehicle". £3k - £4k saving buys plenty of viable daily driver. You can blow £2500 every year on a different one and still be better off.
Sorry this is another fact based alternative to one-eyed halfwitted DePfeffel childishness.1 -
Germany had a €2,500 scrapage scheme and went through all this back in 2009.cafcfan said:
Point taken about the differences. But as ever, it's complicated. In Berlin and many other German cities, you get a fine whether or not your car is compliant if you don't have a sticker. I believe it is €100 and your car could be seized. There is no charge for non-compliant cars in the zone because they are not allowed in the zone, full stop. I have no idea whether there was a Berlin scrappage scheme or whether people just had to suck it up. I believe this was all introduced in 2010 and there might have been help with retro-fitting costs rather than scrappage. So the chances are there won't be many (any?) non-compliant vehicles around near German cities. If you see a Trabant in Berlin it has been retro-fitted; has a special exemption; or it is November 9th.Fumbluff said:
Good post, but you’re confusing which parameters you can compare….cafcfan said:
But in the sensible and pragmatic Germany, that is exactly what has happened. You cannot drive in Berlin unless your vehicle meets the emissions standards. To prove this you have to buy a green sticker for your windscreen which lasts the life of the car (or until the ink fades). No green sticker - not allowed to enter Berlin. The sticker including postage costs €6. That's all. You need one as a tourist too. Not £12.50 each day!daveydanger said:
Exactly. The idea that if the Mayor really cared he would ‘simply ban’ your car. Think about that scenario for 10 seconds and you’ll probably realise how unworkable it is, and how much more you’d be kicking off about it.colthe3rd said:
But why can't it be both? TfL desperately requires more funding and they have to find different ways of doing so as constantly hiking fares for tube is unsustainable hence this and scrapping things like travel cards. At the same time air pollution in London is a serious issue and needs to be tackled so clearly expanding ulez is a start but we need more.Fortune 82nd Minute said:I'm amazed that anyone really thinks that this ULEZ scheme is about tackling pollution - if it was, all non-compliant cars would simply be banned, none of this pay £12.50 nonsense and carry on driving.
No the scheme is all about trying to restore TfL's finances that Khan has trashed and much more importantly, using the ULEZ technology as a trojan horse to bring in a pay to drive scheme in London.
It is estimated that the ULEZ scheme will cease to cover its costs in only 2 or 3 years time. So what will Khan do then to cover the money he has lost?
The answer is introduce a pay to drive scheme which uses the ULEZ cameras to enforce.
Khan may deny it but I can tell you for a fact his officials are already working on such a scheme. One technology under consideration is requiring everyone to have an app on their phone which will need to be turned on when driving in London.
In fairness, many in the transport world (in which i have worked all my life) view pay per drive as the way forward as the Chancellor faces losing almost a third of the revenue he gets from fuel duty from cars before the end of the decade because of the move to green motoring. But when I worked on this issue, the deal was that Fuel Duty would be reduced as pay per mile charges were introduced. Khan, of course, can't do this as he has no control over Treasury taxes so any pay per drive charges he introduces will be additional to current motoring taxes.
So it's pretty clear. If you want to pay every time you want to drive in London, vote for Khan. If not, vote for a party that will scrap the ULEZ.
As with most things it isn't black and white. What you propose though is voting for a party that over the past decade has run public services even further into the ground. No doubt their aim would be to fully privatise public transport within London and we all know how well privatisation has been elsewhere in the country.
It's interesting you mention fuel duty because for far too long this country has pandered to the motorist, taxation on motoring has fallen in real terms over the past decade whilst public transportation charges have sky rocketed yet we arguably have a worse public transportation infrastructure over that time yet even more cars on the road. So yes maybe we do need to start charging more for cars coming in to London.
I also say this as someone living inside the south circular who owns a car. It's ridiculous at times trying to drive anywhere and anecdotally you only have to go and stand on the SC for 10 minutes to see how many single occupancy cars there are. We need to change our habits and asking people nicely doesn't work. And what definitely doesn't work is voting for a party with a history of lowering taxation and selling off public assets.
The same system has been adopted elsewhere, Paris and Vienna for example. So why is London different? Are we right and they are wrong? It is only because the slimeball Khan needs the money for TfL. There is no other reason. If it was really about pollution, miscreant cars would be banned: not charged a fee for the right to kill people.
Khan's hypocrisy is demonstrated by the stupidity of the 20 mph zones with the sleeping policemen and other "traffic calming" measures. These all increase emissions as people slow down and then accelerate for the bumps and we all know about the increased pollution caused by bus lanes which lead to more traffic jams.
