London ULEZ stops Mercedes W202 entering in 2023.

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
As for the sub £1000 compliant petrol car i would imagine they now start at £2000 thanks to Khan's magic money ££££ tree giveaway.
I had a very quick browse the other day for a sub £1000 Fiesta and a Corsa. Forget it.
 
The big issue is that London is a big place.

I agreed with the initial ULEZ which was the city and central London. The next one I was so so with but the new extension which in many places goes out to the M25 is taking the ‘dirty London air’ a bit far.
Is your opinion based on your perception or actual data?

My career, initially in R&D and culminating in technology consultancy around the world, has taught me that data shouldn't be ignored and that perception can often discolour reality. Of course data can occasionally be corrupted or insufficient, leading to false conclusions. And more often it can be misinterpreted, with resultant errors in reaction. But mostly it’s the most reliable means of assessment.

People believe that perception is reliable and that what they perceive reflects objective reality. Philosophers will argue about this belief at a level way beyond my understanding, but from my scientific viewpoint the level of reliability must be founded on degrees of knowledge. Bearing in mind the old adage of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing, the reliability of perception has to be challenged.

Perception, gut-feelings, or whatever are fine - as long as they are supported by factual data. Understandably, people will often criticise data as being selectively published to support an ideology - something that happens a lot. But without some form of concrete evidence, how can we make reliable judgements? At least data can be checked and challenged. Perceptions are without substance and so can only be challenged with acceptable data. Those with strongly believed perceptions will never accept data that challenges their beliefs.

Consequently, the following is unlikely to change any views expressed in this thread. But I’ll put it out there anyhow.

Despite recent improvements in air quality in London, all locations monitored in 31 boroughs are exceeding global WHO recommended limits for deadly nitrogen dioxide. In total, 14 boroughs have five or more locations monitored that also exceed the less stringent UK legal limit for nitrogen dioxide. In Brent, Croydon and Merton, more than a quarter of the locations monitored found the air to be breaching legal limits.

Many will no doubt say that this is all rubbish because it’s information put out by the Mayor of London. All that I’ll consider an acceptable argument against is real data that contradicts these results.

 
I had a very quick browse the other day for a sub £1000 Fiesta and a Corsa. Forget it.
I just checked Autotrader. 50 ULEZ compliant Fiestas for sub £1,000.
 
The big issue is that London is a big place.

I agreed with the initial ULEZ which was the city and central London. The next one I was so so with but the new extension which in many places goes out to the M25 is taking the ‘dirty London air’ a bit far.

I can (just about...) agree with that statement.

I think it's short and to the point.

My issue is with those who build nonsensical mega-arguments over this simple and well-put objection.
 
My 2006 5.4 litre V8 petrol AMG is ULEZ compliant . If I was daft enough to drive through central London I doubt I would get 15 Mpg out of it , I understand that the muck that comes out of the quad exhausts is cleaner than the muck that comes out of a much smaller Diesel engine of the same vintage . Who knew ? :doh:

More CO2 but far less NOx and far fewer particulates.

As someone living in London Zone 2 who has had to breathe in the muck from pre-Euro6 diesels for the last 15 years I'm more than happy to now live in the original ULEZ zone. It's made a major difference to the air quality. So many cars in London do endless small trips and the diesels don't stand a chance of getting to anything like operating temperature. And don't start me on the defeat software bumping up the pollution by a factor of 20 or more. Or the utter bellends who map out the EGRs and DPFs.

I'm not so convinced on the ULEZ extension but for the parts of London I live in ULEZ has made a massive improvement.
 
Last edited:
So many cars in London do endless small trips and the diesels don't stand a chance of getting to anything like operating temperature. And don't start me on the defeat software bumping up the pollution by a factor of 20 or more. Or the utter bellends who map out the EGRs and DPFs.
Totally agree.
 
I can (just about...) agree with that statement.

I think it's short and to the point.

My issue is with those who build nonsensical mega-arguments over this simple and well-put objection.
As someone who lived in suburban London for 40 years, I’m delighted that ULEZ has been extended.
 
Is that eBay? If so it proves that Autotrader is a better source.
Yeah lots on auto-trader under £2k when using the keyword ULEZ :)
IMG-6288.png
 
As someone who lived in suburban London for 40 years, I’m delighted that ULEZ has been extended.
"Lived"?....as in don't anymore so new ULEZ no longer affects you??? :)
 
"Lived"?....as in don't anymore so new ULEZ no longer affects you??? :)
Yes. I no longer live or work in London, so I'll have less opportunity to enjoy the benefits of the new ULEZ. But it's comforting to know that when I do go there the air is likely to be better. It's also good to know that my family and friends who are still in London will live in a better environment. :thumb:
 
Is your opinion based on your perception or actual data?

