Ulez extended to the M25?

[alabbasi]

So I was speaking to my brother today who lives in West London (Outside the N Circular) and he told me that they're talking about extending ULEZ to the M25? I'm trying to understand how this is not a huge deal for residents that own cars and communte outside or across London where public transport many not be an option. I don't see any organizing against these actions so I'm wondering if everybody is okay with this or just can't be bothered?

 

[markjay]

So I was speaking to my brother today who lives in West London (Outside the N Circular) and he told me that they're talking about extending ULEZ to the M25? I'm trying to understand how this is not a huge deal for residents that own cars and communte outside or across London where public transport many not be an option. I don't see any organizing against these actions so I'm wondering if everybody is okay with this or just can't be bothered?

Further expansion will take a few more years. And in the meantime ULEZ is slowly becoming less of an issue as time goes by.

Almost all petrol cars on the road today are already ULEZ compliant anyway.

And also Diesel cars under 8 years old.

The older Diesel cars will slowly disappear, probably move to new owners outside of the Greater London area before disappearing completely due to age anyway.

In any event, ULEZ doesn't target car ownership, it only targets drivers of old Diesel cars. Those residents who live outside the NCR and run Diesel cars older than 8 years will have plenty of time to replace them with Petrol cars (of any age) before ULEZ extension reaches them.

And those few who may still feel that they absolutely must hang-on to their old Diesel cars at all cost, can simply continue driving them as they normally would and pay the £12.50 daily charge.

It's really not as draconian as some seem to think it is.

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

It’s not part of the Government’s plans but it is a possibility for the future.

An inevitable part of the whole Eco cleaner air push.

We get what we vote for. Kind of.

 

[GP801]

ULEZ does target petrol cars that dont meet Euro3 standards. So our 1995 124, sons 1999 Volvo and 1997 VW Polo are all subject to the charge. Our 2003 CLK and 2005 SLK fortunately are ok. However any car over 40 years old is exempt.

 

[markjay]

ULEZ does target petrol cars that dont meet Euro3 standards. So our 1995 124, sons 1999 Volvo and 1997 VW Polo are all subject to the charge. Our 2003 CLK and 2005 SLK fortunately are ok. However any car over 40 years old is exempt.

Are the W124, Volvo, and Polo used as a daily runner? I.e. can they not avoid driving them in the ULEZ zone?

 

[markjay]

...We get what we vote for....

In an ideal world, yes....

 

[Dryce]

It's really not as draconian as some seem to think it is.

It's draconian.

The sending of letters to vehicle owners across the entire UK also shows that its impact is assumed to extend well outsude London.

And it's a bit like Covid rules in terms of being draconian .Once the basic restrictions are accepted as some sort of norm and posters can say 'not as draconian as some seem to think it is' then they have won.

 

[m80]

Get used to it.
The ongoing BS abuse is ongoing.

It will not save the planet.
at best it can merely export the issue of dirty air.

With the greatest of undeserved respect for the corrupt f%cks that are designing our return to becoming a lesser race.

 

[alabbasi]

It's really not as draconian as some seem to think it is.

It really sounds like it to me. From what I remember from living there 20 years ago, it was the government that pushed people towards diesels and the net effect of this policy is that they're back tracking and penalizing owners for buying diesel. A car is probably the second largest investment that anybody makes and they can if well maintain be driven for much more than 8 years. Certainly if you can afford a new-4 year old car every 4 years or to have you bought be worth scrap, you might be okay. Otherwise, it sounds like a horrible tax.

 

[markjay]

...The sending of letters to vehicle owners across the entire UK also shows that its impact is assumed to extend well outsude London...

The letters were sent by Traffic for London (TfL), who are part of the Mayor of London office, and as such TfL have no authority regarding anything that happens outside Greater London.

In addition, this is a project of the Mayor himself, Sadik Khan of the Labour Party, who, without having this thread descend into politics, usually does the opposite of what the Tory government does. Not his fault BTW, this has always been the nature of the relationship between the Mayor of London office and HM Government when the Mayor and the PM were from opposite political parties.

The purpose of these letters was simply to warn drivers across the UK who were planning a trip to London. The alternative would have been to just let people drive down (or up) tens or even hundreds of miles before being met with a sign demanding them to pay £12.50 which they weren't expecting.

Anyone reading into these letters more than that is mistaken. And as for the possibility of a secret collusion between the Labour and the Tories to roll-out ULEZ throughout the UK... not very likely will be an understatement, regarding any collusion or cooperation between the two, that is.

 

[Dryce]

Anyone reading into these letters more than that is mistaken. And as for the possibility of a secret collusion between the Labour and the Tories to roll-out ULEZ throughout the UK... not very likely will be an understatement, regarding any collusion or cooperation between the two, that is.

You're mis-reading my post regearding the letters being sent to motorists outside London.

The sending of letters to vehicle owners across the entire UK also shows that its impact is assumed to extend well outsude London.

My point is that when Cities unilaterally set variations in rules then the impact of that decision is wider.

London effectively acknowleged this.

It's an implicit admission that what London is doing is democratically appalling in overall UK terms.

I should be illegal for a council or region of the UK to use non-standard signage and road layouts and impose local restrictions and charges on local roads or have variations of the UK national speed limit.

 

[markjay]

It really sounds like it to me. From what I remember from living there 20 years ago, it was the government that pushed people towards diesels and the net effect of this policy is that they're back tracking and penalizing owners for buying diesel. A car is probably the second largest investment that anybody makes and they can if well maintain be driven for much more than 8 years. Certainly if you can afford a new-4 year old car every 4 years or to have you bought be worth scrap, you might be okay. Otherwise, it sounds like a horrible tax.

While it certainly true that 20 years ago the government encouraged the purchase of Diesel cars via tax incentives (lower BIK for business users, and lower VED for everyone), the fact is that the vast majority of those people who purchased their cars at the time (new or second-hand) due to the tax incentives, no longer own them.

The majority of those who own these old Diesel cars today will be people who bought them long after the government incentives stopped. They bought these cars because Diesel is perceived as frugal, and not because of anything the government said or did. They can't really claim with a straight face that the government had anything to do with their decision to buy the pre-2015 Diesel cars that they own now.

My SIL just bought a 04-reg Honda CR-V that is ULEZ compliant. It replaced a 52-reg Honda Jazz that was also ULEZ compliant. Both cars are very much roadworthy and passed their MOT first time. You can imagine what the cars' values are.

The talk of ULEZ benefiting the rich who can buy new cars is utter tosh. There's no shortage of very cheap ULEZ-compliant petrol cars, for those who can't afford to buy a post-2014 Diesel car.

The simple fact is that ULEZ has nothing to do with how poor or rich you are. It targets only one very specific group of people, those who drive old Diesel cars and refuse to replace them with newer Diesl cars, or with petrol cars of any age.

 

[alabbasi]

While it certainly true that 20 years ago the government encouraged the purchase of Diesel cars via tax incentives (lower BIK for business users, and lower VED for everyone), the fact is that the vast majority of those people who purchased their cars at the time (new or second-hand) due to the tax incentives, no longer own them............The simple fact is that ULEZ has nothing to do with how poor or rich you are. It targets only one very specific group of people, those who drive old Diesel cars and refuse to replace them with newer Diesl cars, or with petrol cars of any age.

Absolutely nothing other than that incentives are always going to wealthier people who can afford to keep buying new cars while penalizing those who only afford the older cars.

 

[markjay]

You're mis-reading my post regearding the letters being sent to motorists outside London.



My point is that when Cities unilaterally set variations in rules then the impact of that decision is wider.

London effectively acknowleged this.

It's an implicit admission that what London is doing is democratically appalling in overall UK terms.

I should be illegal for a council or region of the UK to use non-standard signage and road layouts and impose local restrictions and charges on local roads or have variations of the UK national speed limit.

I did misread your post, my apologies.

So what you were actually saying is that TfL and the Mayor of London office are well aware that anything that happens in London can and does affect people up and down the land (those who visit London, anyway).

I.e., someone living in, say, Birmingham and regularly travels to London by private car may need to replace their old Diesel car with a petrol car, or pay the £12.50 charge every time they travel to London, or take the train instead. And this is in spite of the fact that they are not actually living under the jurisdiction of the Mayor of London.

