FabSwingers.com
 

FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > London ULEZ

London ULEZ

Jump to: Newest in thread

 

By *ornucopia OP   Man  over a year ago

Bexley

Is anybody in the least bit bothered by what will be happening from October 25th?

I cant believe that there have been no protests related to this.

It can only be that chance has preoccupied people in so many other ways recently, so TFL have been able to get away with it.

The effect will be monumental and yet another cause of the rocketing price of survival.

Do those of you who drive into London give a monkey's about it?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS  over a year ago

Notts


"Is anybody in the least bit bothered by what will be happening from October 25th?

I cant believe that there have been no protests related to this.

It can only be that chance has preoccupied people in so many other ways recently, so TFL have been able to get away with it.

The effect will be monumental and yet another cause of the rocketing price of survival.

Do those of you who drive into London give a monkey's about it?"

what is happening in london on 25th oct, is a new show opening?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ackal1Couple  over a year ago

Manchester

People with older cars living inside the zone are they being given any dispensation or is it full whack per day?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ornucopia OP   Man  over a year ago

Bexley


"People with older cars living inside the zone are they being given any dispensation or is it full whack per day? "

No dispensation for living inside the zone but won't get charged on days when they don't move it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ackal1Couple  over a year ago

Manchester

[Removed by poster at 19/10/21 07:10:39]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ercuryMan  over a year ago

Grantham

Its not as if they haven't any public transport in Londin!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostafunMan  over a year ago

near ipswich


"Is anybody in the least bit bothered by what will be happening from October 25th?

I cant believe that there have been no protests related to this.

It can only be that chance has preoccupied people in so many other ways recently, so TFL have been able to get away with it.

The effect will be monumental and yet another cause of the rocketing price of survival.

Do those of you who drive into London give a monkey's about it?"

Well you can blame all those people who voted for Sadiq Khan for that as well as no NYE fireworks again.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ackal1Couple  over a year ago

Manchester


"Its not as if they haven't any public transport in Londin! "

Yes and the buses all go exactly where you want !

Central London is awash with transport . Just outside not so great. Most transport goes in and out not across . Bit like HS2 which concentrates on London .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ackal1Couple  over a year ago

Manchester


"Is anybody in the least bit bothered by what will be happening from October 25th?

I cant believe that there have been no protests related to this.

It can only be that chance has preoccupied people in so many other ways recently, so TFL have been able to get away with it.

The effect will be monumental and yet another cause of the rocketing price of survival.

Do those of you who drive into London give a monkey's about it?Well you can blame all those people who voted for Sadiq Khan for that as well as no NYE fireworks again."

Think you will find Boris introduced the plan and started with the buses in 2012. Khan just implemented Boris plan. Who do we blame now?

The idea is good the plan around the rules not so great.

Even government departments don’t buy fully electric vehicles because the infrastructure isn’t in any way ready.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostafunMan  over a year ago

near ipswich


"Is anybody in the least bit bothered by what will be happening from October 25th?

I cant believe that there have been no protests related to this.

It can only be that chance has preoccupied people in so many other ways recently, so TFL have been able to get away with it.

The effect will be monumental and yet another cause of the rocketing price of survival.

Do those of you who drive into London give a monkey's about it?Well you can blame all those people who voted for Sadiq Khan for that as well as no NYE fireworks again.

Think you will find Boris introduced the plan and started with the buses in 2012. Khan just implemented Boris plan. Who do we blame now?

The idea is good the plan around the rules not so great.

Even government departments don’t buy fully electric vehicles because the infrastructure isn’t in any way ready. "

I think you will find that its the expansion of the ulez that the poster is on about which now takes in most of greater london another £12.50 a day to have a car if you live in london that plus the £15 a day if you drive in the centre.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ty31Man  over a year ago

NW London

Yes, I am surprised and saddened that there isn't more noise being made about how this is yet another policy which will disproportionally affect working people and those on lower incomes whilst having little tangible effect on the problem.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ornucopia OP   Man  over a year ago

Bexley


"

...Well you can blame all those people who voted for Sadiq Khan for that as well as no NYE fireworks again.

Think you will find Boris introduced the plan and started with the buses in 2012. Khan just implemented Boris plan. Who do we blame now?

The idea is good the plan around the rules not so great.

Even government departments don’t buy fully electric vehicles because the infrastructure isn’t in any way ready. I think you will find that its the expansion of the ulez that the poster is on about which now takes in most of greater london another £12.50 a day to have a car if you live in london that plus the £15 a day if you drive in the centre. "

I'm thinking about the not inconsiderable number of less well off people living within the area who will have older petrol cars (and not so old diesels)who, if they use them to travel anywhere, will be charged £12.50 each day.

I am lucky. My 2003 petrol car a clean burning and reliable Suzuki is exempt but will it eventually fail on age? A friend has a 2001 car with what would appear to be a similar spec engine and that shows as being eligible for the charge.

Ironically, she can use it without charge because she is disabled.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostafunMan  over a year ago

near ipswich


"

...Well you can blame all those people who voted for Sadiq Khan for that as well as no NYE fireworks again.

Think you will find Boris introduced the plan and started with the buses in 2012. Khan just implemented Boris plan. Who do we blame now?

The idea is good the plan around the rules not so great.

Even government departments don’t buy fully electric vehicles because the infrastructure isn’t in any way ready. I think you will find that its the expansion of the ulez that the poster is on about which now takes in most of greater london another £12.50 a day to have a car if you live in london that plus the £15 a day if you drive in the centre.

I'm thinking about the not inconsiderable number of less well off people living within the area who will have older petrol cars (and not so old diesels)who, if they use them to travel anywhere, will be charged £12.50 each day.

I am lucky. My 2003 petrol car a clean burning and reliable Suzuki is exempt but will it eventually fail on age? A friend has a 2001 car with what would appear to be a similar spec engine and that shows as being eligible for the charge.

Ironically, she can use it without charge because she is disabled."

Once they get used to it being another money making scheme the goal posts will be shifted regularly.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS  over a year ago

Notts

its outrageous, people cant just dump their car, they could be tied into contracts. Car purchases and ownership tend to be long term investments.... they might as well bring back the window tax... boiler tax... use of air tax

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ornucopia OP   Man  over a year ago

Bexley


"Its not as if they haven't any public transport in Londin! "

Have you tried helping someone move anything big and heavy on public transport?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *urreyfun38Couple  over a year ago

croydon


"Is anybody in the least bit bothered by what will be happening from October 25th?

I cant believe that there have been no protests related to this.

It can only be that chance has preoccupied people in so many other ways recently, so TFL have been able to get away with it.

The effect will be monumental and yet another cause of the rocketing price of survival.

Do those of you who drive into London give a monkey's about it?Well you can blame all those people who voted for Sadiq Khan for that as well as no NYE fireworks again."

No you have to blame all those that didn’t vote in the Mayoral election and are now complaining

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *urreyfun38Couple  over a year ago

croydon


"Its not as if they haven't any public transport in Londin!

Have you tried helping someone move anything big and heavy on public transport?"

You won’t be allowed anything big and heavy on public transport

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *urreyfun38Couple  over a year ago

croydon


"Is anybody in the least bit bothered by what will be happening from October 25th?

I cant believe that there have been no protests related to this.

It can only be that chance has preoccupied people in so many other ways recently, so TFL have been able to get away with it.

The effect will be monumental and yet another cause of the rocketing price of survival.

Do those of you who drive into London give a monkey's about it?"

Drive into London most days. Company pays and passes cost back to customers

So no don’t care and don’t think most company’s do if they can pass the cost on.

Transport companies have been changing lorries as its £100 a day for them if they don’t comply

But ultimately everyone has known about this for years and have ignored it hoping it will go away

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ornucopia OP   Man  over a year ago

Bexley


"its outrageous, people cant just dump their car, they could be tied into contracts. Car purchases and ownership tend to be long term investments.... they might as well bring back the window tax... boiler tax... use of air tax "

Ironically, one of the fairer taxes was the poll tax. The idea was as it was people who used council facilities, then far more people would be paying their way.

However, it soon became obvious that the registration system would bring a lot more transient people onto the radar screen and, guess what, those people might then feel entitled to a vote as consolation for being on the books. No prize for guessing which party they would be unlikely to vote for. That is probably the true reason why it was dropped.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ercuryMan  over a year ago

Grantham


"Its not as if they haven't any public transport in Londin!

Have you tried helping someone move anything big and heavy on public transport?"

Climate change has to start somewhere. At least most in London have choices for their commute. Here in the boondocks, we have nothing, no choices whatsoever.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *eanoCoolMan  over a year ago

wisbech


"Its not as if they haven't any public transport in Londin!

Have you tried helping someone move anything big and heavy on public transport?

Climate change has to start somewhere. At least most in London have choices for their commute. Here in the boondocks, we have nothing, no choices whatsoever. "

Thats a very good point in all this, if you live in a major city at least you have a possible option of public transport, people that live in small towns or villages have no option but to use a car for work etc as public transport just isn't a option. I could not use a bus or a train where I live for work as they do not operate at the times I would need it so have to use a car.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS  over a year ago

Notts


"Its not as if they haven't any public transport in Londin!

Have you tried helping someone move anything big and heavy on public transport?

Climate change has to start somewhere. At least most in London have choices for their commute. Here in the boondocks, we have nothing, no choices whatsoever.

Thats a very good point in all this, if you live in a major city at least you have a possible option of public transport, people that live in small towns or villages have no option but to use a car for work etc as public transport just isn't a option. I could not use a bus or a train where I live for work as they do not operate at the times I would need it so have to use a car."

yeah they move to london to get fancy jobs and buy big houses, happy enough when they sell one and exchange it for yorkshire! They should pay more tax, london privilege tax! Theres no underground in grimsby is there!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I live in London. And I’m effected by pollution.

Those who need to travel by road into London, should require an exemption. Living in London, there is no real need for 80% of people to drive and that’s even higher in central London.

We have wonderful transportation. Tube, bus, Uber, black cabs, e-scooters, e-bikes, and walk.

If businesses need to operate they can manage their deliveries during the night.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *abioMan  over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"Yes, I am surprised and saddened that there isn't more noise being made about how this is yet another policy which will disproportionally affect working people and those on lower incomes whilst having little tangible effect on the problem."

Does it really though…. If you can afford to run a car thru central London you are probably not being affected by this, and if you can’t afford to run a car thru central London you were probably already using public transport

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostafunMan  over a year ago

near ipswich


"Yes, I am surprised and saddened that there isn't more noise being made about how this is yet another policy which will disproportionally affect working people and those on lower incomes whilst having little tangible effect on the problem.

Does it really though…. If you can afford to run a car thru central London you are probably not being affected by this, and if you can’t afford to run a car thru central London you were probably already using public transport "

This new zone is not central london though and so will effect will be felt by the poorer communities try telling people in leyton or tottenham they are not working people on low incomes.Not everyone who lives around london is rich with the house prices and rent they are probably worse off than the working people up north.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *urreyfun38Couple  over a year ago

croydon


"Yes, I am surprised and saddened that there isn't more noise being made about how this is yet another policy which will disproportionally affect working people and those on lower incomes whilst having little tangible effect on the problem.

Does it really though…. If you can afford to run a car thru central London you are probably not being affected by this, and if you can’t afford to run a car thru central London you were probably already using public transport "

But this is not just central London this is inside the north and south circular so bring a lot of people into the charge. That never went near the congestion charge area.

Covers a huge area.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ty31Man  over a year ago

NW London


"Yes, I am surprised and saddened that there isn't more noise being made about how this is yet another policy which will disproportionally affect working people and those on lower incomes whilst having little tangible effect on the problem.

Does it really though…. If you can afford to run a car thru central London you are probably not being affected by this, and if you can’t afford to run a car thru central London you were probably already using public transport This new zone is not central london though and so will effect will be felt by the poorer communities try telling people in leyton or tottenham they are not working people on low incomes.Not everyone who lives around london is rich with the house prices and rent they are probably worse off than the working people up north."

Exactly. It punishes people on regular incomes, even those who need to commute OUTSIDE of London as well as those who rely on their vehicle as a work tool (couriers and builders for example).

It's a massively hypocritical policy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ackal1Couple  over a year ago

Manchester


"Is anybody in the least bit bothered by what will be happening from October 25th?

I cant believe that there have been no protests related to this.

It can only be that chance has preoccupied people in so many other ways recently, so TFL have been able to get away with it.

The effect will be monumental and yet another cause of the rocketing price of survival.

Do those of you who drive into London give a monkey's about it?Well you can blame all those people who voted for Sadiq Khan for that as well as no NYE fireworks again.

Think you will find Boris introduced the plan and started with the buses in 2012. Khan just implemented Boris plan. Who do we blame now?

The idea is good the plan around the rules not so great.

Even government departments don’t buy fully electric vehicles because the infrastructure isn’t in any way ready. I think you will find that its the expansion of the ulez that the poster is on about which now takes in most of greater london another £12.50 a day to have a car if you live in london that plus the £15 a day if you drive in the centre. "

It was always the plan to include more of London and the congestion and safety zone will eventually will also include everything inside the M25.

You can’t expand something that isn’t there can you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ackal1Couple  over a year ago

Manchester


"Its not as if they haven't any public transport in Londin!

Have you tried helping someone move anything big and heavy on public transport?

Climate change has to start somewhere. At least most in London have choices for their commute. Here in the boondocks, we have nothing, no choices whatsoever.

Thats a very good point in all this, if you live in a major city at least you have a possible option of public transport, people that live in small towns or villages have no option but to use a car for work etc as public transport just isn't a option. I could not use a bus or a train where I live for work as they do not operate at the times I would need it so have to use a car."

I can’t see Wisbech or Grantham having much chance of a low emission zone with the low traffic and amount of tractors

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ercuryMan  over a year ago

Grantham


"Its not as if they haven't any public transport in Londin!

Have you tried helping someone move anything big and heavy on public transport?

Climate change has to start somewhere. At least most in London have choices for their commute. Here in the boondocks, we have nothing, no choices whatsoever.

Thats a very good point in all this, if you live in a major city at least you have a possible option of public transport, people that live in small towns or villages have no option but to use a car for work etc as public transport just isn't a option. I could not use a bus or a train where I live for work as they do not operate at the times I would need it so have to use a car.

I can’t see Wisbech or Grantham having much chance of a low emission zone with the low traffic and amount of tractors "

No, but they are talking about ULEZ zones in other cities. Once councils see it as a money making exercise, hidden under a green guise, then who knows what may happen.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ackal1Couple  over a year ago

Manchester


"I live in London. And I’m effected by pollution.

Those who need to travel by road into London, should require an exemption. Living in London, there is no real need for 80% of people to drive and that’s even higher in central London.

We have wonderful transportation. Tube, bus, Uber, black cabs, e-scooters, e-bikes, and walk.

If businesses need to operate they can manage their deliveries during the night."

Really ?? So offices and small shops are open 24hrs??

It doesn’t work like that does it. I also can’t see workmen being allowed to unload bricks and erect scaffolding in a residential street at 2 am.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ackal1Couple  over a year ago

Manchester


"Its not as if they haven't any public transport in Londin!

Have you tried helping someone move anything big and heavy on public transport?

Climate change has to start somewhere. At least most in London have choices for their commute. Here in the boondocks, we have nothing, no choices whatsoever.

Thats a very good point in all this, if you live in a major city at least you have a possible option of public transport, people that live in small towns or villages have no option but to use a car for work etc as public transport just isn't a option. I could not use a bus or a train where I live for work as they do not operate at the times I would need it so have to use a car.

I can’t see Wisbech or Grantham having much chance of a low emission zone with the low traffic and amount of tractors

No, but they are talking about ULEZ zones in other cities. Once councils see it as a money making exercise, hidden under a green guise, then who knows what may happen. "

Small towns need the local trade so it’s less attractive to put obstacles in the way. LEZ are aimed at larger cities and towns but councils would be stupid to kill trade. And the traders will scream loudly. Small towns also don’t have the public transport option. Living in Lincs many years ago I know first hand a lot of the country had no service whatsoever.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS  over a year ago

Notts

taxing people even more for using their car, brilliant, tax when you save the money to buy it, tax when you buy it,(isnt that enviro tax already) tax to go on road, tax to go into city, (which is tax from roads surely) tax on petrol..... isnt there some sort of law that says you cant keep charging people for the same fucking thing!

pay to enter shop, pay for using shop lights, pay to use shop trolley, walking on shop floor.....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I live in London. And I’m effected by pollution.

Those who need to travel by road into London, should require an exemption. Living in London, there is no real need for 80% of people to drive and that’s even higher in central London.

We have wonderful transportation. Tube, bus, Uber, black cabs, e-scooters, e-bikes, and walk.

If businesses need to operate they can manage their deliveries during the night.

Really ?? So offices and small shops are open 24hrs??

It doesn’t work like that does it. I also can’t see workmen being allowed to unload bricks and erect scaffolding in a residential street at 2 am. "

It can exactly work like that.

So your example of unloading bricks in residential streets. They get a special permit to deliver and leave.

London is a 24/7 city. You should come spend some time in London and you’ll see it’s not a provincial town like Manchester haha .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ackal1Couple  over a year ago

Manchester


"I live in London. And I’m effected by pollution.

Those who need to travel by road into London, should require an exemption. Living in London, there is no real need for 80% of people to drive and that’s even higher in central London.

We have wonderful transportation. Tube, bus, Uber, black cabs, e-scooters, e-bikes, and walk.

If businesses need to operate they can manage their deliveries during the night.

Really ?? So offices and small shops are open 24hrs??

It doesn’t work like that does it. I also can’t see workmen being allowed to unload bricks and erect scaffolding in a residential street at 2 am.

It can exactly work like that.

So your example of unloading bricks in residential streets. They get a special permit to deliver and leave.

London is a 24/7 city. You should come spend some time in London and you’ll see it’s not a provincial town like Manchester haha . "

Good job I own a house there then isn’t it. So yes I do have an idea. So equal ha ha back at you.

I also have 35 years knowledge of running commercial vehicles in London so that’s given me a tiny insight!! ????

I’m sure the residents will love scaffolding being erected while the truck waits . Bollocks they will.

We have to add costs to our vehicles for the new safety rules which is annoying but I get it. To be honest the older commercial vehicles (pre Euro 6 ) in use need scrapping as they are usually knackered and not safe.

You will never get shopkeepers and small offices open 24 hrs as they don’t have the staff so you’re taking nonsense on the 24hr city.

Yes a lot goes on but the rush hour wouldn’t exist if it was 24hours would it!!

Also where do all the trains and tube go if it’s so busy ??

You need to step down form your ivory tower as it’s not made of ivory anymore . London streets as you know are definitely not paved with gold for all but a select few.

London is fast becoming a very scruffy place where if you are lucky/ hard work you can do fantastically well but otherwise you are working to exist.

You need to travel more. There is a big wide world out there..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Change doesn’t happen unless we embrace change.

And there will always be people who are happiest with the status quo.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *eanoCoolMan  over a year ago

wisbech


"Its not as if they haven't any public transport in Londin!

Have you tried helping someone move anything big and heavy on public transport?

Climate change has to start somewhere. At least most in London have choices for their commute. Here in the boondocks, we have nothing, no choices whatsoever.

Thats a very good point in all this, if you live in a major city at least you have a possible option of public transport, people that live in small towns or villages have no option but to use a car for work etc as public transport just isn't a option. I could not use a bus or a train where I live for work as they do not operate at the times I would need it so have to use a car.

I can’t see Wisbech or Grantham having much chance of a low emission zone with the low traffic and amount of tractors "

Ha ha very true, I was more kinda getting at the fact that as it keeps getting more expensive by the day to run a car or van or whatever that people who live in rural areas will really feel it in there pocket as there is no option of public transport and they are reliant on there vehicles. We may not have as much traffic as other areas but our road network is shit and congestion is now a nightmare with all the extra houses that have been built (which local people cant afford) but no infrastructure to go with it, our small towns just become grid locked at weekends. So much nicer 25 yrs ago lol.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *lex46TV/TS  over a year ago

Near Wells

That's going to make my trips to Legs 800 a bit more expensive

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostafunMan  over a year ago

near ipswich


"Change doesn’t happen unless we embrace change.

And there will always be people who are happiest with the status quo."

This is very true some are very scared of change just look at brexit they still go on about it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ty31Man  over a year ago

NW London


"I live in London. And I’m effected by pollution.

Those who need to travel by road into London, should require an exemption. Living in London, there is no real need for 80% of people to drive and that’s even higher in central London.

We have wonderful transportation. Tube, bus, Uber, black cabs, e-scooters, e-bikes, and walk.

If businesses need to operate they can manage their deliveries during the night.

Really ?? So offices and small shops are open 24hrs??

It doesn’t work like that does it. I also can’t see workmen being allowed to unload bricks and erect scaffolding in a residential street at 2 am.

It can exactly work like that.

So your example of unloading bricks in residential streets. They get a special permit to deliver and leave.

London is a 24/7 city. You should come spend some time in London and you’ll see it’s not a provincial town like Manchester haha . "

ULEZ is 24 hours chargeable. A household living within the zone can expect bills of up to £4500 per year just to start the car. How is is this fair??

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostafunMan  over a year ago

near ipswich


"I live in London. And I’m effected by pollution.

Those who need to travel by road into London, should require an exemption. Living in London, there is no real need for 80% of people to drive and that’s even higher in central London.

We have wonderful transportation. Tube, bus, Uber, black cabs, e-scooters, e-bikes, and walk.

If businesses need to operate they can manage their deliveries during the night.

Really ?? So offices and small shops are open 24hrs??

It doesn’t work like that does it. I also can’t see workmen being allowed to unload bricks and erect scaffolding in a residential street at 2 am.

It can exactly work like that.

So your example of unloading bricks in residential streets. They get a special permit to deliver and leave.

London is a 24/7 city. You should come spend some time in London and you’ll see it’s not a provincial town like Manchester haha .

ULEZ is 24 hours chargeable. A household living within the zone can expect bills of up to £4500 per year just to start the car. How is is this fair??"

Its not mate and the majority of them go nowhere near central London as that costs them another 15 quid.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ackal1Couple  over a year ago

Manchester


"Change doesn’t happen unless we embrace change.

And there will always be people who are happiest with the status quo.This is very true some are very scared of change just look at brexit they still go on about it."

Change and growth with financial benefit are all great. Brexit is reduction in trade added cost and very negative . The fact the costs keep getting worse means people will go on complaining as it’s making them worse off. Please feel free to share the benefits on another thread about the benefits! Not this one obviously as it’s about costs for London residents that affects the less well off disproportionately .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ackal1Couple  over a year ago

Manchester


"Its not as if they haven't any public transport in Londin!

Have you tried helping someone move anything big and heavy on public transport?

Climate change has to start somewhere. At least most in London have choices for their commute. Here in the boondocks, we have nothing, no choices whatsoever.

Thats a very good point in all this, if you live in a major city at least you have a possible option of public transport, people that live in small towns or villages have no option but to use a car for work etc as public transport just isn't a option. I could not use a bus or a train where I live for work as they do not operate at the times I would need it so have to use a car.

I can’t see Wisbech or Grantham having much chance of a low emission zone with the low traffic and amount of tractors

Ha ha very true, I was more kinda getting at the fact that as it keeps getting more expensive by the day to run a car or van or whatever that people who live in rural areas will really feel it in there pocket as there is no option of public transport and they are reliant on there vehicles. We may not have as much traffic as other areas but our road network is shit and congestion is now a nightmare with all the extra houses that have been built (which local people cant afford) but no infrastructure to go with it, our small towns just become grid locked at weekends. So much nicer 25 yrs ago lol."

Being born in Lincolnshire I can confirm it was the best kept secret as a place to live and bring up a family. So feel your pain.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Change doesn’t happen unless we embrace change.

And there will always be people who are happiest with the status quo.This is very true some are very scared of change just look at brexit they still go on about it.

Change and growth with financial benefit are all great. Brexit is reduction in trade added cost and very negative . The fact the costs keep getting worse means people will go on complaining as it’s making them worse off. Please feel free to share the benefits on another thread about the benefits! Not this one obviously as it’s about costs for London residents that affects the less well off disproportionately . "

It’s the poorest that are affected by poor London environmental pollution. The affluent are doing perfectly ok. As a London resident born, raised and living in central London.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS  over a year ago

Notts


"Change doesn’t happen unless we embrace change.

And there will always be people who are happiest with the status quo.This is very true some are very scared of change just look at brexit they still go on about it.

Change and growth with financial benefit are all great. Brexit is reduction in trade added cost and very negative . The fact the costs keep getting worse means people will go on complaining as it’s making them worse off. Please feel free to share the benefits on another thread about the benefits! Not this one obviously as it’s about costs for London residents that affects the less well off disproportionately .

It’s the poorest that are affected by poor London environmental pollution. The affluent are doing perfectly ok. As a London resident born, raised and living in central London. "

Why do the poor breath in more? Seriously how does boris avoid breathing on his bike

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *eanoCoolMan  over a year ago

wisbech


"Its not as if they haven't any public transport in Londin!

Have you tried helping someone move anything big and heavy on public transport?

Climate change has to start somewhere. At least most in London have choices for their commute. Here in the boondocks, we have nothing, no choices whatsoever.

Thats a very good point in all this, if you live in a major city at least you have a possible option of public transport, people that live in small towns or villages have no option but to use a car for work etc as public transport just isn't a option. I could not use a bus or a train where I live for work as they do not operate at the times I would need it so have to use a car.

I can’t see Wisbech or Grantham having much chance of a low emission zone with the low traffic and amount of tractors

Ha ha very true, I was more kinda getting at the fact that as it keeps getting more expensive by the day to run a car or van or whatever that people who live in rural areas will really feel it in there pocket as there is no option of public transport and they are reliant on there vehicles. We may not have as much traffic as other areas but our road network is shit and congestion is now a nightmare with all the extra houses that have been built (which local people cant afford) but no infrastructure to go with it, our small towns just become grid locked at weekends. So much nicer 25 yrs ago lol.

Being born in Lincolnshire I can confirm it was the best kept secret as a place to live and bring up a family. So feel your pain. "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Change doesn’t happen unless we embrace change.

And there will always be people who are happiest with the status quo.This is very true some are very scared of change just look at brexit they still go on about it.

Change and growth with financial benefit are all great. Brexit is reduction in trade added cost and very negative . The fact the costs keep getting worse means people will go on complaining as it’s making them worse off. Please feel free to share the benefits on another thread about the benefits! Not this one obviously as it’s about costs for London residents that affects the less well off disproportionately .

It’s the poorest that are affected by poor London environmental pollution. The affluent are doing perfectly ok. As a London resident born, raised and living in central London.

Why do the poor breath in more? Seriously how does boris avoid breathing on his bike "

London’s poorest, more often then not live close to busy main roads, where thousands cars, lorries and vans spew out exhaust fumes and break dust on a daily basis.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *urreyfun38Couple  over a year ago

croydon


"Is anybody in the least bit bothered by what will be happening from October 25th?

I cant believe that there have been no protests related to this.

It can only be that chance has preoccupied people in so many other ways recently, so TFL have been able to get away with it.

The effect will be monumental and yet another cause of the rocketing price of survival.

