• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

Stop expanding the ULEZ to all the London boroughs in 2023

Will said:
Chessington is £60 plus per ticket nowadays. A typical family paying gate prices plus food/drink and parking or whatever would probably be spending £200/300+ for the day out.

If they are still driving a polluting, non-compliant vehicle I’d argue they can afford the £12.50 charge for a one day trip to Chessington.
Click to expand...

Completely agree that rationally the additional cost is insignificant. But it's a psychological barrier that will stop some people coming, just as it stops many from entering the zone for other reasons when in reality £12.50 for a one-off visit is pretty trivial. A quick look on TripAdvisor shows reviews like this:

1705140904550.png
1705140937737.png
1705140975706.png
1705141002025.png
1705141044395.png
1705141066802.png
 
Will said:
If they are still driving a polluting, non-compliant vehicle I’d argue they can afford the £12.50 charge for a one day trip to Chessington.
Click to expand...

I am one of those outside of London with a "polluting, non-compliant vehicle". Out of a point of principle (that principle being my view is the expansion is a greedy tax grab and I don't like the principle of a survellance web) and because, I am lucky to be able to choose to go elsewhere (Alton, Gulliver's etc) I can dismiss Chessington in future, on the outskirts, where the 'polution' might not be that significant in the Chessington geographical area, that was allegedly the whole driver for introducing ULEZ.

If I ever buy a 'non-polluting(!?), compliant vehicle' then I will reconsider for family days out.

That is also not to say I wouldn't pay the £12.50 if I have no choice but to drive within the ULEZ, but when I do (which I do on occasion), I make sure I take the opportunity to trundle round the major sights of the city in a bit of E Class-comfort sight seeing.
 
BTB 500 said:
Completely agree that rationally the additional cost is insignificant. But it's a psychological barrier that will stop some people coming, just as it stops many from entering the zone for other reasons when in reality £12.50 for a one-off visit is pretty trivial. A quick look on TripAdvisor shows reviews like this:

View attachment 151869
View attachment 151870
View attachment 151871
View attachment 151872
View attachment 151873
View attachment 151874
Click to expand...
Chessington World of Adventures attracts around 1.5 million visitors each year.

If six of those are sulking about a charge introduced then let them.

At least for those they’re proving the desired affect of ULEZ is working :)

As time goes on this minor protest will drop, the issue will be self-limiting due to age/types of vehicles in use.

Not really a big issue IMHO.
 
MrGreedy said:
I am one of those outside of London with a "polluting, non-compliant vehicle". Out of a point of principle (that principle being my view is the expansion is a greedy tax grab and I don't like the principle of a survellance web) and because, I am lucky to be able to choose to go elsewhere (Alton, Gulliver's etc) I can dismiss Chessington in future, on the outskirts, where the 'polution' might not be that significant in the Chessington geographical area, that was allegedly the whole driver for introducing ULEZ.

If I ever buy a 'non-polluting(!?), compliant vehicle' then I will reconsider for family days out.

That is also not to say I wouldn't pay the £12.50 if I have no choice but to drive within the ULEZ, but when I do (which I do on occasion), I make sure I take the opportunity to trundle round the major sights of the city in a bit of E Class-comfort sight seeing.
Click to expand...
Don’t like surveillance? The whole of the UK is covered with ANPR, CCTV and your phone signal/position is being tracked everywhere you go.

The good news is that you’re proving that the charge works, as you’re avoiding driving a polluting or non-compliant vehicle in the zone.

But I’m sure you know that! :)
 
I appreciate the posts above might not have come across all that well - but the point is the charge is working.

It’s challenging thinking, sparking debate about vehicles, usage, emissions, people’s health and the environment.

And gradually it’s making people realise that they need to change their habits.

Boycotting Chessington might sound like you’re winning but in reality, the opposite is true.

What would be your you plans if these sorts of zones were expanded nationwide? :)
 
BTB 500 said:
Completely agree that rationally the additional cost is insignificant. But it's a psychological barrier that will stop some people coming, just as it stops many from entering the zone for other reasons when in reality £12.50 for a one-off visit is pretty trivial. A quick look on TripAdvisor shows reviews like this:

View attachment 151869
View attachment 151870
View attachment 151871
View attachment 151872
View attachment 151873
View attachment 151874
Click to expand...
The second of those in the TripAdvisor list starts “Too busy …” So ULEZ can’t be reducing their numbers by much then! Probably far less effect than the weather.
 
Will said:
Chessington World of Adventures attracts around 1.5 million visitors each year.

If six of those are sulking about a charge introduced then let them.

At least for those they’re proving the desired affect of ULEZ is working :)

As time goes on this minor protest will drop, the issue will be self-limiting due to age/types of vehicles in use.

Not really a big issue IMHO.
Click to expand...

However there are only 2,207 posted reviews for Chessington on TripAdvisor, ever. Not 1.5 million a year. So the number of negative ones since late last year referring to the ULEZ is probably significant.

As already mentioned Chessington is hardly in an urban congestion hotspot. It's at the end of a narrow extension of the zone with "polluting, non-compliant vehicles" driving all around it without any kind of restriction or penalty. So the net improvement in air quality from extending the ULEZ to include that area would likely be trivial IMHO.

1705148843763.png
 
Its odd how the ULEZ zone protrudes like that.....its almost as if someone wanted to include Chessington in the ULEZ just for financial gain.....but that would never be true.....would it???!!!
 
BTB 500 said:
However there are only 2,207 posted reviews for Chessington on TripAdvisor, ever. Not 1.5 million a year. So the number of negative ones since late last year referring to the ULEZ is probably significant.

As already mentioned Chessington is hardly in an urban congestion hotspot. It's at the end of a narrow extension of the zone with "polluting, non-compliant vehicles" driving all around it without any kind of restriction or penalty. So the net improvement in air quality from extending the ULEZ to include that area would likely be trivial IMHO.

View attachment 151877
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with most of what you’re saying, but people love to moan.

Point being that most people will continue going to Chessington as before and they’ll not be leaving reviews on TripAdvisor to that effect.

The amount of people who are still driving polluting/non-compliant vehicles and go to Chessington and are seriously unable to pay £12.50 for that trip must be pretty miniscule.

I’m sure Chessington will continue to be busy as ever and over time, the numbers of those people that may fall into the above criteria will reduce anyway :)
 
ALFAitalia said:
Its odd how the ULEZ zone protrudes like that.....its almost as if someone wanted to include Chessington in the ULEZ just for financial gain.....but that would never be true.....would it???!!!
Click to expand...
I’m sure you’ll remember that this exact topic has been discussed and explained more than once before on this very thread! :)
 
I didn't to be honest.....will skip back and look.....
 
Will said:
No one has stopped the show other than the organisers.

I mean, surely the acid test would have been to run the show and make a decision for next year based upon how successful it was?

Seems a bit short sited bearing in mind that classic cars wouldn’t have been affected anyway and you don’t get many old/middle aged diesels at classic car events in my experience (40+ year old ones would be exempt too!)

is £12.50 really that much to stop the likely few that would need to pay it from attending?
Click to expand...

Their announcement says that they are looking for a different venue for 2025.

The organisers are Kelsey Publishing, a long established firm behind some of my favourite automotive magazines and books, however they are neither modern nor particularly commercial and I would hazard a guess that perhaps the event was borderline profitable and even a small reduction in number of participants and visitors resulting from the ULEZ charge would have made the event unprofitable. But this is just a guess.
 
Last edited:
markjay said:
I would hazard a guess that perhaps the event was borderline profitable and even a small reduction in number of participants and visitors resulting from the ULEZ charge would have made the event unprofitable.
Click to expand...
As a general principle, I really don’t think the majority of the population realise how “on the edge of the precipice” many things like this are.

A reduction of 0.5% or less in attendance can tip some of these things over the edge, so why would organisers risk their capital on the off chance that Khan’s ULEZ (or whatever) isn’t responsible for that 0.5% fall?
 
st13phil said:
As a general principle, I really don’t think the majority of the population realise how “on the edge of the precipice” many things like this are.

A reduction of 0.5% or less in attendance can tip some of these things over the edge, so why would organisers risk their capital on the off chance that Khan’s ULEZ (or whatever) isn’t responsible for that 0.5% fall?
Click to expand...
If it’s sensitive to a 0.5% attendance drop in attendance then why move the venue?

You can’t make anything either if you don’t run the thing.

ULEZ is just an excuse by the organisers in this instance I think. The company is struggling by a quick look of their accounts and I guess the writing is perhaps already on the wall well before the zone expanded a few months ago?

It’s sad but not the fault of ULEZ either.
 
Will said:
If it’s sensitive to a 0.5% attendance drop in attendance then why move the venue?
Click to expand...
Risk.

Why on earth would you consider the upfront cost of moving venue when you’re so finely balanced twixt profit & loss anyway?
 
This is what the organisers said:

"It became clear that Norman Park is no longer an option and any move to a new venue and date needs to ensure that this firm favourite of the classic car calendar has a bright future. We have made the very difficult decision to not hold the event in 2024 but are working on plans to bring back the Bromley Pageant of Motoring in 2025."

It sounds as if the decision to cancel was made late in the day and there was not enough time to arrange a new venue for this year, but they are looking for a new venue for next year.
 
Just checking my ULEZ auto payments and found that one of the charges was wrong. Each charge has a picture of the offending vehicle and details of the road and time. I always check them because I hardly use the car, so know the dates and routes I take. One charge clearly shows a vehicle that has a different reg to mine and on a road I've never driven down, so I've obviously disputed it.

Please check all details of any charges against your vehicles as like this, you could be wrongly charged.
 
Had two new cameras installed near me this week, both posts have been angle grinded to the floor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

T
London ULEZ stops Mercedes W202 entering in 2023.
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
12K
TC350
TC350
Flyinspanner
  • Locked
Petition against rampant opportunism
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
KillerHERTZ
KillerHERTZ
Back
Top Bottom