My career, initially in R&D and culminating in technology consultancy around the world, has taught me that data shouldn't be ignored and that perception can often discolour reality. Of course data can occasionally be corrupted or insufficient, leading to false conclusions. And more often it can be misinterpreted, with resultant errors in reaction. But mostly it’s the most reliable means of assessment.

People believe that perception is reliable and that what they perceive reflects objective reality. Philosophers will argue about this belief at a level way beyond my understanding, but from my scientific viewpoint the level of reliability must be founded on degrees of knowledge. Bearing in mind the old adage of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing, the reliability of perception has to be challenged.

Perception, gut-feelings, or whatever are fine - as long as they are supported by factual data. Understandably, people will often criticise data as being selectively published to support an ideology - something that happens a lot. But without some form of concrete evidence, how can we make reliable judgements? At least data can be checked and challenged. Perceptions are without substance and so can only be challenged with acceptable data. Those with strongly believed perceptions will never accept data that challenges their beliefs.

Consequently, the following is unlikely to change any views expressed in this thread. But I’ll put it out there anyhow.

Despite recent improvements in air quality in London, all locations monitored in 31 boroughs are exceeding global WHO recommended limits for deadly nitrogen dioxide. In total, 14 boroughs have five or more locations monitored that also exceed the less stringent UK legal limit for nitrogen dioxide. In Brent, Croydon and Merton, more than a quarter of the locations monitored found the air to be breaching legal limits.

Many will no doubt say that this is all rubbish because it’s information put out by the Mayor of London. All that I’ll consider an acceptable argument against is real data that contradicts these results.

What forms of transport did you use during your career spent as a "technology consultant around the world" may i ask?

Unless you are a long distance cyclist or runner there could well be a strong wiff of hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
What forms of transport did you use during your career spent as a "technology consultant around the world" may i ask?
Commercial and occasionally private aircraft, cars, busses, trains, boats and feet. (My whole career wasn't as a technology consultant, that was just the last ten years. My time before that was split fairly evenly between research and then development - but even those required the use of transport, including some overseas travel.)
 
What forms of transport did you use during your career spent as a "technology consultant around the world" may i ask?

Unless you are a long distance cyclist or runner there could well be a strong wiff of hypocrisy.

We're not suggesting to bring back the stone age.... :D

But simply asking people to avoid unnecessary travel, and choose the least environmentally harmful mode of transport - when possible - for those journeys that are essential.

Traveling for work is essential. Is there a reasonably-priced train alternative? If yes, then take it. If not, then drive, or fly, as the case may be.

It's not complicated, really.
 
Commercial and occasionally private aircraft, cars, busses, trains, boats and feet. (My whole career wasn't as a technology consultant, that was just the last ten years. My time before that was split fairly evenly between research and then development - but even those required the use of transport, including some overseas travel.)
So not a care in the world then.
 
We're not suggesting to bring back the stone age.... :D

But simply asking people to avoid unnecessary travel, and choose the least environmentally harmful mode of transport - when possible - for those journeys that are essential.

Traveling for work is essential. Is there a reasonably-priced train alternative? If yes, then take it. If not, then drive, or fly, as the case may be.

It's not complicated, really.
Seems unfair that the worlds super-emitters should carry on regardless when joe bloggs gets shafted for owning a 60 mpg diesel passat.
 
Yes. I no longer live or work in London, so I'll have less opportunity to enjoy the benefits of the new ULEZ. But it's comforting to know that when I do go there the air is likely to be better. It's also good to know that my family and friends who are still in London will live in a better environment. :thumb:

I've known two versions of London blighted by traffic fumes. The first was when I moved here in 88 and the stench from un-catalysed cars was quite something. As was the LA-like brown fug towards the horizon. Then along came fuel injections and cats and suddenly the world became a better place.

Then, in the mid 90's, everyone became hugely invested in CO2 and the pendulum swung massively over to diesel for passenger cars. Makes sense if you're driving 100 miles a day on motorways but it makes no sense for millions of cars doing short nose to tail stop start journeys in cities. But, despite that, the soot chucking in London started in earnest. Walking to work in the morning, going for a run or cycling into the city I'd be greeted by great guffs of the stuff. Really really unpleasant and really bad for you. Glad it's over.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom