Stop expanding the ULEZ to all the London boroughs in 2023

[TeddyRuxpin]

I’ll give you his number and you can try to convince him if you like?

For sure the time will come for us all but for now, it’s important that he has a car, as evidenced by taking my mother to the hospital recently.

 

[ToeKnee]

If you click on your user name above and then Account details, there is the option to change your username.

So there is Roger! Saves bothering KH.

 

[clk320x]

When I read posts by those with a shopping list length list of previously owned MBs disparagingly referring to older cars driven by normal owners as rotboxes, it gives a clue as to their superiority complex.

It also gives a clue to the selfishness of those who care more about their old car than the health of others.

Perhaps it’s more ‘entitlement’ actually that everyone should be able to drive whichever detrimental old oil burner they want without any financial penalty despite the proven effects that the noxious gases have on health.

Unfortunately you can’t just expect government policy to be made around what works for you personally, on the whole it’s there for the greater good of society - there are also people on here who support the disgusting behaviour of the criminals vandalising the cameras. What would you call that?

The ‘what about’ posts are also quite frankly ridiculous, we shouldn’t target NoX because ‘what about this, what about that?’…

It’s just endless whining when it’s clear that the policy is going ahead regardless, just move on with your life.

 

[TeddyRuxpin]

It’s just endless whining when it’s clear that the policy is going ahead regardless, just move on with your life.

This from the same person that said that an extra £40-50 a month on fuel increases alone weren't a big deal and that people wouldn't really be affected by it much... how empathetic.

It's ridiculous to dismiss valid arguments as 'whataboutism' - it's not whataboutism at all in fact, if it's directly dealing with the same problem.

'Whataboutism' claims would be valid if someone complains about NOx emissions, then someone else says 'well what about interest rates!' or 'what about China!'. Saying that tackling air quality on the underground would have a far greater impact on the health of Londoners is completely valid in the apparent goal of improving the health of Londoners.

And yeah, sure it's ALL being done for health benefits. Can't wait for that sweet 1.5% average NO2 reduction.

 

[JHS]

It also gives a clue to the selfishness of those who care more about their old car than the health of others.

Perhaps it’s more ‘entitlement’ actually that everyone should be able to drive whichever detrimental old oil burner they want without any financial penalty despite the proven effects that the noxious gases have on health.

Unfortunately you can’t just expect government policy to be made around what works for you personally, on the whole it’s there for the greater good of society - there are also people on here who support the disgusting behaviour of the criminals vandalising the cameras. What would you call that?

The ‘what about’ posts are also quite frankly ridiculous, we shouldn’t target NoX because ‘what about this, what about that?’…

It’s just endless whining when it’s clear that the policy is going ahead regardless, just move on with your life.

Of course, everyone who purchased or leased an EV did so out of concern for the health of others and the environment and not because it was financially advantageous.

For you it seems that it was a teccy interest coupled to a financial advantage, that is completely understandable. So why the need to virtue signal?

 

[clk320x]

Of course, everyone who purchased or leased an EV did so out of concern for the health of others and the environment and not because it was financially advantageous.

For you it seems that it was a teccy interest coupled to a financial advantage, that is completely understandable. So why the need to virtue signal?

You’re mixing 2 different things here.

Why are you comparing EVs with ULEZ compliant cars?

A £1000 petrol car is ULEZ compliant.

I never said everyone should go and buy an EV?

And yes - most people got an EV for the financial advantages, so yes the behaviour shaping policy worked, the same way the ULEZ acts to persuade people to switch to compliant vehicles (not necessarily to EVs)…

 

[clk320x]

This from the same person that said that an extra £40-50 a month on fuel increases alone weren't a big deal and that people wouldn't really be affected by it much... how empathetic.

It's ridiculous to dismiss valid arguments as 'whataboutism' - it's not whataboutism at all in fact, if it's directly dealing with the same problem.

'Whataboutism' claims would be valid if someone complains about NOx emissions, then someone else says 'well what about interest rates!' or 'what about China!'. Saying that tackling air quality on the underground would have a far greater impact on the health of Londoners is completely valid in the apparent goal of improving the health of Londoners.

And yeah, sure it's ALL being done for health benefits. Can't wait for that sweet 1.5% average NO2 reduction.

View attachment 145871

What are you on about with the fuel costs? I can’t remember discussing fuel costs on this thread… perhaps somewhere else and it hit a nerve with you.

I stand by the ‘whataboutism’… How many of these people were campaigning/bothered about the air quality on the underground before they realised their old diesel would either need to be switched or they’ve cough up £12.50?

Your own screenshot mentions how even small reductions in No2 can have health benefits, so yes even an AVERAGE 1.5% reduction (some areas will of course be higher and lower) will be good. That is of course just modelling, so the impact may be a lot higher especially if more people switch vehicle than anticipated.

From reading some of your other posts, it’s clear you’re upset that your fathers car isn’t compliant and you’ve had to replace his car with a compliant one… The act of doing so proving the ULEZ policy worked to convince you to change cars, so it’s not just a cash grab after all.

 

[Darrell]

I did feel for some of the older guys with their classics today.
Some these chaps, tinkering with their cars is their life once they’ve retired. They love meeting up over the summer at the car shows but sadly now many of them will have to jack it in.

 

[clk320x]

I did feel for some of the older guys with their classics today.
Some these chaps, tinkering with their cars is their life once they’ve retired. They love meeting up over the summer at the car shows but sadly now many of them will have to jack it in.

but any car over 40 years old will be exempt anyway? and most classics aren’t exactly daily drivers, so will a £12.50 charge to visit a summer car show really be a massive issue?

 

[Darrell]

but any car over 40 years old will be exempt anyway? and most classics aren’t exactly daily drivers, so will a £12.50 charge to visit a summer car show really be a massive issue?