Which is a fair comment (assuming I understood the argument correctly this time), but how is it this to be avoided? This boils down to the balance between central government and local government. And in recent decades the trend was one of devolution, as far as I can tell. But isn't this something that merits a separate discussion? The impact of London ULEZ on other areas on the UK is just a byproduct of devolution,
one of very many, I think.

 

[markjay]

Absolutely nothing other than that incentives are always going to wealthier people who can afford to keep buying new cars while penalizing those who only afford the older cars.

OK, but how does this apply to ULEZ? I just gave examples of two very cheap cars we had in the family that are ULEZ compliant. With respect, the idea that you need to buy a new car - or an expensive old car - to avoid paying the daily ULEZ charge when travelling to London, is a myth.

 

[alabbasi]

OK, but how does this apply to ULEZ?

Because they've taken something belonging to someone that has value and made it worthless through this legistlation.

The time effort and money spent maintaining it will never be recovered (because nobody in the same boat will want to buy it) and it will likely be scrapped. Whatever replaces it will likely cost more money to bring up to shape, and be less fuel efficient because it's not going to be a new petrol car, a car of similar age.

 

[markjay]

Because they've taken something belonging to someone that has value and made it worthless through this legistlation.

The time effort and money spent maintaining it will never be recovered (because nobody in the same boat will want to buy it) and it will likely be scrapped...

Sorry to have to disagree with your post again, but this is simply not the case. Old Diesel cars still hold their value well throughout the UK and outside of London. Just run the plate through Motorways.com.

...Whatever replaces it will likely cost more money to bring up to shape, and be less fuel efficient because it's not going to be a new petrol car, a car of similar age...

This is true, replacing any car is an inconvenience, and replacing a Diesel car with a similarly-aged petrol car is likely to result in poorer mpg, which can become significant for those who do higher annual mileage.

But this is really all it boils down to.

 

[alabbasi]

Sorry to have to disagree with your post again, but this is simply not the case. Old Diesel cars still hold their value well throughout the UK and outside of London. Just run the plate through Motorways.com.

That's your choice , but of course values will be affected. My brother recently put 3000GBP in work into his 04 CLK270CDI, it was valuable for him to do so because he likes the car, it served his purpose and did not want to deal with the hassle of buying another car. Car people do that all the time and it's value that he will get if he keeps it. Nobody else will care if it's had 3000GBP worth of work in the last year, Certainly not enough to pay over the value of every other one that's for sale.

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

Get used to it.
The ongoing BS abuse is ongoing.
It will not save the planet.
at best it can merely export the issue of dirty air.
With the greatest of undeserved respect for the corrupt f%cks that are designing our return to becoming a lesser race.

Two points: it's not current government policy, only a possibility. It will only become government policy if the electorate let it happen. (See 20/30/50 mph speed limits and traffic calming)

Secondly, these rules are not there to save the planet, it's there to save the car industry. (Clever lads, them lads) If we are to address CO2 emissions, the real work to be done is around flying, food miles, shipping, agriculture and insulation, but reducing cow farts and driving biscuits a thousand miles to their consumer isn't as impressive as driving an $80k Tesla.

(And no, pollution hot spots such as Lewisham, Putney High street and Edgware road don't need making the whole of the area inside the M25 a tax raising device for Sadiq. Pollution hotspots can be reduced by moving the traffic, building roads, or localised controls.)

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

Because they've taken something belonging to someone that has value and made it worthless through this legistlation.
The time effort and money spent maintaining it will never be recovered (because nobody in the same boat will want to buy it) and it will likely be scrapped. Whatever replaces it will likely cost more money to bring up to shape, and be less fuel efficient because it's not going to be a new petrol car, a car of similar age.

Not really. Vehicles depreciate over time through age and use. It's a well established tradition that vehicles get moved out of wealthy cities to the provinces, and even abroad as they get older. My twenty year old Mx5, which IS Ulez compatible, is worth virtually nothing despite the 30k on its speedo, will could stay on fleet until the legislation tightens. And when the legislation tightens, it'll move to the country to another owner.

It's not really unreasonable to say that people who choose to live in polluted cities should drive cleaner cars. Paris and Lyon are better examples. For geographical reasons they hold their pollution. It makes sense to force those locals to drive slightly newer cars that the 90% of people who live outside those two cities. Remember that these are people who have access to a public transport system that works because they live in such crowded cities.