Do those of you who drive into London give a monkey's about it?Well you can blame all those people who voted for Sadiq Khan for that as well as no NYE fireworks again.

Think you will find Boris introduced the plan and started with the buses in 2012. Khan just implemented Boris plan. Who do we blame now?

The idea is good the plan around the rules not so great.

Even government departments don’t buy fully electric vehicles because the infrastructure isn’t in any way ready. I think you will find that its the expansion of the ulez that the poster is on about which now takes in most of greater london another £12.50 a day to have a car if you live in london that plus the £15 a day if you drive in the centre.

It was always the plan to include more of London and the congestion and safety zone will eventually will also include everything inside the M25.

You can’t expand something that isn’t there can you. "

This was wanted but Boris cut him off at the knees as it would of gone down like a lead balloon with Tory voters in the shires

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hybloke67Man  over a year ago

ROMFORD

In todays London Standard Khan has said extra measures will be used on top of the new ULEZ.

He will hit hotshots outside of the new ULEZ.

The new ULEZ is estimated to earn £2 Million a day in fines but where that money will be spent has not been stated.

This charge is basically another tax on car drivers and I can guarantee when the money falls lower than the estimated £2M, charges will go up.

Same thing happened with the congestion charge which was £5 a day when first introduced. Receipts fell below expected estimates so it was raised to £7.50 a day and has now increased up to £12.50 a day.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *estivalMan  over a year ago

borehamwood


"Is anybody in the least bit bothered by what will be happening from October 25th?

I cant believe that there have been no protests related to this.

It can only be that chance has preoccupied people in so many other ways recently, so TFL have been able to get away with it.

The effect will be monumental and yet another cause of the rocketing price of survival.

Do those of you who drive into London give a monkey's about it?Well you can blame all those people who voted for Sadiq Khan for that as well as no NYE fireworks again.

Think you will find Boris introduced the plan and started with the buses in 2012. Khan just implemented Boris plan. Who do we blame now?

The idea is good the plan around the rules not so great.

Even government departments don’t buy fully electric vehicles because the infrastructure isn’t in any way ready. I think you will find that its the expansion of the ulez that the poster is on about which now takes in most of greater london another £12.50 a day to have a car if you live in london that plus the £15 a day if you drive in the centre.

It was always the plan to include more of London and the congestion and safety zone will eventually will also include everything inside the M25.

You can’t expand something that isn’t there can you. "

it wont be including everything inside the m25,this is the mayor of londons baby and im pretty sure he cant roll his idea out into hertfordshire,kent,essex,surrey and berkshire we have our own councils thank you very much and we aint london boroughs

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ackal1Couple  over a year ago

Manchester


"Is anybody in the least bit bothered by what will be happening from October 25th?

I cant believe that there have been no protests related to this.

It can only be that chance has preoccupied people in so many other ways recently, so TFL have been able to get away with it.

The effect will be monumental and yet another cause of the rocketing price of survival.

Do those of you who drive into London give a monkey's about it?Well you can blame all those people who voted for Sadiq Khan for that as well as no NYE fireworks again.

Think you will find Boris introduced the plan and started with the buses in 2012. Khan just implemented Boris plan. Who do we blame now?

The idea is good the plan around the rules not so great.

Even government departments don’t buy fully electric vehicles because the infrastructure isn’t in any way ready. I think you will find that its the expansion of the ulez that the poster is on about which now takes in most of greater london another £12.50 a day to have a car if you live in london that plus the £15 a day if you drive in the centre.

It was always the plan to include more of London and the congestion and safety zone will eventually will also include everything inside the M25.

You can’t expand something that isn’t there can you. it wont be including everything inside the m25,this is the mayor of londons baby and im pretty sure he cant roll his idea out into hertfordshire,kent,essex,surrey and berkshire we have our own councils thank you very much and we aint london boroughs"

The safety zone for HGVs is bordered by the M25 so don’t be so sure of that.,

Trucks levies are always the starting point.

Admin simplified and cameras all in place . It’s coming . No idea when

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ust RachelTV/TS  over a year ago

Eastbourne

There was a paper written years ago on the congestion zone, eventually everywhere inside the M25 will be a chargeable zone.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostafunMan  over a year ago

near ipswich

I was talking to someone last night who lives on the boundary of the zone it seems that people who live inside the zone and work outside it are now blocking the streets up by parking their cars and walking to there homes.I guess that makes sense if you can save £12.50 a day for a few minutes walk.

As usual this effects the lower paid who cannot afford to upgrade their cars so they dont have to pay.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ty31Man  over a year ago

NW London

[Removed by poster at 23/10/21 11:32:49]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

This was announced years ago. People had plenty time to sell or part trade their non-compliant car for one that is.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I was talking to someone last night who lives on the boundary of the zone it seems that people who live inside the zone and work outside it are now blocking the streets up by parking their cars and walking to there homes.I guess that makes sense if you can save £12.50 a day for a few minutes walk.

As usual this effects the lower paid who cannot afford to upgrade their cars so they dont have to pay."

If cars are illegally blocking streets. Like some post apocalyptic nightmare.

I would think those cars would be lifted onto a tow truck and removed leaving the thrifty driver out of pocket of a value considerably more then £12.50.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostafunMan  over a year ago

near ipswich


"I was talking to someone last night who lives on the boundary of the zone it seems that people who live inside the zone and work outside it are now blocking the streets up by parking their cars and walking to there homes.I guess that makes sense if you can save £12.50 a day for a few minutes walk.

As usual this effects the lower paid who cannot afford to upgrade their cars so they dont have to pay.

If cars are illegally blocking streets. Like some post apocalyptic nightmare.

I would think those cars would be lifted onto a tow truck and removed leaving the thrifty driver out of pocket of a value considerably more then £12.50."

A bit dramatic dont you think, where did i say illegally blocking streets?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I was talking to someone last night who lives on the boundary of the zone it seems that people who live inside the zone and work outside it are now blocking the streets up by parking their cars and walking to there homes.I guess that makes sense if you can save £12.50 a day for a few minutes walk.

As usual this effects the lower paid who cannot afford to upgrade their cars so they dont have to pay.

If cars are illegally blocking streets. Like some post apocalyptic nightmare.

I would think those cars would be lifted onto a tow truck and removed leaving the thrifty driver out of pocket of a value considerably more then £12.50.A bit dramatic dont you think, where did i say illegally blocking streets? "

Clearly you said ‘blocking streets’. Clearly blocking streets is illegal. Not because I think so. Because it’s a fact.

Nobody is blocking streets. And you call me dramatic haha

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostafunMan  over a year ago

near ipswich


"I was talking to someone last night who lives on the boundary of the zone it seems that people who live inside the zone and work outside it are now blocking the streets up by parking their cars and walking to there homes.I guess that makes sense if you can save £12.50 a day for a few minutes walk.

As usual this effects the lower paid who cannot afford to upgrade their cars so they dont have to pay.

If cars are illegally blocking streets. Like some post apocalyptic nightmare.

I would think those cars would be lifted onto a tow truck and removed leaving the thrifty driver out of pocket of a value considerably more then £12.50.A bit dramatic dont you think, where did i say illegally blocking streets?

Clearly you said ‘blocking streets’. Clearly blocking streets is illegal. Not because I think so. Because it’s a fact.

Nobody is blocking streets. And you call me dramatic haha "

Yes maybe i should have made it a bit clearer for you, residents of roads on the edge of the zone are finding it harder to park as cars from inside the zone are parking in their roads as well to avoid the charge.Understand now?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I was talking to someone last night who lives on the boundary of the zone it seems that people who live inside the zone and work outside it are now blocking the streets up by parking their cars and walking to there homes.I guess that makes sense if you can save £12.50 a day for a few minutes walk.

As usual this effects the lower paid who cannot afford to upgrade their cars so they dont have to pay.

If cars are illegally blocking streets. Like some post apocalyptic nightmare.

I would think those cars would be lifted onto a tow truck and removed leaving the thrifty driver out of pocket of a value considerably more then £12.50.A bit dramatic dont you think, where did i say illegally blocking streets?

Clearly you said ‘blocking streets’. Clearly blocking streets is illegal. Not because I think so. Because it’s a fact.

Nobody is blocking streets. And you call me dramatic haha Yes maybe i should have made it a bit clearer for you, residents of roads on the edge of the zone are finding it harder to park as cars from inside the zone are parking in their roads as well to avoid the charge.Understand now?"

Since you’ve now clarified your false statement. I am very comfortable that you tried to create the drama. I hope you’ve understood that poor clearly leads to apocalyptic thoughts.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *lirty-CoupleCouple  over a year ago

Bexley


"I was talking to someone last night who lives on the boundary of the zone it seems that people who live inside the zone and work outside it are now blocking the streets up by parking their cars and walking to there homes.I guess that makes sense if you can save £12.50 a day for a few minutes walk.

As usual this effects the lower paid who cannot afford to upgrade their cars so they dont have to pay.

If cars are illegally blocking streets. Like some post apocalyptic nightmare.

I would think those cars would be lifted onto a tow truck and removed leaving the thrifty driver out of pocket of a value considerably more then £12.50.A bit dramatic dont you think, where did i say illegally blocking streets?

Clearly you said ‘blocking streets’. Clearly blocking streets is illegal. Not because I think so. Because it’s a fact.

Nobody is blocking streets. And you call me dramatic haha Yes maybe i should have made it a bit clearer for you, residents of roads on the edge of the zone are finding it harder to park as cars from inside the zone are parking in their roads as well to avoid the charge.Understand now?"

Some of us knew exactly what you meant and you're right.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *eroy1000Man  over a year ago

milton keynes


"I was talking to someone last night who lives on the boundary of the zone it seems that people who live inside the zone and work outside it are now blocking the streets up by parking their cars and walking to there homes.I guess that makes sense if you can save £12.50 a day for a few minutes walk.

As usual this effects the lower paid who cannot afford to upgrade their cars so they dont have to pay.

If cars are illegally blocking streets. Like some post apocalyptic nightmare.

I would think those cars would be lifted onto a tow truck and removed leaving the thrifty driver out of pocket of a value considerably more then £12.50.A bit dramatic dont you think, where did i say illegally blocking streets?

Clearly you said ‘blocking streets’. Clearly blocking streets is illegal. Not because I think so. Because it’s a fact.

Nobody is blocking streets. And you call me dramatic haha Yes maybe i should have made it a bit clearer for you, residents of roads on the edge of the zone are finding it harder to park as cars from inside the zone are parking in their roads as well to avoid the charge.Understand now?

Some of us knew exactly what you meant and you're right. "

Even I understood it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I was talking to someone last night who lives on the boundary of the zone it seems that people who live inside the zone and work outside it are now blocking the streets up by parking their cars and walking to there homes.I guess that makes sense if you can save £12.50 a day for a few minutes walk.

As usual this effects the lower paid who cannot afford to upgrade their cars so they dont have to pay.

If cars are illegally blocking streets. Like some post apocalyptic nightmare.

I would think those cars would be lifted onto a tow truck and removed leaving the thrifty driver out of pocket of a value considerably more then £12.50.A bit dramatic dont you think, where did i say illegally blocking streets?

Clearly you said ‘blocking streets’. Clearly blocking streets is illegal. Not because I think so. Because it’s a fact.

Nobody is blocking streets. And you call me dramatic haha Yes maybe i should have made it a bit clearer for you, residents of roads on the edge of the zone are finding it harder to park as cars from inside the zone are parking in their roads as well to avoid the charge.Understand now?

Some of us knew exactly what you meant and you're right.

Even I understood it "

Well done . Want a cookie

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostafunMan  over a year ago

near ipswich


"I was talking to someone last night who lives on the boundary of the zone it seems that people who live inside the zone and work outside it are now blocking the streets up by parking their cars and walking to there homes.I guess that makes sense if you can save £12.50 a day for a few minutes walk.

As usual this effects the lower paid who cannot afford to upgrade their cars so they dont have to pay.

If cars are illegally blocking streets. Like some post apocalyptic nightmare.

I would think those cars would be lifted onto a tow truck and removed leaving the thrifty driver out of pocket of a value considerably more then £12.50.A bit dramatic dont you think, where did i say illegally blocking streets?

Clearly you said ‘blocking streets’. Clearly blocking streets is illegal. Not because I think so. Because it’s a fact.

Nobody is blocking streets. And you call me dramatic haha Yes maybe i should have made it a bit clearer for you, residents of roads on the edge of the zone are finding it harder to park as cars from inside the zone are parking in their roads as well to avoid the charge.Understand now?

Some of us knew exactly what you meant and you're right. "

some are only on here for confrontation rather than a serious discussion you can usually spot them, not been on long no verifications.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *eroy1000Man  over a year ago

milton keynes


"I was talking to someone last night who lives on the boundary of the zone it seems that people who live inside the zone and work outside it are now blocking the streets up by parking their cars and walking to there homes.I guess that makes sense if you can save £12.50 a day for a few minutes walk.

As usual this effects the lower paid who cannot afford to upgrade their cars so they dont have to pay.

If cars are illegally blocking streets. Like some post apocalyptic nightmare.

I would think those cars would be lifted onto a tow truck and removed leaving the thrifty driver out of pocket of a value considerably more then £12.50.A bit dramatic dont you think, where did i say illegally blocking streets?

Clearly you said ‘blocking streets’. Clearly blocking streets is illegal. Not because I think so. Because it’s a fact.

Nobody is blocking streets. And you call me dramatic haha Yes maybe i should have made it a bit clearer for you, residents of roads on the edge of the zone are finding it harder to park as cars from inside the zone are parking in their roads as well to avoid the charge.Understand now?

Some of us knew exactly what you meant and you're right.

Even I understood it

Well done . Want a cookie "

Chocolate chip please

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ealthy_and_HungMan  over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

removing more cars from the city and the burbs is clearly a marvelous thing and is to be applauded by eceryone who wants to breath cleaner air. with the area's comprehensive subsidised transport infrastructure there has been absolutely no requirement to own a car for a very long time.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostafunMan  over a year ago

near ipswich


"removing more cars from the city and the burbs is clearly a marvelous thing and is to be applauded by eceryone who wants to breath cleaner air. with the area's comprehensive subsidised transport infrastructure there has been absolutely no requirement to own a car for a very long time. "
Says somone who doesnt live there.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ealthy_and_HungMan  over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney

[Removed by poster at 23/10/21 22:10:11]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ealthy_and_HungMan  over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney


"Says somone who doesnt live there. "

yet you appear to have lots to say about it whilst not appearing to live there ... i do actually own a very very nice and very very large apartment in earls court along with many other properties across the uk and europe, so your usual forum stalking is again as unwarranted as it is incorrect.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostafunMan  over a year ago

near ipswich


"Says somone who doesnt live there.

yet you appear to have lots to say about it whilst not appearing to live there ... i do actually own a very very nice and very very large apartment in earls court along with many other properties across the uk and europe, so your usual forum stalking is again as unwarranted as it is incorrect. "

yeah earls court is not on the boundary of zone and agree if you are in central london there is no need for a car its a bit different if you live in Walthamstow for instance and yes i do know as i come from the area and most of my family still live there.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

As someone who has lived in Walthamstow I can say it has good public transport. Loads of buses and a few tube stations and overground stations.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ealthy_and_HungMan  over a year ago

Princes Risborough, Luasanne, Alderney


"As someone who has lived in Walthamstow I can say it has good public transport. Loads of buses and a few tube stations and overground stations.

"

this is factually accurate. walthamstow boasts some of the best and most heavily subsidised transport infrastructure in the country.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostafunMan  over a year ago

near ipswich


"As someone who has lived in Walthamstow I can say it has good public transport. Loads of buses and a few tube stations and overground stations.

"

yes all good if you are going into central london not so good if you work in Essex or Herts though is it?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"As someone who has lived in Walthamstow I can say it has good public transport. Loads of buses and a few tube stations and overground stations.

yes all good if you are going into central london not so good if you work in Essex or Herts though is it?"

ULEZ was announced in 2018. People have had almost 4 years to make sure they have a compliant vehicle. That is plenty time to sell or scrap their old petrol car, or sell/trade their deisel car for a compliant one.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *eroy1000Man  over a year ago

milton keynes


"As someone who has lived in Walthamstow I can say it has good public transport. Loads of buses and a few tube stations and overground stations.

yes all good if you are going into central london not so good if you work in Essex or Herts though is it?

ULEZ was announced in 2018. People have had almost 4 years to make sure they have a compliant vehicle. That is plenty time to sell or scrap their old petrol car, or sell/trade their deisel car for a compliant one."

It may be the case that some affected people simply can't afford to upgrade their cars to a compliant version even with notice

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ornucopia OP   Man  over a year ago

Bexley

It has been brought to my attention that

Queen Elizabeth II Hospital in Woolwich is just inside the ULEZ.

Talk about rubbing people's noses in it if they are poor and struggling.

Any other nasty examples?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ostafunMan  over a year ago

near ipswich


"It has been brought to my attention that

Queen Elizabeth II Hospital in Woolwich is just inside the ULEZ.

Talk about rubbing people's noses in it if they are poor and struggling.

Any other nasty examples?"

Whipps cross,royal london,newham.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ty31Man  over a year ago

NW London

Looks like Sadiq Khan is pushing ahead with the enlarged zone, despite every opinion poll stating clearly the majority are against it and despite the severe hardships this will bring to many.

I just wonder when British people will stop being such meek and accepting push overs.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ornucopia OP   Man  over a year ago

Bexley


"Looks like Sadiq Khan is pushing ahead with the enlarged zone, despite every opinion poll stating clearly the majority are against it and despite the severe hardships this will bring to many.

I just wonder when British people will stop being such meek and accepting push overs."

I'm assuming Khan isn't going to be seeking any form of re-election or hoping to move up the career ladder.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *urreyfun38Couple  over a year ago

croydon


"Looks like Sadiq Khan is pushing ahead with the enlarged zone, despite every opinion poll stating clearly the majority are against it and despite the severe hardships this will bring to many.

I just wonder when British people will stop being such meek and accepting push overs.

I'm assuming Khan isn't going to be seeking any form of re-election or hoping to move up the career ladder."

I assume he will run again. But hope that the people that didn’t vote in the last Mayoral elections get out and vote him out.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ornucopia OP   Man  over a year ago

Bexley


"

I'm assuming Khan isn't going to be seeking any form of re-election or hoping to move up the career ladder."

Except, perhaps, some extremely lucrative directorships in the car industry.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *rFunBoyMan  over a year ago

Longridge

[Removed by poster at 29/11/22 02:10:46]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *aribbean King 1985Man  over a year ago

South West London

So since Sadiq Khan's became Mayor Of London, here's the facts about during his time:

While ULEZ was Boris Johnsons idea, Sadiq Khan expanded it in 2021 and will be expanding it again in August 2023, affecting those on the lowest income are unable to afford paying it as well as unable to buy a car to avoid paying it

Increased the Congestion Charge to £15 and included it to weekends

Introduced LTNs initially temperary during covid to then make them permanent (without much consultation I might add), killing of local trade in the streets where can only drive to but also moving traffic to the main roads causing more pollution, killing off his objective to REDUCE pollution.

Increased the share of council tax every year since his been Mayor despite threatening to cut services.

Built less housing projects since his been in office compared to the 2 previous mayors

While he froze travel fare for 4 years between 2016-2020, now has increased them every year since

Theres been more strikes on TFL transport since his been mayor then the 2 previous mayors combined despite wanting people to use more public transport.

His crime record gone up every year since his been in office.

Despite all this, nobody in London who likes him (let alone the free world) can give a really good reason or explaination on why they vote for him knowing the chaos his caused.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *urreyfun38Couple  over a year ago

croydon


"So since Sadiq Khan's became Mayor Of London, here's the facts about during his time:

While ULEZ was Boris Johnsons idea, Sadiq Khan expanded it in 2021 and will be expanding it again in August 2023, affecting those on the lowest income are unable to afford paying it as well as unable to buy a car to avoid paying it

Increased the Congestion Charge to £15 and included it to weekends

Introduced LTNs initially temperary during covid to then make them permanent (without much consultation I might add), killing of local trade in the streets where can only drive to but also moving traffic to the main roads causing more pollution, killing off his objective to REDUCE pollution.

Increased the share of council tax every year since his been Mayor despite threatening to cut services.

Built less housing projects since his been in office compared to the 2 previous mayors

While he froze travel fare for 4 years between 2016-2020, now has increased them every year since

Theres been more strikes on TFL transport since his been mayor then the 2 previous mayors combined despite wanting people to use more public transport.

His crime record gone up every year since his been in office.

Despite all this, nobody in London who likes him (let alone the free world) can give a really good reason or explaination on why they vote for him knowing the chaos his caused.

Nobody voted for him. He got there on probably the lowest turn out on Mayoral elections ever.

Then TFL are probably the worst organisation that ever managed transport and roads in London at this present time in my memory.

You forgot to add all the roads he has taken lanes off of for his fanciful ideal. Two that have caused absolute chaos are Park Lane and Regent Street.

"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *atonMan  over a year ago

barnet

Most don't want it and it won't affect overall air quality. It's the odious little arrogant twats vanity project to bolster tfls coffers.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *agan_PairCouple  over a year ago

portchester

The stupid thing about this is an older 1.0 engine car is going to be penalised in the ULEZ expansion, but I can continue to drive my 6.0 V12 in there for free. This is nothing to do with emissions and is a stealth tax on the least able to afford it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *lex46TV/TS  over a year ago

Near Wells

All this stuff just puts me off visiting London,it sounds so complicated now. Perhaps, that's what they want.

Even the nearest Train and Coach station to be able to get to London is 20 miles away.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *aribbean King 1985Man  over a year ago

South West London

Well I hope most of you WON'T be voting for him as London Mayor again (although its wishful thinking)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ity_BoyMan  over a year ago

London


"So since Sadiq Khan's became Mayor Of London, here's the facts about during his time:

While ULEZ was Boris Johnsons idea, Sadiq Khan expanded it in 2021 and will be expanding it again in August 2023, affecting those on the lowest income are unable to afford paying it as well as unable to buy a car to avoid paying it

Increased the Congestion Charge to £15 and included it to weekends

Introduced LTNs initially temperary during covid to then make them permanent (without much consultation I might add), killing of local trade in the streets where can only drive to but also moving traffic to the main roads causing more pollution, killing off his objective to REDUCE pollution.

Increased the share of council tax every year since his been Mayor despite threatening to cut services.

Built less housing projects since his been in office compared to the 2 previous mayors

While he froze travel fare for 4 years between 2016-2020, now has increased them every year since

Theres been more strikes on TFL transport since his been mayor then the 2 previous mayors combined despite wanting people to use more public transport.

His crime record gone up every year since his been in office.

Despite all this, nobody in London who likes him (let alone the free world) can give a really good reason or explaination on why they vote for him knowing the chaos his caused.

"

People in other threads have given you reasons why council tax and fares are increasing but you seem to be ignoring them hmm

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London

Petrol cars built after 2006 and diesel cars after 2015 are exempt from ULEZ.

Those are pretty old and relatively cheap compared to the higher repair rate that older cars demand.

I still don't believe that doing this in a cost of living crisis is correct, but it is not quite what the gloomsters and the doomsters are claiming.

The latest report (from TFL, but peer reviewed by Imperial College) indicates:

"NOx, particularly produced by diesel engines, are 23% lower across London as a whole and 26% lower within the zone.

PM2.5s, were calculated to be 19% lower than they would have been and 7% lower across the whole city."

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/10/ulez-cut-toxic-nox-pollution-across-london-by-23-report-finds

All of this does require a good public mass transit system. This is the case for London, in general, except for the current strikes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"The stupid thing about this is an older 1.0 engine car is going to be penalised in the ULEZ expansion, but I can continue to drive my 6.0 V12 in there for free. This is nothing to do with emissions and is a stealth tax on the least able to afford it."

Really?

Why do you think that it has nothing to do with emissions?

What are the emissions of your V12 relative to a 1.0l older than 2009?

What is the benefit to the Mayor of London of imposing a "stealth tax on the least able to afford it"?

If you are going to propose a conspiracy you do need to at least attempt to provide some sort of an explanation for it, otherwise it's just fantasy without pretence.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"Is anybody in the least bit bothered by what will be happening from October 25th?

I cant believe that there have been no protests related to this.

It can only be that chance has preoccupied people in so many other ways recently, so TFL have been able to get away with it.

The effect will be monumental and yet another cause of the rocketing price of survival.

Do those of you who drive into London give a monkey's about it?"

I'm not sure that the effects will be "monumental".

It can be many other reasons than you suggest that there are not protests.

A lot, possibly the majority, of vehicles have already been replaced. It's pretty old cars (petrol 2009 and diesel 2015) that have to be changed.

People may like the idea of cleaner air and not blowing black snot out of their nose and smelling of fumes. Remember what it was like with indoor smoking after a night out?

I would never drive into London. That's what the tube is for.

Lots of Londoners do not have cars at all.

Perhaps many people are not "Outraged from Bexley"?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ove2pleaseseukMan  over a year ago

Hastings


"Is anybody in the least bit bothered by what will be happening from October 25th?

I cant believe that there have been no protests related to this.

It can only be that chance has preoccupied people in so many other ways recently, so TFL have been able to get away with it.

The effect will be monumental and yet another cause of the rocketing price of survival.

Do those of you who drive into London give a monkey's about it?"

No if driving in for a job it will get added to that job.

If I don't win the work so be it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *uddy laneMan  over a year ago

dudley


"Is anybody in the least bit bothered by what will be happening from October 25th?

I cant believe that there have been no protests related to this.

It can only be that chance has preoccupied people in so many other ways recently, so TFL have been able to get away with it.

The effect will be monumental and yet another cause of the rocketing price of survival.

Do those of you who drive into London give a monkey's about it?"

Bring back the days of a honest hos with a cart or trap bolted to it, try and put a ulez charge on that.

hos = horse.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ove2pleaseseukMan  over a year ago

Hastings


"Is anybody in the least bit bothered by what will be happening from October 25th?

I cant believe that there have been no protests related to this.

It can only be that chance has preoccupied people in so many other ways recently, so TFL have been able to get away with it.

The effect will be monumental and yet another cause of the rocketing price of survival.

Do those of you who drive into London give a monkey's about it?

Bring back the days of a honest hos with a cart or trap bolted to it, try and put a ulez charge on that.

hos = horse. "

Step tow rag n bone lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"So since Sadiq Khan's became Mayor Of London, here's the facts about during his time:

While ULEZ was Boris Johnsons idea, Sadiq Khan expanded it in 2021 and will be expanding it again in August 2023, affecting those on the lowest income are unable to afford paying it as well as unable to buy a car to avoid paying it

Increased the Congestion Charge to £15 and included it to weekends

Introduced LTNs initially temperary during covid to then make them permanent (without much consultation I might add), killing of local trade in the streets where can only drive to but also moving traffic to the main roads causing more pollution, killing off his objective to REDUCE pollution.

Increased the share of council tax every year since his been Mayor despite threatening to cut services.

Built less housing projects since his been in office compared to the 2 previous mayors

While he froze travel fare for 4 years between 2016-2020, now has increased them every year since

Theres been more strikes on TFL transport since his been mayor then the 2 previous mayors combined despite wanting people to use more public transport.

His crime record gone up every year since his been in office.

Despite all this, nobody in London who likes him (let alone the free world) can give a really good reason or explaination on why they vote for him knowing the chaos his caused.

Corruption, electoral fraud, the usual stuff. Like Boris and Ken before him, the smell reeks through the pores and is absorbed by us all. It doesn't help the most impacted by his policies have no means of getting him or this stupid job role out.

"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"So since Sadiq Khan's became Mayor Of London, here's the facts about during his time:

While ULEZ was Boris Johnsons idea, Sadiq Khan expanded it in 2021 and will be expanding it again in August 2023, affecting those on the lowest income are unable to afford paying it as well as unable to buy a car to avoid paying it

Increased the Congestion Charge to £15 and included it to weekends

Introduced LTNs initially temperary during covid to then make them permanent (without much consultation I might add), killing of local trade in the streets where can only drive to but also moving traffic to the main roads causing more pollution, killing off his objective to REDUCE pollution.

Increased the share of council tax every year since his been Mayor despite threatening to cut services.

Built less housing projects since his been in office compared to the 2 previous mayors

While he froze travel fare for 4 years between 2016-2020, now has increased them every year since

Theres been more strikes on TFL transport since his been mayor then the 2 previous mayors combined despite wanting people to use more public transport.

His crime record gone up every year since his been in office.

Despite all this, nobody in London who likes him (let alone the free world) can give a really good reason or explaination on why they vote for him knowing the chaos his caused.

Corruption, electoral fraud, the usual stuff. Like Boris and Ken before him, the smell reeks through the pores and is absorbed by us all. It doesn't help the most impacted by his policies have no means of getting him or this stupid job role out.

"

Just gotta say: great Fab username lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Is anybody in the least bit bothered by what will be happening from October 25th?

I cant believe that there have been no protests related to this.

It can only be that chance has preoccupied people in so many other ways recently, so TFL have been able to get away with it.

The effect will be monumental and yet another cause of the rocketing price of survival.

Do those of you who drive into London give a monkey's about it?"

Nasty herding and nooseing for the masses.

All by design.

Much morexto come yet.

Master plan at work!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"Is anybody in the least bit bothered by what will be happening from October 25th?

I cant believe that there have been no protests related to this.

It can only be that chance has preoccupied people in so many other ways recently, so TFL have been able to get away with it.

The effect will be monumental and yet another cause of the rocketing price of survival.

Do those of you who drive into London give a monkey's about it?

Nasty herding and nooseing for the masses.

All by design.

Much morexto come yet.

Master plan at work!"

?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ty31Man  over a year ago

NW London


"Is anybody in the least bit bothered by what will be happening from October 25th?

I cant believe that there have been no protests related to this.

It can only be that chance has preoccupied people in so many other ways recently, so TFL have been able to get away with it.

The effect will be monumental and yet another cause of the rocketing price of survival.

Do those of you who drive into London give a monkey's about it?

Nasty herding and nooseing for the masses.

All by design.

Much morexto come yet.

Master plan at work!

?"

It's nothing but a raid on the motorist to plug the black hole in TFL finances.

Who's to say that this won't be extended eventually to cover ALL fuel driven vehicles? It's estimated that the revenue benefits will be negligible by 2027.

Then eventually expanded to cover ANY vehicle?

It's a cynical and vindictive policy. Londoners are the most put upon and financially stretched people in this country and this forces the least well off to bear the brunt and will push more people into poverty and push more people out of London

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"Is anybody in the least bit bothered by what will be happening from October 25th?

I cant believe that there have been no protests related to this.

It can only be that chance has preoccupied people in so many other ways recently, so TFL have been able to get away with it.

The effect will be monumental and yet another cause of the rocketing price of survival.

Do those of you who drive into London give a monkey's about it?

Nasty herding and nooseing for the masses.

All by design.

Much morexto come yet.

Master plan at work!

?

It's nothing but a raid on the motorist to plug the black hole in TFL finances.

Who's to say that this won't be extended eventually to cover ALL fuel driven vehicles? It's estimated that the revenue benefits will be negligible by 2027.

Then eventually expanded to cover ANY vehicle?

It's a cynical and vindictive policy. Londoners are the most put upon and financially stretched people in this country and this forces the least well off to bear the brunt and will push more people into poverty and push more people out of London "

Does it reduce congestion and pollution levels?

Is pollution harmful to human health?

Why is it in the interest of the Mayor to "be vindictive"?

Can you answer those three points directly?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Is anybody in the least bit bothered by what will be happening from October 25th?

I cant believe that there have been no protests related to this.

It can only be that chance has preoccupied people in so many other ways recently, so TFL have been able to get away with it.

The effect will be monumental and yet another cause of the rocketing price of survival.

Do those of you who drive into London give a monkey's about it?

Nasty herding and nooseing for the masses.

All by design.

Much morexto come yet.

Master plan at work!

?

It's nothing but a raid on the motorist to plug the black hole in TFL finances.

Who's to say that this won't be extended eventually to cover ALL fuel driven vehicles? It's estimated that the revenue benefits will be negligible by 2027.

Then eventually expanded to cover ANY vehicle?

It's a cynical and vindictive policy. Londoners are the most put upon and financially stretched people in this country and this forces the least well off to bear the brunt and will push more people into poverty and push more people out of London

Does it reduce congestion and pollution levels?

No, there is no fully functioning and cheaper public transport service 24 hours to allow an alternative to workers and deliveries access.

Is pollution harmful to human health?

Yes it is. However the people want their morning coffee.

Why is it in the interest of the Mayor to "be vindictive"?

Mr Khan was a solicitor. It's in their nature. Why charge for it? Why not just have a local ruling that no vehicles that reach the ULEZ threshold are allowed to travel within the zones? Why not offer anyone with a older vehicle the option of student type reduction of public transport travel costs.

Can you answer those three points directly?"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *icktMan  over a year ago

hockley


"

...Well you can blame all those people who voted for Sadiq Khan for that as well as no NYE fireworks again.

Think you will find Boris introduced the plan and started with the buses in 2012. Khan just implemented Boris plan. Who do we blame now?

The idea is good the plan around the rules not so great.

Even government departments don’t buy fully electric vehicles because the infrastructure isn’t in any way ready. I think you will find that its the expansion of the ulez that the poster is on about which now takes in most of greater london another £12.50 a day to have a car if you live in london that plus the £15 a day if you drive in the centre.

I'm thinking about the not inconsiderable number of less well off people living within the area who will have older petrol cars (and not so old diesels)who, if they use them to travel anywhere, will be charged £12.50 each day.

I am lucky. My 2003 petrol car a clean burning and reliable Suzuki is exempt but will it eventually fail on age? A friend has a 2001 car with what would appear to be a similar spec engine and that shows as being eligible for the charge.

Ironically, she can use it without charge because she is disabled."

You can contact the manufacturer of the car and ask for a certificate of compliance for your vehicle. If tfl say it fails because of age or whatever the certificate can show that it passes the emissions test and is therefore exempt.

As long as it does actually pass. It’s because manufacturers wasn’t required to list every emission on the v5 document so tfl automatically assume every car over a certain age/spec falls into the has to pay category when lots don’t.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ty31Man  over a year ago

NW London


"Is anybody in the least bit bothered by what will be happening from October 25th?

I cant believe that there have been no protests related to this.

It can only be that chance has preoccupied people in so many other ways recently, so TFL have been able to get away with it.

The effect will be monumental and yet another cause of the rocketing price of survival.

Do those of you who drive into London give a monkey's about it?

Nasty herding and nooseing for the masses.

All by design.

Much morexto come yet.

Master plan at work!

?

It's nothing but a raid on the motorist to plug the black hole in TFL finances.

Who's to say that this won't be extended eventually to cover ALL fuel driven vehicles? It's estimated that the revenue benefits will be negligible by 2027.

Then eventually expanded to cover ANY vehicle?

It's a cynical and vindictive policy. Londoners are the most put upon and financially stretched people in this country and this forces the least well off to bear the brunt and will push more people into poverty and push more people out of London

Does it reduce congestion and pollution levels?

Is pollution harmful to human health?

Why is it in the interest of the Mayor to "be vindictive"?

Can you answer those three points directly?"

1. Not by any significant amount. Certainly not by enough to justify pushing a large number of people into poverty, especially given the financial crises currently experienced by many.

As for congestion, there is already a separate charge for that, introduced by Ken Livingstone which has already failed to cut congestion and has now just become another revenue stream.

___

2. Obviously. But ULEZ does not create a large enough reduction for this to be a viable reason.

Further, it's estimated that by 2027 the revenue raised will be negligible (due to more vehicles being compliant) so what then?

___

3. Because Mr Khan (and the govt) seem to of run out of ideas. They've bet the house on being able to tax the motorist more to plug the holes in TFLs budget.

Need to remember too that Mr Khan at one point wanted to add a "driving into London" tax of £2.50 for anybody not a resident of the 33 boroughs.

It's in the mayor's interest to be "vindictive" because TFL faces going bankrupt on his watch.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"Is anybody in the least bit bothered by what will be happening from October 25th?

I cant believe that there have been no protests related to this.

It can only be that chance has preoccupied people in so many other ways recently, so TFL have been able to get away with it.

The effect will be monumental and yet another cause of the rocketing price of survival.

Do those of you who drive into London give a monkey's about it?

Nasty herding and nooseing for the masses.

All by design.

Much morexto come yet.

Master plan at work!

?

It's nothing but a raid on the motorist to plug the black hole in TFL finances.

Who's to say that this won't be extended eventually to cover ALL fuel driven vehicles? It's estimated that the revenue benefits will be negligible by 2027.

Then eventually expanded to cover ANY vehicle?

It's a cynical and vindictive policy. Londoners are the most put upon and financially stretched people in this country and this forces the least well off to bear the brunt and will push more people into poverty and push more people out of London

Does it reduce congestion and pollution levels?

No, there is no fully functioning and cheaper public transport service 24 hours to allow an alternative to workers and deliveries access.

Is pollution harmful to human health?

Yes it is. However the people want their morning coffee.

Why is it in the interest of the Mayor to "be vindictive"?

Mr Khan was a solicitor. It's in their nature. Why charge for it? Why not just have a local ruling that no vehicles that reach the ULEZ threshold are allowed to travel within the zones? Why not offer anyone with a older vehicle the option of student type reduction of public transport travel costs.

Can you answer those three points directly?"

You have not answered if it does reduce congestion levels, but you imply that this is not important to people. Is that what you think? Do you think that they would like more or less pollution where they live?

Does LEZ actually prevent any deliveries? Is anyone running out of coffee?

What relevance does that have to 24hr public transport?

So you are saying that there is no benefit to the Mayor being "vindictive", he just cannot help himself because he was a solicitor? That sounds like a sensible thing to believe to you?

ULEZ is a "local ruling" not to allow non-compliant vehicles to drive in the area. The charge or fine is the enforcement of that ruling. How else would any "local ruling" work in your mind?

I could, perhaps, understand the logic of a discount for anyone insured on no private vehicle or a surcharge on anyone who does have one. Not so much a discount only for those who have to give up a very polluting vehicle. Expensive to enable I think.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ornucopia OP   Man  over a year ago

Bexley

Just a reminder that I started this thread back in 2021 and was referring to the ULEZ zone that has since been brought into operation.

The latest situation is that the zone will over the entire outer London area as well from August 2023 if Khan gets his way.

There is now a more relevant thread running at FabSwingers.com Forums Politics Clean air zone and congestion charge

I would suggest confining comments to the newer thread as this one is a lot older.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"Is anybody in the least bit bothered by what will be happening from October 25th?

I cant believe that there have been no protests related to this.

It can only be that chance has preoccupied people in so many other ways recently, so TFL have been able to get away with it.

The effect will be monumental and yet another cause of the rocketing price of survival.

Do those of you who drive into London give a monkey's about it?

Nasty herding and nooseing for the masses.

All by design.

Much morexto come yet.

Master plan at work!

?

It's nothing but a raid on the motorist to plug the black hole in TFL finances.

Who's to say that this won't be extended eventually to cover ALL fuel driven vehicles? It's estimated that the revenue benefits will be negligible by 2027.

Then eventually expanded to cover ANY vehicle?

It's a cynical and vindictive policy. Londoners are the most put upon and financially stretched people in this country and this forces the least well off to bear the brunt and will push more people into poverty and push more people out of London

Does it reduce congestion and pollution levels?

Is pollution harmful to human health?

Why is it in the interest of the Mayor to "be vindictive"?

Can you answer those three points directly?

1. Not by any significant amount. Certainly not by enough to justify pushing a large number of people into poverty, especially given the financial crises currently experienced by many.

As for congestion, there is already a separate charge for that, introduced by Ken Livingstone which has already failed to cut congestion and has now just become another revenue stream.

___

2. Obviously. But ULEZ does not create a large enough reduction for this to be a viable reason.

Further, it's estimated that by 2027 the revenue raised will be negligible (due to more vehicles being compliant) so what then?

___

3. Because Mr Khan (and the govt) seem to of run out of ideas. They've bet the house on being able to tax the motorist more to plug the holes in TFLs budget.

Need to remember too that Mr Khan at one point wanted to add a "driving into London" tax of £2.50 for anybody not a resident of the 33 boroughs.

It's in the mayor's interest to be "vindictive" because TFL faces going bankrupt on his watch.

"

1. I am conflating ULEZ and the Congestion Charge as it seemed to be covering the same arguments.

Is the Congestion Charge acceptable, but not ULEZ?

I have agreed that now is not a good time to introduce a ULEZ expansion. However, I don't think that in general it is a measure that pushes "large" number of people into poverty, or any, in fact. Have you any data on this or just opinion? The current pollution data indicates that a large proportion of vehicles outside the existing ULEZ have already switched with a substantial drop in the recorded figures.

2. The figures below seem very substantial to me. What is a "large enough" Fall in pollution?

"NOx, particularly produced by diesel engines, are 23% lower across London as a whole and 26% lower within the zone.

PM2.5s, were calculated to be 19% lower than they would have been and 7% lower across the whole city."

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/10/ulez-cut-toxic-nox-pollution-across-london-by-23-report-finds

If the revenue falls because vehicles are all compliant then that's good, isn't it? I am certain that there will then be a ULEZ charge for all polluting vehicles as you suggest. That returns us to the first point as to why people who live in a city would not want to suffer zero health effects from pollution?

3. The motorist will get taxed more nationally to make up for the loss of fuel tax. So you will have to get used to the idea of a mileage tax or something else to pay for roads and other Government spending.

If the TFL budget does have to be made up, which it does, following COVID and the demands of central Government, how do you suggest that it is done? Higher fares? Higher Council tax?

Are all taxes, charges and fines "vindictive"?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"Just a reminder that I started this thread back in 2021 and was referring to the ULEZ zone that has since been brought into operation.

The latest situation is that the zone will over the entire outer London area as well from August 2023 if Khan gets his way.

There is now a more relevant thread running at FabSwingers.com Forums Politics Clean air zone and congestion charge

I would suggest confining comments to the newer thread as this one is a lot older.

"

So, as it turns out the answer was that nobody was that bothered and it's introduction has delivered on what was intended.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *UCKY 69Man  over a year ago

norwich


"Is anybody in the least bit bothered by what will be happening from October 25th?

I cant believe that there have been no protests related to this.

It can only be that chance has preoccupied people in so many other ways recently, so TFL have been able to get away with it.

The effect will be monumental and yet another cause of the rocketing price of survival.

Do those of you who drive into London give a monkey's about it?"

I choose to move out from London at the moment….

I paid too much ulez and congestion charge just to get to work and back …

Now , no congestion , no ulez , no much traffic

Win win

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ornucopia OP   Man  over a year ago

Bexley


"

So, as it turns out the answer was that nobody was that bothered and it's introduction has delivered on what was intended."

Probably because most of you are so well paid that you can afford new cars or the charge or don't live near London anyway!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *aribbean King 1985Man  over a year ago

South West London

I'm not against ULEZ as I already drive a car thats compliant which I dont need to worry about paying, however my point is the expansion should be delayed or scrapped because its the wrong time to introduce the expansion during a time when people's finances are already stretched.

Im more against LTNs that cause more traffic and pollution and local trade then people actually realise.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"

So, as it turns out the answer was that nobody was that bothered and it's introduction has delivered on what was intended.

Probably because most of you are so well paid that you can afford new cars or the charge or don't live near London anyway!"

"So well paid" that they can afford a car under thirteen years old?

That's a bit of a stretch for a definition don't you think? According to the RAC the average age of a car in the UK is 8.4 years.

Millions of people in London do not and have never owned a car too. Their opinions are equally valid for not being concerned about ULEZ or actively supportive of reduced pollution to which they do not contribute.

Do you disagree that pollution has been substantially reduced as a consequence?

Can you argue why pollution levels should not be reduced to improve the health of those who live inside London?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"I'm not against ULEZ as I already drive a car thats compliant which I dont need to worry about paying, however my point is the expansion should be delayed or scrapped because its the wrong time to introduce the expansion during a time when people's finances are already stretched.

Im more against LTNs that cause more traffic and pollution and local trade then people actually realise.

"

I agree that the expansion timing is wrong.

Low Traffic Neighborhoods are certainly inconvenient, particularly as they do not seem to appear on most navigation apps.

Communication about them is also horrendous.

What evidence there is seems to indicate reductions in pollution and road accidents.

More a problem of execution rather than utility, perhaps?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *llitnilMan  over a year ago

Shirehampton


"Does it reduce congestion and pollution levels?

Is pollution harmful to human health?

Why is it in the interest of the Mayor to "be vindictive"?

Can you answer those three points directly?"


"1. Not by any significant amount. Certainly not by enough to justify pushing a large number of people into poverty, especially given the financial crises currently experienced by many.

As for congestion, there is already a separate charge for that, introduced by Ken Livingstone which has already failed to cut congestion and has now just become another revenue stream.

___

2. Obviously. But ULEZ does not create a large enough reduction for this to be a viable reason.

Further, it's estimated that by 2027 the revenue raised will be negligible (due to more vehicles being compliant) so what then?

___

3. Because Mr Khan (and the govt) seem to of run out of ideas. They've bet the house on being able to tax the motorist more to plug the holes in TFLs budget.

Need to remember too that Mr Khan at one point wanted to add a "driving into London" tax of £2.50 for anybody not a resident of the 33 boroughs.

It's in the mayor's interest to be "vindictive" because TFL faces going bankrupt on his watch."

Well I thought you answered those questions comprehensively, explaining your thoughts well. Any normal person would be happy with that reply.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ornucopia OP   Man  over a year ago

Bexley


"

So, as it turns out the answer was that nobody was that bothered and it's introduction has delivered on what was intended.

Probably because most of you are so well paid that you can afford new cars or the charge or don't live near London anyway!

"So well paid" that they can afford a car under thirteen years old?

That's a bit of a stretch for a definition don't you think? According to the RAC the average age of a car in the UK is 8.4 years.

Millions of people in London do not and have never owned a car too. Their opinions are equally valid for not being concerned about ULEZ or actively supportive of reduced pollution to which they do not contribute.

Do you disagree that pollution has been substantially reduced as a consequence?

Can you argue why pollution levels should not be reduced to improve the health of those who live inside London?"

Would you kindly mind not translating my statements into inflammatory versions? I merely said "... afford new cars". You then implied that I have specified the age range of said cars. I have not.

I am talking about people's ability to afford vehicles which are compliant. compliant second hand vehicles have rocketed in price as a result.

With regard to the reduction of pollution as a consequence of ULEZ expansion, I would not disagree that it could have an effect. So also could have the reduction of polluting vehicles through naturally reaching the end of their working life. How being financially penalised for driving vehicles in the zone when the owners may have no other choice but to pay is harder to relate to reduction figures, I would have thought.

Although nobody on here seemed too bothered about the effect on themselves in late 2021, I have met plenty of less well off fabbers since then who have been severely penalised for using older non compliant vehicles when the areas in which they live became incorporated in the scheme. Very soon the area concerned is going to become much larger and will affect far more Londoners and also drivers like me who live just over the boundary but need to travel in. The latter, unlike some London ratepayers will not receive any incentives to scrap.

I am not arguing with your final paragraph. Are you suggesting I am in order to undermine my credibility? I am wise to such tricks on here, make no mistake.

Of course we all want a cleaner and healthier environment. I would also prefer an environment where urban population growth hadn't been encouraged in order to make lots of money for the already wealthy and shows no sign of any will to stop that expansion.

Good on all the people who want to live in London without cars, highly commendable if that is the lifestyle they want. Unfortunately some of us live on the edge of that Utopia and have little choice but to enter it by car almost daily. A lot of things I need to transport are not suitable for buses or trains. Also, something called rain leans me towards car use in preference to stepping out to use public transport!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"

So, as it turns out the answer was that nobody was that bothered and it's introduction has delivered on what was intended.

Probably because most of you are so well paid that you can afford new cars or the charge or don't live near London anyway!

"So well paid" that they can afford a car under thirteen years old?

That's a bit of a stretch for a definition don't you think? According to the RAC the average age of a car in the UK is 8.4 years.

Millions of people in London do not and have never owned a car too. Their opinions are equally valid for not being concerned about ULEZ or actively supportive of reduced pollution to which they do not contribute.

Do you disagree that pollution has been substantially reduced as a consequence?

Can you argue why pollution levels should not be reduced to improve the health of those who live inside London?

Would you kindly mind not translating my statements into inflammatory versions? I merely said "... afford new cars". You then implied that I have specified the age range of said cars. I have not.

I am talking about people's ability to afford vehicles which are compliant. compliant second hand vehicles have rocketed in price as a result.

With regard to the reduction of pollution as a consequence of ULEZ expansion, I would not disagree that it could have an effect. So also could have the reduction of polluting vehicles through naturally reaching the end of their working life. How being financially penalised for driving vehicles in the zone when the owners may have no other choice but to pay is harder to relate to reduction figures, I would have thought.

Although nobody on here seemed too bothered about the effect on themselves in late 2021, I have met plenty of less well off fabbers since then who have been severely penalised for using older non compliant vehicles when the areas in which they live became incorporated in the scheme. Very soon the area concerned is going to become much larger and will affect far more Londoners and also drivers like me who live just over the boundary but need to travel in. The latter, unlike some London ratepayers will not receive any incentives to scrap.

I am not arguing with your final paragraph. Are you suggesting I am in order to undermine my credibility? I am wise to such tricks on here, make no mistake.

Of course we all want a cleaner and healthier environment. I would also prefer an environment where urban population growth hadn't been encouraged in order to make lots of money for the already wealthy and shows no sign of any will to stop that expansion.

Good on all the people who want to live in London without cars, highly commendable if that is the lifestyle they want. Unfortunately some of us live on the edge of that Utopia and have little choice but to enter it by car almost daily. A lot of things I need to transport are not suitable for buses or trains. Also, something called rain leans me towards car use in preference to stepping out to use public transport!"

You are well aware that you did not only write "...afford new cars". That is rather disingenuous.

Your actual assertion was that "most of you were so well paid that you can afford new cars" which might be considered an "inflammatory" comment? Can I not challenge that or are only you allowed to do that?

The point about the vehicle age is that if the average age of a car is 8.4 years there are relatively few cars older than the 13 year age of a compliant car anyway.

There has, in fact, been a rise in the cost of both ULEZ compliant and non-compliant cars since 2019 due to the on-going new car shortage. So it would actually be better to make this change sooner rather than later.

There is also a scrappage scheme for those on low incomes. Alternatively they can take cash and discounted bis and tram season tickets.

It is an Ultra Low Emissions Zone. So, it is achieving its primary purpose, as the available data demonstrates and as you agree. That means few people suffering illness or dying. How long should that be delayed and how many people do we accept suffer the consequences?Are you going to assume that in stating that I am implying that I think that you want them to die, or am I just stating the point without any reference to my opinion about you?

Motorists, rich or poor are not the only people to have an interest in what the rules on cars are, and there are more non-drivers in London than drivers. Their priorities are different and equally valid so motorists may have to accept that their activities become more expensive or inconvenient as a consequence. If you accept that as you claim then that is how the world works sometimes.

If you want to assume that you are somehow being made to look a certain way rather than being directly questioned then you go ahead. Feel free to rewrite my points in what you deem to be a more neutral tone so that you look better if you like, but please state the facts as they exist rather than what you imagine them to be.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ornucopia OP   Man  over a year ago

Bexley


"

You are well aware that you did not only write "...afford new cars". That is rather disingenuous.

Your actual assertion was that "most of you were so well paid that you can afford new cars" which might be considered an "inflammatory" comment? Can I not challenge that or are only you allowed to do that?

"

You are very well aware that I used an ellipsis '...' in order to save fully requoting the entire sentence but thank you for verifying what I originally wrote. Why should I not make what you see as an 'inflammatory' comment? It was meant to encourage discussion and has done. You have challenged it and I have read your reply with interest.

You go on to mention:

"The point about the vehicle age is that if the average age of a car is 8.4 years there are relatively few cars older than the 13 year age of a compliant car anyway".

If that is the case, then surely the relatively low and rapidly decreasing number of non-compliant cars could be granted a similar pardon as that already given to classic cars, even if it was restricted to non commercial usage? That might go some way towards countering allegations of profiteering. Keep charges for commercial users only.

You also mention:

"There is also a scrappage scheme for those on low incomes. Alternatively they can take cash and discounted bis and tram season tickets"

Unfortunately, such schemes are not available to poor sods like me who live a few hundred metres over the border but effectively are part of the metropolis. We don't even get London trains etc. included on our measly bus passes.

As I stated earlier,it is probably better to leave this thread resting and go with the other more recent one.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"

You are well aware that you did not only write "...afford new cars". That is rather disingenuous.

Your actual assertion was that "most of you were so well paid that you can afford new cars" which might be considered an "inflammatory" comment? Can I not challenge that or are only you allowed to do that?

You are very well aware that I used an ellipsis '...' in order to save fully requoting the entire sentence but thank you for verifying what I originally wrote. Why should I not make what you see as an 'inflammatory' comment? It was meant to encourage discussion and has done. You have challenged it and I have read your reply with interest.

You go on to mention:

"The point about the vehicle age is that if the average age of a car is 8.4 years there are relatively few cars older than the 13 year age of a compliant car anyway".

If that is the case, then surely the relatively low and rapidly decreasing number of non-compliant cars could be granted a similar pardon as that already given to classic cars, even if it was restricted to non commercial usage? That might go some way towards countering allegations of profiteering. Keep charges for commercial users only.

You also mention:

"There is also a scrappage scheme for those on low incomes. Alternatively they can take cash and discounted bis and tram season tickets"

Unfortunately, such schemes are not available to poor sods like me who live a few hundred metres over the border but effectively are part of the metropolis. We don't even get London trains etc. included on our measly bus passes.

As I stated earlier,it is probably better to leave this thread resting and go with the other more recent one."

You believe that the difference between the full sentence and the partial quote don't make a difference? So, you can make an "inflammatory" comment to "encourage discussion" but that doesn't hold if someone else makes what you believe to be an "inflammatory" comment?

If you say so

Surely those people who become ill or die should not mind if it has allowed some drivers to save some money on changing their cars, right?

Life has arbitrary requirements in order to affect change. This is one of them. Just as is the boundary for the scrappage scheme. There are probably people who drive in regularly from Kent and Surrey and Oxfordshire. Should they all be subsidised too.

You are upset because it affects you negatively. I can understand that and I can sympathise. Are you able to see any reasons why extending the scheme and applying some strict criteria might be equally or more valid?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hropshireGentMan  over a year ago

Shropshire

Every time I go to a city with a congestion charge or ULEZ all I see is lots of cars with tape covering the number plates

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"Every time I go to a city with a congestion charge or ULEZ all I see is lots of cars with tape covering the number plates "

Never seen it. I assume that the Police will find this suspicious and illegal, apart from anything else.

Of course, still aren't as many of them about as several years ago when they weren't, apparently, needed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *aribbean King 1985Man  over a year ago

South West London

That would be illegal to hide your licence plate like that. Anyways lets just see if there's a legal case to fight the ULEZ expansion to the boroughs its being installed in.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan  over a year ago

Gilfach


"Every time I go to a city with a congestion charge or ULEZ all I see is lots of cars with tape covering the number plates"


"Never seen it. I assume that the Police will find this suspicious and illegal, apart from anything else."

I'm assuming that they mean small pieces of tape stuck in advantageous places. I've seen that a few times. A small piece of black tape converting an 'F' into an 'E', or a 5 into a 6. Not cut well enough to fool a human, but enough to trick an automatic plate reader. If they get stopped, it's easy enough to pull the tape off and say "I don't know how that got there officer".

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"Every time I go to a city with a congestion charge or ULEZ all I see is lots of cars with tape covering the number plates

Never seen it. I assume that the Police will find this suspicious and illegal, apart from anything else.

I'm assuming that they mean small pieces of tape stuck in advantageous places. I've seen that a few times. A small piece of black tape converting an 'F' into an 'E', or a 5 into a 6. Not cut well enough to fool a human, but enough to trick an automatic plate reader. If they get stopped, it's easy enough to pull the tape off and say "I don't know how that got there officer"."

No, it isn't. Unless you think that Police officers and Magistrates are stupid.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan  over a year ago

Gilfach


"Every time I go to a city with a congestion charge or ULEZ all I see is lots of cars with tape covering the number plates"


"Never seen it. I assume that the Police will find this suspicious and illegal, apart from anything else."


"I'm assuming that they mean small pieces of tape stuck in advantageous places. I've seen that a few times. A small piece of black tape converting an 'F' into an 'E', or a 5 into a 6. Not cut well enough to fool a human, but enough to trick an automatic plate reader. If they get stopped, it's easy enough to pull the tape off and say "I don't know how that got there officer"."


"No, it isn't. Unless you think that Police officers and Magistrates are stupid."

You mean "Unless *they* think that Police officers and Magistrates are stupid".

I presume that they think that the element of reasonable doubt will prevent any prosecution getting anywhere.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Is anybody in the least bit bothered by what will be happening from October 25th?

I cant believe that there have been no protests related to this.

It can only be that chance has preoccupied people in so many other ways recently, so TFL have been able to get away with it.

The effect will be monumental and yet another cause of the rocketing price of survival.

Do those of you who drive into London give a monkey's about it?"

Lived in London for years. First thing I did was sell the car and public transport everywhere.

The ex I lived with then works on ulez for tfl but I assure you I've not been made to say anything

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hropshireGentMan  over a year ago

Shropshire


"Every time I go to a city with a congestion charge or ULEZ all I see is lots of cars with tape covering the number plates

Never seen it. I assume that the Police will find this suspicious and illegal, apart from anything else.

I'm assuming that they mean small pieces of tape stuck in advantageous places. I've seen that a few times. A small piece of black tape converting an 'F' into an 'E', or a 5 into a 6. Not cut well enough to fool a human, but enough to trick an automatic plate reader. If they get stopped, it's easy enough to pull the tape off and say "I don't know how that got there officer"."

No, black gaffer tape covering most of the plate or a bag taped over it.

There’s plenty of videos of it on Facebook too

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ornucopia OP   Man  over a year ago

Bexley


"

...

No, black gaffer tape covering most of the plate or a bag taped over it.

There’s plenty of videos of it on Facebook too "

What I am seeing quite a lot of is cars with number plates obscured by a thick layer of bad weather motorway filth.

I saw one on a car park recently and was tempted to run a cloth over it (the number plate only) as a gesture of goodwill to save the driver from prosecution.

Is it true that an obscured number plate only attracts a fine and not an endorsement as well?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ove2pleaseseukMan  over a year ago

Hastings


"Every time I go to a city with a congestion charge or ULEZ all I see is lots of cars with tape covering the number plates

Never seen it. I assume that the Police will find this suspicious and illegal, apart from anything else.

I'm assuming that they mean small pieces of tape stuck in advantageous places. I've seen that a few times. A small piece of black tape converting an 'F' into an 'E', or a 5 into a 6. Not cut well enough to fool a human, but enough to trick an automatic plate reader. If they get stopped, it's easy enough to pull the tape off and say "I don't know how that got there officer".

No, it isn't. Unless you think that Police officers and Magistrates are stupid."

No I would guess its about chance and there is more chance of a camera catching you than a police officer. Don't know the number but would guess 100 cameras for every police officer

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *aribbean King 1985Man  over a year ago

South West London

Should talk about getting rid of LTNs although the expansion of ULEZ is bad timing. But with LTN's, the way I see it is why Im I paying road tax just to have certain roads non accessible??

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *arkyp_321Man  over a year ago

East Kilbride


"Should talk about getting rid of LTNs although the expansion of ULEZ is bad timing. But with LTN's, the way I see it is why Im I paying road tax just to have certain roads non accessible??"

Because you dont have a right to drive where you like, perhaps ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *aribbean King 1985Man  over a year ago

South West London

I do as well as anyone else who pays road tax

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *arkyp_321Man  over a year ago

East Kilbride


"I do as well as anyone else who pays road tax"

That’s the point. Your ‘road tax’ doesn’t confer these rights …it’s an emissions tax. Roads can be closed (to vehicles) by the roads authority, esp if it is for safety and community benefit.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *aribbean King 1985Man  over a year ago

South West London

Ok lets agree to disagree on that

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *arkyp_321Man  over a year ago

East Kilbride


"Ok lets agree to disagree on that "

We can disagree, but it’s disagreeing on facts.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oAnCouple  over a year ago

Wandsworth

Pity that TFL does nothing about the pollution on the underground as my nostrils are black from the carbon dust.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

W.g.a.f if public transport is good. This is about liberty. Individual freedom. Fuk all this communal good crap.

Jesus wept. Does anyone know a country where liberty and choice were reduced and peoples lives got better?

This is not about pollution it's about funneling everyone down the same lane.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan  over a year ago

Gilfach


""Should talk about getting rid of LTNs although the expansion of ULEZ is bad timing. But with LTN's, the way I see it is why Im I paying road tax just to have certain roads non accessible??""


"Because you dont have a right to drive where you like, perhaps ?"


"I do as well as anyone else who pays road tax"

You don't pay road tax. Nobody does, since it was abolished in 1937. Since then we have been paying a vehicle tax, and none of the money raised goes to building, repairing, maintaining, or upgrading roads. The money goes straight into government's central coffers, along with all the other general taxes.

You do have a right to drive on any of the King's highways, but you have to follow the rules of those highways, so you cant go in any direction that you fancy. Paying a vehicle tax does give you any rights over the roads.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *arkyp_321Man  over a year ago

East Kilbride


"W.g.a.f if public transport is good. This is about liberty. Individual freedom. Fuk all this communal good crap.

Jesus wept. Does anyone know a country where liberty and choice were reduced and peoples lives got better?

This is not about pollution it's about funneling everyone down the same lane.

"

Yeah, that’s great when your ‘freedom and liberty’ causes deaths of others. Selfish, unthinking libertarianism …

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"W.g.a.f if public transport is good. This is about liberty. Individual freedom. Fuk all this communal good crap.

Jesus wept. Does anyone know a country where liberty and choice were reduced and peoples lives got better?

This is not about pollution it's about funneling everyone down the same lane.

Yeah, that’s great when your ‘freedom and liberty’ causes deaths of others. Selfish, unthinking libertarianism …"

Oh please. Wtf are you proposing, legislating risk and death out of life?

People die every day,year.20k people die of flu every year, you don't shut the country down.

Is there nothing the do gooders won't regulate? Like all do gooders their real motivation is control. The air is clean now compared to the london smog of the 50s.

You cannot make a perfect world.

The most sinister and murderous governments have always been the ones that claimed they could make a perfect country or world.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *arkyp_321Man  over a year ago

East Kilbride


"W.g.a.f if public transport is good. This is about liberty. Individual freedom. Fuk all this communal good crap.

Jesus wept. Does anyone know a country where liberty and choice were reduced and peoples lives got better?

This is not about pollution it's about funneling everyone down the same lane.

Yeah, that’s great when your ‘freedom and liberty’ causes deaths of others. Selfish, unthinking libertarianism …

Oh please. Wtf are you proposing, legislating risk and death out of life?

People die every day,year.20k people die of flu every year, you don't shut the country down.

Is there nothing the do gooders won't regulate? Like all do gooders their real motivation is control. The air is clean now compared to the london smog of the 50s.

You cannot make a perfect world.

The most sinister and murderous governments have always been the ones that claimed they could make a perfect country or world."

Yes, and we do all we can reasonably do to reduce harms; if protection of human well-being isn’t top of your list, you may want to check your moral compass.

London smog is an excellent example of where regulation was hugely successful to protect health ! Bloody do gooders !! Sinister, eh !

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"W.g.a.f if public transport is good. This is about liberty. Individual freedom. Fuk all this communal good crap.

Jesus wept. Does anyone know a country where liberty and choice were reduced and peoples lives got better?

This is not about pollution it's about funneling everyone down the same lane.

Yeah, that’s great when your ‘freedom and liberty’ causes deaths of others. Selfish, unthinking libertarianism …

Oh please. Wtf are you proposing, legislating risk and death out of life?

People die every day,year.20k people die of flu every year, you don't shut the country down.

Is there nothing the do gooders won't regulate? Like all do gooders their real motivation is control. The air is clean now compared to the london smog of the 50s.

You cannot make a perfect world.

The most sinister and murderous governments have always been the ones that claimed they could make a perfect country or world.

Yes, and we do all we can reasonably do to reduce harms; if protection of human well-being isn’t top of your list, you may want to check your moral compass.

London smog is an excellent example of where regulation was hugely successful to protect health ! Bloody do gooders !! Sinister, eh !"

Where does liberty fit into the equation and what do you regard as reasonable? At what cost do you ignore liberty ?

Better be damn sure you know what you're throwing away.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *aribbean King 1985Man  over a year ago

South West London

Yeah the way the Mayor of London is bringing his woke policies sometimes feel like you're better off living in North Korea

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Yeah the way the Mayor of London is bringing his woke policies sometimes feel like you're better off living in North Korea"

Really? how is London like North Korea?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *asyukMan  over a year ago

West London


"W.g.a.f if public transport is good. This is about liberty. Individual freedom. Fuk all this communal good crap.

Jesus wept. Does anyone know a country where liberty and choice were reduced and peoples lives got better?

This is not about pollution it's about funneling everyone down the same lane.

Yeah, that’s great when your ‘freedom and liberty’ causes deaths of others. Selfish, unthinking libertarianism …

Oh please. Wtf are you proposing, legislating risk and death out of life?

People die every day,year.20k people die of flu every year, you don't shut the country down.

Is there nothing the do gooders won't regulate? Like all do gooders their real motivation is control. The air is clean now compared to the london smog of the 50s.

You cannot make a perfect world.

The most sinister and murderous governments have always been the ones that claimed they could make a perfect country or world.

Yes, and we do all we can reasonably do to reduce harms; if protection of human well-being isn’t top of your list, you may want to check your moral compass.

London smog is an excellent example of where regulation was hugely successful to protect health ! Bloody do gooders !! Sinister, eh !

Where does liberty fit into the equation and what do you regard as reasonable? At what cost do you ignore liberty ?

Better be damn sure you know what you're throwing away.

"

Throwing away a higher chance of illness and death by driving a car that is regulated to generate less pollution.

Imagine the freedoms that you're throwing away by preventing them from beating people up in the street and taking their stuff.

What cost liberty?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *arkyp_321Man  over a year ago

East Kilbride


"Yeah the way the Mayor of London is bringing his woke policies sometimes feel like you're better off living in North Korea"

‘Woke’ ….protecting folk from dying ..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *arkyp_321Man  over a year ago

East Kilbride


"W.g.a.f if public transport is good. This is about liberty. Individual freedom. Fuk all this communal good crap.

Jesus wept. Does anyone know a country where liberty and choice were reduced and peoples lives got better?

This is not about pollution it's about funneling everyone down the same lane.

Yeah, that’s great when your ‘freedom and liberty’ causes deaths of others. Selfish, unthinking libertarianism …

Oh please. Wtf are you proposing, legislating risk and death out of life?

People die every day,year.20k people die of flu every year, you don't shut the country down.

Is there nothing the do gooders won't regulate? Like all do gooders their real motivation is control. The air is clean now compared to the london smog of the 50s.

You cannot make a perfect world.

The most sinister and murderous governments have always been the ones that claimed they could make a perfect country or world.

Yes, and we do all we can reasonably do to reduce harms; if protection of human well-being isn’t top of your list, you may want to check your moral compass.

London smog is an excellent example of where regulation was hugely successful to protect health ! Bloody do gooders !! Sinister, eh !

Where does liberty fit into the equation and what do you regard as reasonable? At what cost do you ignore liberty ?

Better be damn sure you know what you're throwing away.