I never said anything about cars over 40 years. And it’s not only a single £12.50 payment.
A lot of these chaps attend a couple of evening gig’s as well as a weekend show. When the sun comes out they like to take the grandchildren out for a spin etc etc.
A £12.50 cost on its own might not be a lot to you but it’s yet another expense along with the rising cost of living. Most of these chaps are retired.

The knock on effect will have repercussions for businesses involved.

 

[clk320x]

I never said anything about cars over 40 years. And it’s not only a single £12.50 payment.
A lot of these chaps attend a couple of evening gig’s as well as a weekend show. When the sun comes out they like to take the grandchildren out for a spin etc etc.
A £12.50 cost on its own might not be a lot to you but it’s yet another expense along with the rising cost of living. Most of these chaps are retired.

The knock on effect will have repercussions for businesses involved.

Fair enough Darrell, can’t dispute anything you’ve said there.

Unfortunately it’s difficult to make a policy which works for absolutely everyones specific situation.

I suppose there’s a few options for them not limited to:

- Change to an older classic which will be exempted.
- Accept that the cost of their hobby has increased and modify their behaviours appropriately to keep it affordable, for example by reducing the amount of meet ups they attend.

I think ultimately this situation applies to a very small number of people, and I would suggest most that own, store and maintaining a second car for the purpose of shows would be able to afford the charge on the odd occasion they drive it.

 

[Darrell]

Fair enough Darrell, can’t dispute anything you’ve said there.

And it’s the tip of the iceberg.

 

[markjay]

I have not read the whole rhread and this may have been covered, but hpw does paying £12.50 suddenly make the vehicle "clean"? Are all exempt vehicles such as busses, taxis etc assumed to be "clean"?
If it looks like a money generator it probably is.
A nice smokey Peugeot 404 diesel looks like a candidate as a replacement for a non compliant vehicle.

You are correct about the old Diesel taxis being exempt, though you should also keep in mind that since April 2018 all new taxis introduced in London must be an EV.

With regards to the £12.50 charge, you could equally ask how does tobacco duty of £5.85 make a packet of cigarettes healthy? Well it doesn't, the additional charge is meant to deter people and reduce the overall usage and thus reduce the amount of harm caused by smoking - the same applies to the ULEZ charge.

EDIT - just saw Will's post.

 

[Darrell]

With regards to the £12.50 charge, you could equally ask how does tobacco duty of £5.85 make a packet of cigarettes healthy? Well it doesn't, the additional charge is meant to deter people and reduce the overall usage and thus reduce the amount of harm caused by smoking - the same applies to the ULEZ charge.

Cigarettes are highly addictive meaning any govt can charge pretty much what they want (within reason obviously) and still make shedloads. The same with alcohol.

 

[JHS]

You are correct about the old Diesel taxis being exempt, though you should also keep in mind that since April 2018 all new taxis introduced in London must be an EV.

With regards to the £12.50 charge, you could equally ask how does tobacco duty of £5.85 make a packet of cigarettes healthy? Well it doesn't, the additional charge is meant to deter people and reduce the overall usage and thus reduce the amount of harm caused by smoking - the same applies to the ULEZ charge.

EDIT - just saw Will's post.

I still contend that it is a money generator and has little to do with clean air.Just another reason not to visit the fleshpots of London.

BTW, you do not mention busses. When last I was in the metropolis I recall there were a lot. Are they now clean?

 

[JHS]

You’re mixing 2 different things here.

Why are you comparing EVs with ULEZ compliant cars?

A £1000 petrol car is ULEZ compliant.

I never said everyone should go and buy an EV?

And yes - most people got an EV for the financial advantages, so yes the behaviour shaping policy worked, the same way the ULEZ acts to persuade people to switch to compliant vehicles (not necessarily to EVs)…

So a £1000 rotbox ( your definition) is as clean as an EV. Good to know.
I seem to recall similar "behaviour shaping" in the past with regard to diesel vehicles.That has worked out well.
Ah well, not likely to see any of that ULEZ nonsense in rural Lincolnshire.

 

[Darrell]

BTW, you do not mention busses. When last I was in the metropolis I recall there were a lot. Are they now clean?

I think they are but they’re not nice places to be.

 

[clk320x]

BTW, you do not mention busses. When last I was in the metropolis I recall there were a lot. Are they now clean?

Every single bus run by TFL is ULEZ compliant.

 

[clk320x]

So a £1000 rotbox ( your definition) is as clean as an EV. Good to know.

When did I say that? Clearly this has hit a nerve with you…

A ULEZ compliant petrol emits far less NoX and PM2.5 compared to a non-compliant old diesel vehicle.

Ah well, not likely to see any of that ULEZ nonsense in rural Lincolnshire.

Who cares? Unless you never drive out of there to a city… most cities will have clean air zones in the coming years. Bristol, Birmingham, Bath etc… all have them already.

 

[JHS]

When did I say that? Clearly this has hit a nerve with you…

A ULEZ compliant petrol emits far less NoX and PM2.5 compared to a non-compliant old diesel vehicle.



Who cares? Unless you never drive out of there to a city… most cities will have clean air zones in the coming years. Bristol, Birmingham, Bath etc… all have them already.

It will come as a shock to you, but quite a number of people care, because they do not feel superior to those of lesser means that cannot afford a long list of cars they have owned.
What has hit a nerve is the implied contempt for those that drive older non Euro 6 vehicles and the pathetic virtue signalling to justify your choice of an EV.
there are others on here that drive EVs and Euro 6 vehicles without the need to pretend that they made that choice for the good of the population.
I have just checked and my diesel is Euro 6. Obviously a prime reason for its purchase.