If your car complies:
Germany - €6 cost for the lifetime of the car
London - No cost
If your car does not comply:
Germany - unknown, please advise @cafcfan
London - £12.50 for each day you drive inside M25
Edited to add: In Germany it is compulsory to use winter or all season tyres in wintery conditions. While we just tootle around on our regular summer tyres and wonder why we slide about all over the place. I guess there would be uproar about costs if we were forced to be safer in winter conditions?0 -
Quick point: The 20mph limit on residential roads, speed humps etc have nothing to do with Khan. TfL/the Mayor are only responsible for major roads in London. Almost all residential roads are the responsibility of the relevant London borough6
-
I own a truck from 1985 and I can assure you that carburetors in Winter are not fun!Billy_Mix said:Kahn's vicious poor baiting unjustifiable cash grab ULEZ expansion can be circumvented simply by having a car built 40+ years ago. A lot of them will be cheap too. 1983 not exactly the dark ages for car development.
If in spite of all the myriad alternatives, you absolutely have to commute by car into/through the zone and want/need to save £60 - £80 a week consider a "historic vehicle". £3k - £4k saving buys plenty of viable daily driver. You can blow £2500 every year on a different one and still be better off.
Sorry this is another fact based alternative to one-eyed halfwitted DePfeffel childishness.0 - Sponsored links:
-
My 1960's conceived, 1975 British built indulgence has its foibles for surecafcnick1992 said:
I own a truck from 1985 and I can assure you that carburetors in Winter are not fun!Billy_Mix said:Kahn's vicious poor baiting unjustifiable cash grab ULEZ expansion can be circumvented simply by having a car built 40+ years ago. A lot of them will be cheap too. 1983 not exactly the dark ages for car development.
If in spite of all the myriad alternatives, you absolutely have to commute by car into/through the zone and want/need to save £60 - £80 a week consider a "historic vehicle". £3k - £4k saving buys plenty of viable daily driver. You can blow £2500 every year on a different one and still be better off.
Sorry this is another fact based alternative to one-eyed halfwitted DePfeffel childishness.
Carbs are one aspect of getting it started and running sweetly at any time of the year
Tuning for the coldest winter days is different from the hottest summer days but she will certainly do her fair share of my occasional forays into Kahn's 'cashgrab'
Half a turn of a couple of screws is well worth saving the charge. I 'cheated' on the ignition years ago and ditched the points for transistorised.
Couple of trips pays for sets of plugs that run hotter or colder as required.
Both jobs take 10 minutes or less - no hardship v £4K per annum is it?0 -
-
I just don’t understand it from a political point of view. Khan was forced to expand ULEZ as a condition of the TfL bailout but instead of just blaming the opposition he’s claiming it as his own policy. How does he sit there taking all the flak from Conservatives when he knows it was them who imposed it on him?I guess he’s banking on the fact that a lot of the people in the expanded areas are Conservative voters anyway and the inner London residents who already have ULEZ won’t be arsed/will support the expansion.0
-
Hardly surprising is it? More have been built and as the years pass more will find there way onto the second-hand market and consequently more will be sold. Each year will be a new record until the market is saturated.SELR_addicks said:
Edited to add: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/used-ev-values-could-collapse-due-to-fleet-dumping/ar-AA1f82JH?cvid=bf636d200cd24b60807f556c288a00d2&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=23
The article says a large majority of new EV sales are fleet/rental. And these are now getting dumped on to the second-hand market with residuals lower as a result.0 -
Big protest in Bromley today. Shame certain people can’t accept law abiding people protesting. https://twitter.com/howardccox/status/1690344733900455936?s=46&t=4ohUNUmWt4ox6pok8Etfag1
-
Weirdly I was in Bromley today, didn’t see a massive protest, did see a few on the high street handing out leaflets and going on about how ULEZ was part of a WEF attack on people
4 -
Law abiding parked on double reds?stop_shouting said:Big protest in Bromley today. Shame certain people can’t accept law abiding people protesting. https://twitter.com/howardccox/status/1690344733900455936?s=46&t=4ohUNUmWt4ox6pok8Etfag2 -
-
Majority of stolen cameras in Bromley area.shirty5 said:
North London only about 10 stolen.0 -
Mercedes A Class 1.5l Diesel - 2015 - Combined MPG 42.8 - Road Tax £240 - ULEZE compliant
Mercedes A Class 1.5l Diesel - 2013 - Combined MPG 74.3 - Road Tax £0 - Not ULEZ compliat
So, a car that is over 40% more efficient and is free to tax, is not ULEZ compliant, while the car that drinks significantly more diesel and costs £240 to tax, complies?Is the car tax / road fund licence not meant to reflect the efficiency of the car? Because, if it does, there's a clear contradiction. Also find it funny that a 3.2l V6 Porsche Cayenne, albeit Petrol, qualifies as ULEZ compliant too.....
I've just found this while looking at motors on Autotrader this even. I can share the links if needed2 - Sponsored links:
-
The reason isGribbo said:Mercedes A Class 1.5l Diesel - 2015 - Combined MPG 42.8 - Road Tax £240 - ULEZE compliant
Mercedes A Class 1.5l Diesel - 2013 - Combined MPG 74.3 - Road Tax £0 - Not ULEZ compliat
So, a car that is over 40% more efficient and is free to tax, is not ULEZ compliant, while the car that drinks significantly more diesel and costs £240 to tax, complies?Is the car tax / road fund licence not meant to reflect the efficiency of the car? Because, if it does, there's a clear contradiction. Also find it funny that a 3.2l V6 Porsche Cayenne, albeit Petrol, qualifies as ULEZ compliant too.....
I've just found this while looking at motors on Autotrader this even. I can share the links if needed
The ULEZ standard for passenger cars is Euro 4 (or equivalent) for petrol cars and Euro 6 (or equivalent) for diesels, and it's important to remember that it's only the vehicle's NOx output that is being judged here, needing to emit less than 0.08g/km of NOx.
0 -
So a vehicle 2 years older has a larger NOx output than the newer vehicle, even though the newer vehicle is taking more than 40% more deisel to make the same journey?Crusty54 said:
The reason isGribbo said:Mercedes A Class 1.5l Diesel - 2015 - Combined MPG 42.8 - Road Tax £240 - ULEZE compliant
Mercedes A Class 1.5l Diesel - 2013 - Combined MPG 74.3 - Road Tax £0 - Not ULEZ compliat
So, a car that is over 40% more efficient and is free to tax, is not ULEZ compliant, while the car that drinks significantly more diesel and costs £240 to tax, complies?Is the car tax / road fund licence not meant to reflect the efficiency of the car? Because, if it does, there's a clear contradiction. Also find it funny that a 3.2l V6 Porsche Cayenne, albeit Petrol, qualifies as ULEZ compliant too.....
I've just found this while looking at motors on Autotrader this even. I can share the links if needed
The ULEZ standard for passenger cars is Euro 4 (or equivalent) for petrol cars and Euro 6 (or equivalent) for diesels, and it's important to remember that it's only the vehicle's NOx output that is being judged here, needing to emit less than 0.08g/km of NOx.
Also, I totally understand that ULEZ is in place because of emissions in the air, but it kind of flies in the face of movements like Just Stop Oil when you're being told to buy vehicles that need more oil to power them, baring in mind you need 35 gallons (imperial / 42 gallon (US)) of crude oil, to produce 11 to 12 gallons of diesel.
Does anyone know what is used to band road tax? Because it clearly can't be NOx outpuy, which again is a bit silly, if you're being coaxed into buying one type of vehicle by the Government, while TFL want you to buy another to comply with ULEZ0 -
Speaking with a mate this morning, he’s got a new XC 60 PHEV, lovely car, he’s also got a couple of motorbikes. One of them is a sports bike and he’ll have to pay £12.50 when he goes out in it.0
-
Stick it on a trailer on the back of the car, tow it outside the zone then go on it?guinnessaddick said:Speaking with a mate this morning, he’s got a new XC 60 PHEV, lovely car, he’s also got a couple of motorbikes. One of them is a sports bike and he’ll have to pay £12.50 when he goes out in it.3 -
Yes, there are 13 bands. All are based on CO2 emissions. In addition, if your car cost more than £40k there is an extra £390 per year to pay on top. So my tax was £2,995 for the first year and thereafter £560. As ever, it is all about tax grab rather than saving the planet. My car pumps out loads of CO2 (359g/km) but does very few miles so is better for the environment than a Toyota Prius taxi. Of course all these taxes should be put on to petrol/diesel prices - which would equate to actual damage caused. But that won't happen.Gribbo said:
So a vehicle 2 years older has a larger NOx output than the newer vehicle, even though the newer vehicle is taking more than 40% more deisel to make the same journey?Crusty54 said:
The reason isGribbo said:Mercedes A Class 1.5l Diesel - 2015 - Combined MPG 42.8 - Road Tax £240 - ULEZE compliant
Mercedes A Class 1.5l Diesel - 2013 - Combined MPG 74.3 - Road Tax £0 - Not ULEZ compliat
So, a car that is over 40% more efficient and is free to tax, is not ULEZ compliant, while the car that drinks significantly more diesel and costs £240 to tax, complies?Is the car tax / road fund licence not meant to reflect the efficiency of the car? Because, if it does, there's a clear contradiction. Also find it funny that a 3.2l V6 Porsche Cayenne, albeit Petrol, qualifies as ULEZ compliant too.....
I've just found this while looking at motors on Autotrader this even. I can share the links if needed
The ULEZ standard for passenger cars is Euro 4 (or equivalent) for petrol cars and Euro 6 (or equivalent) for diesels, and it's important to remember that it's only the vehicle's NOx output that is being judged here, needing to emit less than 0.08g/km of NOx.
Also, I totally understand that ULEZ is in place because of emissions in the air, but it kind of flies in the face of movements like Just Stop Oil when you're being told to buy vehicles that need more oil to power them, baring in mind you need 35 gallons (imperial / 42 gallon (US)) of crude oil, to produce 11 to 12 gallons of diesel.
Does anyone know what is used to band road tax? Because it clearly can't be NOx outpuy, which again is a bit silly, if you're being coaxed into buying one type of vehicle by the Government, while TFL want you to buy another to comply with ULEZ2 -
Got a feeling that camaras aren't only on the boundary, but throughout London. Some quieter roads going over the boundary don't have cameras at all, but you'll still be pick up on by camaras on a main road within the zonesam3110 said:
Stick it on a trailer on the back of the car, tow it outside the zone then go on it?guinnessaddick said:Speaking with a mate this morning, he’s got a new XC 60 PHEV, lovely car, he’s also got a couple of motorbikes. One of them is a sports bike and he’ll have to pay £12.50 when he goes out in it.0 -
If there is anyone who still seriously believes that Khan's ULEZ scheme is about reducing pollution - and not raising cash for an organisation Khan has put in a perilous financial state and ultimately introducing road charging in London - try and get a look at the article the Telegraph is carrying today.
In a series of private e-mails, Khan’s office is shown as having tried to discredit and “silence” scientists who found that his Ulez policy had little impact on pollution. In those e-mails, Shirley Rodrigues, the London Mayor’s deputy for environment and energy, told Prof Frank Kelly she was “really disappointed” that Imperial College had publicised findings questioning the effectiveness of Ulez.Emails released under Freedom of Information requests show that Ms Rodrigues wrote to Prof Kelly on Nov 16 2021, complaining that Sky News, The Times and The Mail were running a “misleading” Ulez study that had been press released by Imperial College.
Ms Rodrigues thanked Prof Kelly’s team for trying to stop Imperial’s press office from releasing the research and said that she was “deeply concerned” about the damage the study was doing to credibility of the Mayor’s office and Ulez.
She added: “Is there anything you can do or advise to help us set the record straight? I would really appreciate any support.”
Prof Kelly replied, saying he was “totally dismayed” and was “pursuing options internally to offset this”. He said he would be “very happy to provide the Greater London Authority with support required as you move to mitigate the damage”.
Prof Kelly sent a statement to Ms Rodrigues to check, which initially said actions by the Mayor were “collectively providing a major benefit to the city”. She replied, crossing out the word “collectively” and adding that the Mayor’s schemes “have dramatically reduced air pollution in London”.
As Cllr Baroness O’Neill of Bexley added: “These findings confirm everything we knew, in that the data used to build the case for extending Ulez was flawed. Extending Ulez has always been more about the Mayor of London’s drive for income generation than improving air quality for Bexley residents.”
9 -
I see there is dispute as to the value of the scheme regarding cleaner air.
I am interested in more detail about the notion that the scheme is being deliberately set up to fleece motorists financially.
Do fines go directly to Khan to do as he pleases with? What are the fines compared with the scrappage scheme? Are there any rules or directives from central government obliging the creation of the scheme, the timescale over which it is supposed to happen, and the level of sanctions to be imposed, the exemptions to be allowed...and as I have already said will it all be a net gain for Mr Khan to utilise funds for whatever he wants?1 -
I believe I may have read articles to the effect the financial forecasts may show it is not cash profit after 3 or 4 years. Obviously forecast’s are only that and subject to change.seth plum said:I see there is dispute as to the value of the scheme regarding cleaner air.
I am interested in more detail about the notion that the scheme is being deliberately set up to fleece motorists financially.
Do fines go directly to Khan to do as he pleases with? What are the fines compared with the scrappage scheme? Are there any rules or directives from central government obliging the creation of the scheme, the timescale over which it is supposed to happen, and the level of sanctions to be imposed, the exemptions to be allowed...and as I have already said will it all be a net gain for Mr Khan to utilise funds for whatever he wants?That’s my concern that it’s a short term thing until it’s a cost drain on our council taxes / overall funding for London.The cynical view is however the goal posts move in that window so fees can increase or be extended in some way.0 -
‘Take a look at this piece in the Telegraph’ and at this point I checked out6