"

Can’t you see that your ‘liberty’ has to be balanced against the rights of others; in this case to have air that is breathable and not to suffer an early death. Or are you’re rights more important than that ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *aribbean King 1985Man  over a year ago

South West London

This country becoming a lil bit like a nanny state where you can't do or say certain without you gettingba fine or going prison for it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ty31Man  over a year ago

NW London

Something I do find interesting is that Sadiq Khan has called for a reduction in vehicle use and for a push towards "greener" modes of transport. Yet Mr Khan is driven around London in £300,000 armoured range rover and was recently caught taking a motorcade of three vehicles to walk his dog in a local park.......

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *aribbean King 1985Man  over a year ago

South West London


"Something I do find interesting is that Sadiq Khan has called for a reduction in vehicle use and for a push towards "greener" modes of transport. Yet Mr Khan is driven around London in £300,000 armoured range rover and was recently caught taking a motorcade of three vehicles to walk his dog in a local park......."
This is what I'm saying about Sadiq the Nightmayor Khan, doesn't practice what he preaches. Seriously this guy needs to go next year

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oo hotCouple  over a year ago

North West


"Yeah the way the Mayor of London is bringing his woke policies sometimes feel like you're better off living in North Korea"

I am asthmatic. I have never been able to breathe better outdoors than I did during lockdown.

Breathing clean air should not be a point of argument. The government just needs to introduce incentives to get rid of the more polluting vehicles (particularly to protect asthmatics - diesel engined vehicles).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"This country becoming a lil bit like a nanny state where you can't do or say certain without you gettingba fine or going prison for it"

These days , you can get arrested and thrown into jail if you say you’re English

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *arkyp_321Man  over a year ago

East Kilbride


"Yeah the way the Mayor of London is bringing his woke policies sometimes feel like you're better off living in North Korea

I am asthmatic. I have never been able to breathe better outdoors than I did during lockdown.

Breathing clean air should not be a point of argument. The government just needs to introduce incentives to get rid of the more polluting vehicles (particularly to protect asthmatics - diesel engined vehicles)."

Exactly ….some folk think they should have unrestricted freedoms to pollute others …they are happy to ignore the consequences of theirs and others actions.

I find these views disturbing and alarming ….

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *aribbean King 1985Man  over a year ago

South West London


"Yeah the way the Mayor of London is bringing his woke policies sometimes feel like you're better off living in North Korea

I am asthmatic. I have never been able to breathe better outdoors than I did during lockdown.

Breathing clean air should not be a point of argument. The government just needs to introduce incentives to get rid of the more polluting vehicles (particularly to protect asthmatics - diesel engined vehicles)."

I'm for cleaner air as I drive a car which is ULEZ compliant and I'm for the scheme, but I feel the expansion comes about the wrong time when people's finance are already stretched. Im against LTNs mire which are far worse

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ove2pleaseseukMan  over a year ago

Hastings


"Yeah the way the Mayor of London is bringing his woke policies sometimes feel like you're better off living in North Korea

I am asthmatic. I have never been able to breathe better outdoors than I did during lockdown.

Breathing clean air should not be a point of argument. The government just needs to introduce incentives to get rid of the more polluting vehicles (particularly to protect asthmatics - diesel engined vehicles). I'm for cleaner air as I drive a car which is ULEZ compliant and I'm for the scheme, but I feel the expansion comes about the wrong time when people's finance are already stretched.li Im against LTNs mire which are far worse"

So how would you feal if they expand the scheme then clamp down harder on the center bit so this time next year you car is not compliant and you wold need to pay or change your car probably to Electric only..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ove2pleaseseukMan  over a year ago

Hastings


"Yeah the way the Mayor of London is bringing his woke policies sometimes feel like you're better off living in North Korea

I am asthmatic. I have never been able to breathe better outdoors than I did during lockdown.

Breathing clean air should not be a point of argument. The government just needs to introduce incentives to get rid of the more polluting vehicles (particularly to protect asthmatics - diesel engined vehicles).

Exactly ….some folk think they should have unrestricted freedoms to pollute others …they are happy to ignore the consequences of theirs and others actions.

I find these views disturbing and alarming …."

So if there is a power cut is it OK to run all the big diesel generators to power London.

The bank of England has generators it runs at peak demand to to electric up is that right.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *aribbean King 1985Man  over a year ago

South West London

Let me be clear about my stance on ULEZ, yes I'm for the scheme itself as we do need to breathe cleaner air for the safety of our health. However, I'm against the expansion because I feel the air quality is better in the outer parts of London then in central and also it comes at the wrong time when people's finances are stretched. It's unlikely for Everyone who's car is not compliant to get a new one by August so the expansion should be scrapped and leave it where it is.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Yeah the way the Mayor of London is bringing his woke policies sometimes feel like you're better off living in North Korea

I am asthmatic. I have never been able to breathe better outdoors than I did during lockdown.

Breathing clean air should not be a point of argument. The government just needs to introduce incentives to get rid of the more polluting vehicles (particularly to protect asthmatics - diesel engined vehicles).

Exactly ….some folk think they should have unrestricted freedoms to pollute others …they are happy to ignore the consequences of theirs and others actions.

I find these views disturbing and alarming ….

So if there is a power cut is it OK to run all the big diesel generators to power London.

The bank of England has generators it runs at peak demand to to electric up is that right."

Valid point. Sir

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ity_BoyMan  over a year ago

London


"Yeah the way the Mayor of London is bringing his woke policies sometimes feel like you're better off living in North Korea"

Quality comedy mate. Do you ever do open mic nights?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ity_BoyMan  over a year ago

London


"Pity that TFL does nothing about the pollution on the underground as my nostrils are black from the carbon dust."

Blame landowners and local councils. No one seems to want new vents built on their land.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ornucopia OP   Man  over a year ago

Bexley

Beneficiaries of the scheme, in descending order:

The Mayor's coffers

The motor trade

Oh and maybe, just possibly, a slight improvement in the air quality.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ove2pleaseseukMan  over a year ago

Hastings


"Let me be clear about my stance on ULEZ, yes I'm for the scheme itself as we do need to breathe cleaner air for the safety of our health. However, I'm against the expansion because I feel the air quality is better in the outer parts of London then in central and also it comes at the wrong time when people's finances are stretched. It's unlikely for Everyone who's car is not compliant to get a new one by August so the expansion should be scrapped and leave it where it is."

Sorry was not getting at you I'm more with you but it will be the next step.

Government want to rase money one way or another.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *arkyp_321Man  over a year ago

East Kilbride


"Yeah the way the Mayor of London is bringing his woke policies sometimes feel like you're better off living in North Korea

I am asthmatic. I have never been able to breathe better outdoors than I did during lockdown.

Breathing clean air should not be a point of argument. The government just needs to introduce incentives to get rid of the more polluting vehicles (particularly to protect asthmatics - diesel engined vehicles).

Exactly ….some folk think they should have unrestricted freedoms to pollute others …they are happy to ignore the consequences of theirs and others actions.

I find these views disturbing and alarming ….

So if there is a power cut is it OK to run all the big diesel generators to power London.

The bank of England has generators it runs at peak demand to to electric up is that right."

That’s an emergency…completely different scenario …

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ornucopia OP   Man  over a year ago

Bexley

Suggest, yet again, that when this one gets too long we slide onto the

'Clean air zone and congestion charge'

thread

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *exy_HornyCouple  over a year ago

Leigh

The ULEZ can only be a good thing. I saw a news story last week that 10,000 employees at Heathrow drive cars that are not ULEZ compliant. I suspect most of these will be diesel as few will still be driving pre 2007 petrol cars.

So the zone will clean up these 10,000 daily journeys.

They should really find a way of applying it to the aircraft and all the site vehicles at the airport as well.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *estivalMan  over a year ago

borehamwood


"The ULEZ can only be a good thing. I saw a news story last week that 10,000 employees at Heathrow drive cars that are not ULEZ compliant. I suspect most of these will be diesel as few will still be driving pre 2007 petrol cars.

So the zone will clean up these 10,000 daily journeys.

They should really find a way of applying it to the aircraft and all the site vehicles at the airport as well."

how will it clean it up? If they willing to pay they can still drive there non compliant cars to work, its another cash grab nothing else,if it was about clean air they would just ban the non compliant cars

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oo hotCouple  over a year ago

North West


"The ULEZ can only be a good thing. I saw a news story last week that 10,000 employees at Heathrow drive cars that are not ULEZ compliant. I suspect most of these will be diesel as few will still be driving pre 2007 petrol cars.

So the zone will clean up these 10,000 daily journeys.

They should really find a way of applying it to the aircraft and all the site vehicles at the airport as well. how will it clean it up? If they willing to pay they can still drive there non compliant cars to work, its another cash grab nothing else,if it was about clean air they would just ban the non compliant cars"

Taxation has been a means of modifying our behaviour for decades. The only real issue here is that the Government no longer have the financial resources to help people get rid of their older cars for newer less polluting ones.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *exy_HornyCouple  over a year ago

Leigh


"The ULEZ can only be a good thing. I saw a news story last week that 10,000 employees at Heathrow drive cars that are not ULEZ compliant. I suspect most of these will be diesel as few will still be driving pre 2007 petrol cars.

So the zone will clean up these 10,000 daily journeys.

They should really find a way of applying it to the aircraft and all the site vehicles at the airport as well. how will it clean it up? If they willing to pay they can still drive there non compliant cars to work, its another cash grab nothing else,if it was about clean air they would just ban the non compliant cars"

It very quickly becomes financially beneficial to change the car. Therefore most sensible people will do so.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *os19Man  over a year ago

Edmonton

Off the top of my head I believe ULEZ started October 2020 or October 2021 as my car is a Vauxhall Corsa 1.0 litre 2005 plate and I have to cross the North Circular / A406 to get to certain parts of North London and occasionally use it if I am going East London I thought I would be effected.When I entered my number plate in the TFL it said it was ULEZ compliant so I went on a different website and that too said it was ULEZ compliant. I am guessing that if it was ULEZ compliant when ULEZ first came in it will be ULEZ compliant now.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *JB1954Man  over a year ago

Reading


"The ULEZ can only be a good thing. I saw a news story last week that 10,000 employees at Heathrow drive cars that are not ULEZ compliant. I suspect most of these will be diesel as few will still be driving pre 2007 petrol cars.

So the zone will clean up these 10,000 daily journeys.

They should really find a way of applying it to the aircraft and all the site vehicles at the airport as well. how will it clean it up? If they willing to pay they can still drive there non compliant cars to work, its another cash grab nothing else,if it was about clean air they would just ban the non compliant cars

It very quickly becomes financially beneficial to change the car. Therefore most sensible people will do so."

The question I have. Can these people afford to change their cars. ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ity_BoyMan  over a year ago

London


"The ULEZ can only be a good thing. I saw a news story last week that 10,000 employees at Heathrow drive cars that are not ULEZ compliant. I suspect most of these will be diesel as few will still be driving pre 2007 petrol cars.

So the zone will clean up these 10,000 daily journeys.

They should really find a way of applying it to the aircraft and all the site vehicles at the airport as well. how will it clean it up? If they willing to pay they can still drive there non compliant cars to work, its another cash grab nothing else,if it was about clean air they would just ban the non compliant cars"

If they banned the cars from the onset people would complain even more that they weren't given time to prepare (even though ULEZ was announced many moons ago).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *aribbean King 1985Man  over a year ago

South West London

I dont know how true this is but Im hearing the government could block the ULEZ expansion

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ity_BoyMan  over a year ago

London


"I dont know how true this is but Im hearing the government could block the ULEZ expansion"

Conservative Government:

"If you want us to give TfL the funding it needs, then you must implement ULEZ"

Sadiq Kahn: *Implements ULEZ*

Conservative Government "How dare you"

Classic Tories, force people to do things then compain about it. See: Council tax rises.

Tories go on about little government, devolution and giving local mayors more power, but only when it benefits them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *exy_HornyCouple  over a year ago

Leigh


"The ULEZ can only be a good thing. I saw a news story last week that 10,000 employees at Heathrow drive cars that are not ULEZ compliant. I suspect most of these will be diesel as few will still be driving pre 2007 petrol cars.

So the zone will clean up these 10,000 daily journeys.

They should really find a way of applying it to the aircraft and all the site vehicles at the airport as well. how will it clean it up? If they willing to pay they can still drive there non compliant cars to work, its another cash grab nothing else,if it was about clean air they would just ban the non compliant cars

It very quickly becomes financially beneficial to change the car. Therefore most sensible people will do so.

The question I have. Can these people afford to change their cars. ? "

Cars are fairly cheap these days, so there is no real excuse for running really old bangers. If you choose to do so, you have to pay the charge.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan  over a year ago

Gilfach


"Cars are fairly cheap these days ..."

They are? What do you consider cheap?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

  

By *JB1954Man  over a year ago

Reading


"The ULEZ can only be a good thing. I saw a news story last week that 10,000 employees at Heathrow drive cars that are not ULEZ compliant. I suspect most of these will be diesel as few will still be driving pre 2007 petrol cars.

So the zone will clean up these 10,000 daily journeys.

They should really find a way of applying it to the aircraft and all the site vehicles at the airport as well. how will it clean it up? If they willing to pay they can still drive there non compliant cars to work, its another cash grab nothing else,if it was about clean air they would just ban the non compliant cars

It very quickly becomes financially beneficial to change the car. Therefore most sensible people will do so.

The question I have. Can these people afford to change their cars. ?

Cars are fairly cheap these days, so there is no real excuse for running really old bangers. If you choose to do so, you have to pay the charge."

Again . Cars are cheap these days? On the forums there are many posts about the cost of living etc. Not being able to afford to heat their homes etc . Yet can they afford to say buy a cheap car . ( say £6000 ) Payment per month £100. Which do not think is possible. So an extra £1200 per year expenditure on all other bills.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

0.5625

0