Stop expanding the ULEZ to all the London boroughs in 2023

[Dickster]

How unusual that there is such a revolt against something designed to make the cities air cleaner. If you can’t afford a Euro 6 diesel then Euro 5 petrols are plentiful and very affordable - with the current ~30p difference in cost per litre the consumption savings of diesel around town are minimum.

So it’s okay for the London Mayor to manipulate the results of a consultation to get the answer he wants?

Oh, and it’s okay if you pollute so long as you pay?

 

[Darrell]

How unusual that there is such a revolt against something designed to make the cities air cleaner. If you can’t afford a Euro 6 diesel then Euro 5 petrols are plentiful and very affordable - with the current ~30p difference in cost per litre the consumption savings of diesel around town are minimum.

I can’t afford a Euro 6 diesel Renault Trafic vehicle for work. Find me one of the plentiful and very affordable versions in the correct spec and colour and I’ll give you my house in Skiathos.

 

[Darrell]

So it’s okay for the London Mayor to manipulate the results of a consultation to get the answer he wants?

Oh, and it’s okay if you pollute so long as you pay?

And drive a black cab.

 

[markjay]

So it’s okay for the London Mayor to manipulate the results of a consultation to get the answer he wants?

Oh, and it’s okay if you pollute so long as you pay?

Generally, there are two options to reduce usage.

You either ban it, or allow it but tax it (e.g. alcohol and tobacco).

The ULEZ charge seems less draconian than banning pre-EU6 Diesels altogether.

 

[ChipChop]

The argument that these low emissions schemes are improving air quality and therefore citizens health is not born out by the facts. All cause mortality is at an all time high and has been since mid 2021 (to date).

Appears the consequences of so called green policies have not been thought about in any depth. No surprise.

 

[clk320x]

I can’t afford a Euro 6 diesel Renault Trafic vehicle for work. Find me one of the plentiful and very affordable versions in the correct spec and colour and I’ll give you my house in Skiathos.

Ok but does that mean that others should suffer from the various respiratory and the other health affects of air pollution?

You probably need to up your prices, I saw some of the photos on your other thread and you work looks superb. You could always charge your customer the additional £12 or whatever a day. Doubt they’d care.

In my experience of hiring tradesmen within the M25 - the prices they charge I’d be expecting a custom Rolls Royce van to turn up!

So it’s okay for the London Mayor to manipulate the results of a consultation to get the answer he wants?

Oh, and it’s okay if you pollute so long as you pay?

What a silly argument. If they banned them altogether you’d be complaining that you ‘only need to drive in 1 time a month’ and it would be better and less wasteful to simply pay a charge to do so.

In the same way… should tobacco be completely banned? Well arguably it adds no positive to society but if it were then there would be outcry.

 

[Dickster]

Generally, there are two options to reduce usage.

You either ban it, or allow it but tax it (e.g. alcohol and tobacco).

The ULEZ charge seems less draconian than banning pre-EU6 Diesels altogether.

Does it really work?

I’ve been commuting by motorcycle into London from Kent for 25 years and can tell you imho that the traffic at 6 am this morning was as bad as it was 25 years ago. In fact at that time of the morning it’s worse - it used to be quiet hence me going in early.

It’s like plastics. Don’t tax it, ban it if it’s that bad for the environment.

 

[Darrell]

Ok but does that mean that others should suffer from the various respiratory and the other health affects of air pollution?

I’m just answering your question.

 

[Darrell]

You could always charge your customer the additional £12 or whatever a day. Doubt they’d care.

You think???

 

[Harrythedog]

Ok but does that mean that others should suffer from the various respiratory and the other health affects of air pollution?

You probably need to up your prices, I saw some of the photos on your other thread and you work looks superb. You could always charge your customer the additional £12 or whatever a day. Doubt they’d care.

In my experience of hiring tradesmen within the M25 - the prices they charge I’d be expecting a custom Rolls Royce van to turn up!



What a silly argument. If they banned them altogether you’d be complaining that you ‘only need to drive in 1 time a month’ and it would be better and less wasteful to simply pay a charge to do so.

In the same way… should tobacco be completely banned? Well arguably it adds no positive to society but if it were then there would be outcry.

That’s the kind of response one would expect from a sanctimonious I’m all right Jack type of person who can afford a £40k-£50k EV and expects everyone to do the same.
Answer this please. If all trades people didn’t change their van, paid the CG and passed it on to their customers ( aka Nirvana) how would the air quality be improved ?

 

[markjay]

You could always charge your customer the additional £12 or whatever a day. Doubt they’d care.

You think???

I think that the answer isn't straightforward.

Customers will care about the additional charge.

However, if all tradesmen are subject to the same regulations, then consumer prices will simply go up, and as long as it remains a level playing field, then service providers will not be any worse-off, because their rivals and competitors are all subject t the same higher costs.

This is exactly what happened when regulation was introduced mandating the use of proper recycling for used engine oil, and later also for used tyre - garages simply rolled the cost over to the consumers.

This, however, raises a much bigger issue. Regulation intended to improve our lives (whether by preventing pollution, or by ensuring that people have the right qualifications e.g. gas engineers and electricians, etc etc), without fail increase the cost to the business which ultimately results in price increase to consumers, sending the cost-of-living spiralling upwards. In fact, this also touches on employment laws, such as minimum wages, mandatory workplace pension etc - they are all good things in themselves, but ultimately paid-for the consumer.

Where do you draw the line - what is the optimal balance between protective legislation and regulation on one hand, and ensuring that goods and services remain affordable on the other?

I don't have a simple answer, and in fact, I am not even sure that there is one.

 

[markjay]

That’s the kind of response one would expect from a sanctimonious I’m all right Jack type of person who can afford a £40k-£50k EV or a twenty years old £500 petrol car and expects everyone to do the same.

FTFY

 

[markjay]

Does it really work?

I’ve been commuting by motorcycle into London from Kent for 25 years and can tell you imho that the traffic at 6 am this morning was as bad as it was 25 years ago. In fact at that time of the morning it’s worse - it used to be quiet hence me going in early.

It’s like plastics. Don’t tax it, ban it if it’s that bad for the environment.

This is known as the fallacy of the 'experiment with no control group'.

In 2000, there were 27.2m cars on UK roads, in 2020 there were 32.7m cars. That's a 20% increase in car ownership over a period of 20 years.

Yet the volume of traffic on the M25 remained the same during this period... in 2000, there were 180,058 cars using the M25, and in 2020 there were 179,566 on the M25.

In real terms, traffic volume on the M25 went down by 20% (or there about), meaning that whatever schemes there are in place to reduce traffic, are actually working very well.

Gut feeling and intuition are great gifts, but only numbers can tell the full story.

Sources:
Number of cars on the road in the UK 2000-2020 | Statista

Road traffic statistics - Manual count point: 27923

roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk

 

[Dickster]

This is known as the fallacy of the 'experiment with no control group'.

In 2000, there were 27.2m cars on UK roads, in 2020 there were 32.7m cars. That's a 20% increase in car ownership over a period of 20 years.

Yet the volume of traffic on the M25 remained the same during this period... in 2000, there were 180,058 cars using the M25, and in 2020 there were 179,566 on the M25.

In real terms, traffic volume on the M25 went down by 20% (or there about), meaning that whatever schemes there are in place to reduce traffic, are actually working very well.

Gut feeling and intuition are great gifts, but only numbers can tell the full story.

Sources:
Number of cars on the road in the UK 2000-2020 | Statista

Road traffic statistics - Manual count point: 27923

roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk

So the volume of traffic remained the same. Hardly gut feeling then. All the schemes have done is stem the tide, they haven’t reduced traffic.

 

[Dickster]

I think that the answer isn't straightforward.

Customers will care about the additional charge.

However, if all tradesmen are subject to the same regulations, then consumer prices will simply go up, and as long as it remains a level playing field, then service providers will not be any worse-off, because their rivals and competitors are all subject t the same higher costs.

This is exactly what happened when regulation was introduced mandating the use of proper recycling for used engine oil, and later also for used tyre - garages simply rolled the cost over to the consumers.

This, however, raises a much bigger issue. Regulation intended to improve our lives (whether by preventing pollution, or by ensuring that people have the right qualifications e.g. gas engineers and electricians, etc etc), without fail increase the cost to the business which ultimately results in price increase to consumers, sending the cost-of-living spiralling upwards. In fact, this also touches on employment laws, such as minimum wages, mandatory workplace pension etc - they are all good things in themselves, but ultimately paid-for the consumer.

Where do you draw the line - what is the optimal balance between protective legislation and regulation on one hand, and ensuring that goods and services remain affordable on the other?

I don't have a simple answer, and in fact, I am not even sure that there is one.

Yeah, perhaps a bit of common sense might go a long way. I.e. whatever we do in the UK is never going to save the planet.

 

[markjay]

So the volume of traffic remained the same. Hardly gut feeling then. All the schemes have done is stem the tide, they haven’t reduced traffic.

But you are ignoring the fact that there are now 20% more cars on the road.

If someone was earning £25k annually in 2020, and is still earning £25k annually today, would you not agree that their wages went down in real terms (by the rate of inflation)?

 

[clk320x]

That’s the kind of response one would expect from a sanctimonious I’m all right Jack type of person who can afford a £40k-£50k EV and expects everyone to do the same.
Answer this please. If all trades people didn’t change their van, paid the CG and passed it on to their customers ( aka Nirvana) how would the air quality be improved ?

The reasons it’s a charge rather than a full ban is to allow those who can’t quite afford to change their vehicle yet to still function (at a fairly reasonable cost) in the meantime - but still acts as a way to persuade those who can afford it to change.

Yes a total ban would make the most sense, but then you’d probably argue the other way.

 

[Darrell]

The reasons it’s a charge rather than a full ban is to allow those who can’t quite afford to change their vehicle yet to still function (at a fairly reasonable cost) in the meantime - but still acts as a way to persuade those who can afford it to change.

Why have black cabs been given an exemption?

 

[MrGreedy]

I wonder if, when to all practical purposes, we are all driving 'clean' vehicles/can't afford to drive vehicles so there is no longer a significant local environmental impact (whatever that means) whether all the surveillance infrastructure would be dismantled? I don't believe the intent is to capture only entry and exit to the zone, but to monitor movement every mile on every road, indefinitely, and by introducing tougher and tougher restrictions year after year it generates forever tax revenues. I hope I'm totally wrong.

 

[Darrell]

I wonder if, when to all practical purposes, we are all driving 'clean' vehicles/can't afford to drive vehicles so there is no longer a significant local environmental impact (whatever that means) whether all the surveillance infrastructure would be dismantled? I don't believe the intent is to capture only entry and exit to the zone, but to monitor movement every mile on every road, indefinitely, and by introducing tougher and tougher restrictions year after year it generates forever tax revenues. I hope I'm totally wrong.

You’re totally right.