Stop expanding the ULEZ to all the London boroughs in 2023

[Dryce]

Are they though?....i cant think of one of my personal freedoms thats affect by CCTV etc.......just my finances getting hurt if I drive into an ULEZ!!!

The underlying issue is that your freedom of practical access is effectively being curtailed.

 

[clk320x]

The underlying issue is that your freedom of practical access is effectively being curtailed.

Why? because you are penalised for driving an non-compliant vehicle?

How far does that extend? Is your freedom of access being curtailed by your car requiring MOT, insurance, RFL?

 

[Dryce]

Why? because you are penalised for driving an non-compliant vehicle?

How far does that extend? Is your freedom of access being curtailed by your car requiring MOT, insurance, RFL?

Because when playing with legislation you shouldn't back date it.

So as an example when the £40K VED charges were added - they were not backdated to cars bought in previous years. When the VED bands or CO2 were introduced there was a separate category for older cars.

And on that basis you do not deny vehicles practical access to sections of the national road network by changing the rules in what is effectively an arbitrary basis.

 

[ALFAitalia]

Because when playing with legislation you shouldn't back date it.

Generally Id agree.....but in this case it would be completely pointless without back dating it....as all current cars are ULEZ compliant and its only the old ones (that create the pollution) that they are worried about!!! Without back dating it, it would have no effect whatsoever!!!

 

[clk320x]

Generally Id agree.....but in this case it would be completely pointless without back dating it....as all current cars are ULEZ compliant and its only the old ones (that create the pollution) that they are worried about!!! Without back dating it, it would have no effect whatsoever!!!

Couldn’t have put it any better…

What he is mentioning worked well for things such as Asbestos, where existing parts could be left in situ until they needed to be replaced, but they don’t actively affect health unless disturbed, these cars actively emit NoX and PM2.5 into the air…

 

[ChrisHGTV]

Are they though?....i cant think of one of my personal freedoms thats affect by CCTV etc.......just my finances getting hurt if I drive into an ULEZ!!!

I guess though it depends if one your personal freedoms includes being a bit of a naughty boy!

 

[markjay]

Couldn’t have put it any better…

What he is mentioning worked well for things such as Asbestos, where existing parts could be left in situ until they needed to be replaced, but they don’t actively affect health unless disturbed, these cars actively emit NoX and PM2.5 into the air…

I can see the argument that says that it would have made more sense to ban non-compliant cars completely rather than just tax them.

But then a similar approach worked well with cigarettes - they weren't banned altogether, but their use declined significantly (in great part) due to hefty taxation.

 

[Darrell]

But then a similar approach worked well with cigarettes - they weren't banned altogether, but their use declined significantly (in great part) due to hefty taxation.

Do you smoke or have you ever smoked?

 

[markjay]

Do you smoke or have you ever smoked?

Only as a teenager (when dinosaurs roamed the earth.....).

But I do remember in the sixties, seventies, eighties and nineties, when pubs were filled with thick cigarette smoke that it hurt my eyes after a while. Even the quiz nights at the local school felt like a walk in the marshes on a foggy night. Worse still, I shared a room with a heavy smoker, he would wake up then fumble for his pack of fags and light-up his first cigarette of the day with his eyes still closed - I kid you not. In fact, the only place where I saw smoking sheds outside was the Lucas factories I was contracting for at the time, but this was due to safety reasons (flammable liquids inside the factory building). Oh, yes, airplanes too, the rear section was for smokers. And restaurants had non-smoking and smoking areas. And even cinemas when I was a child were filled with cigarette smoke. And, when my parents invited friends over for an evening of friendly card games, after they left we used to leave the windows open all night to get rid of the smell. It's pretty amazing how smoking became much less common than it used to be. But the duty on tobacco was only part of it - there were also other measures that brought about this change.

 

[Darrell]

Only as a teenager (when dinosaurs roamed the earth.....).

But I do remember in the sixties, seventies, eighties and nineties, when pubs were filled with thick cigarette smoke that it hurt my eyes after a while. Even the quiz nights at the local school felt like a walk in the marshes on a foggy night. Worse still, I shared a room with a heavy smoker, he would wake up then fumble for his pack of fags and light-up his first cigarette of the day with his eyes still closed - I kid you not. In fact, the only place where I saw smoking sheds outside was the Lucas factories I was contracting for at the time, but this was due to safety reasons (flammable liquids inside the factory building). Oh, yes, airplanes too, the rear section was for smokers. And restaurants had non-smoking and smoking areas. And even cinemas when I was a child were filled with cigarette smoke. And, when my parents invited friends over for an evening of friendly card games, after they left we used to leave the windows open all night to get rid of the smell. It's pretty amazing how smoking became much less common than it used to be. But the duty on tobacco was only part of it - there were also other measures that brought about this change.

Thanks for the history lesson but I think most or all of the members here can relate to it.

Your comparison of the cigarette ban and the ULEZ debacle are miles apart.
No comparison whatsoever.

I was on 50 Marlboro Lights a day up until October 2016 so I feel more than qualified to comment.

 

[markjay]

Thanks for the history lesson but I think most or all of the members here can relate to it.

Your comparison of the cigarette ban and the ULEZ debacle are miles apart.
No comparison whatsoever.

I was on 50 Marlboro Lights a day up until October 2016 so I feel more than qualified to comment.

What made you stop?

 

[clk320x]

Your comparison of the cigarette ban and the ULEZ debacle are miles apart.
No comparison whatsoever.

Very similar in theory.

Banning smoking in indoor places stopped forcing others to inhale the toxic fumes, ULEZ has a similar premise with the aim to eliminate the more harmful vehicles in cities and stop people being forced to inhale the toxic NoX and PM2.5 emitted, it’s not possible to ban all ICE cars completely as unlike smoking cigarettes vehicles do have a positive impact on society as a whole and can be necessary.

A similar argument with driving a 2002 rotbox oil burner - just because some can’t afford or don’t want to change doesn’t mean they are entitled to damage the health of others? Of course you’ll say that they can just pay £12.50 - but the point is that the scheme has already forced so many to give up said cars so it clearly works. Arguably a total ban may have been a better solution though, but of course if that had been implemented some would be arguing that a daily charge would be better, as some people only use their car once a fortnight… you can’t please everyone.

Unrelated but I also think smoking should be banned in all public spaces rather than just indoors, and I’m honestly baffled by how many people still smoke or take up the habit with all the information now available about its effects.

 

[Dryce]

Very similar in theory.

Different.

- smoking ban was the ban of an optional activity once in a location. It didn't involve a costly personal asset. It didn't affect other activities.

- smoking ban wasn't implemented as a charge whereby people could enter a building and pay £XX to smoke.

- smoking ban didn't affect you in your own home - or getting from to/from your home and other locations.

- smoking ban affected emissions with a much clearer health benefit in enclosed spaces.

 

[clk320x]

- smoking ban was the ban of an optional activity once in a location. It didn't involve a costly personal asset. It didn't affect other activities.

Driving is also an ‘optional’ activity.

- smoking ban wasn't implemented as a charge whereby people could enter a building and pay £XX to smoke.

- smoking ban didn't affect you in your own home - or getting from to/from your home and other locations.

Both of these are irrelevant, agreed an outright ban would be better but then you’d be crying about that too, this still achieves a good amount of reduction.

The fact that it may affect some people getting from home to other locations is besides the point if the only way they can do so is by poisoning the air locals breathe?

 

[clk320x]

- smoking ban affected emissions with a much clearer health benefit in enclosed spaces.

There is plenty of research linking NoX and PM2.5 to health effects.

There is absolutely no disadvantage in reducing the quantity of these pollutants being spewed out into the air within cities.

 

[clk320x]

Different.

The theoretical reasoning behind the implementation is the same though, ‘to reduce the risk of negative health impact on the general public by factors out of their control’.

 

[clk320x]

10 days time and it’s done. A few months on and most will have forgot about it once they’ve changed cars and moved on….

 

[Dryce]

The theoretical reasoning behind the implementation is the same though, ‘to reduce the risk of negative health impact on the general public by factors out of their control’.

Your theory of theoretical reasoning is some way off the mark.

The underlying justification is different, as is the modelling, and the implementation involves charging.

A more valid theory is that of the dogma at work - the invention of numbers and justification - and the creeping imposition of rules and strictures by the new political classes and media.

 

[Dryce]

There is plenty of research linking NoX and PM2.5 to health effects.

So ban all new development of offices and housing next to major roads.

This makes better sense. because whatever limits are imposed now - they will inevitably get tighter. So if not engine generated gases it will be tyres and brake particulates.

Or instead of charging £12.50 per day then ban all non-compliant vehicles now.

 

[Dryce]

Driving is also an ‘optional’ activity.

Really? Technically you can argue just about anything is 'optional'.

So run public transport only at commuting times and close it down at weekends.

What foodstuffs could we make optional? Travelling more than 3 miles away from our home area optional. Enforce working from home. Ban new consumer goods to stop people buying unecessary upgrades. Make taxi or public transport journeys under 1 mile illegal because everybody should be willing to walk at least that distance.