Unbelievable !!!

[Dryce]

Depends who you're asking.... Wikipedia has this explanation:

Great Smog of London - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

When I was young my recollection is that the use of smokeless fuel in cities was a 'Big Thing' in the 1960s. We also lost some of the inner city (or close to inner city) power stations and gas plants.

I also remember lots of diesel vehicles coughing out a lot more visible particulates back then. And a lot ore exposure to smoking in the workplace and on public transport.

 

[markjay]

So you like reading mbclub.

And the Mayor of London figures he doesn't like car forums. So they want to change your behaviour.

So they contract some internet blocking tech from the Chinese government and tell you that you can't read mbclub or pistonhgeads within the forum access restriction zone unless you cough £12.50 a day.

But hey ... It's perfectly OK for them impose on your liberties and spending patterns ..... because they gave you ample notice.

I had the pleasure of responding to Glasgow's questionaire on their ULEZ a few years back - my view was that it was a fix up. Get the ULEZ no matter what people think or the reality of the situation.

Maybe we should be more worried about changing the behaviour of councils and those who would change our behaviour so righteously.

My behaviour (and others' behaviour) is constantly being modified. This is what societies do.

People smoke less because of the combined effect of anti-smoking campaign, anti-smoking laws, and increase in duty.

People drive less because fuel is heavily taxed - remember the 2000 refineries blockade?

People bought Diesel cars because the BIK was based on CO2 emissions.

People then bought Teslas because there's zero BIK and zero VED.

Etc etc.

It's all about shaping behavior... what's so special about ULEZ? It's just another behavior changing measure. That's how societies function. Not sure what's the issue here? Or what's the alternative?

 

[Dryce]

It's all about shaping behavior... what's so special about ULEZ? It's just another behavior changing measure. That's how societies function. Not sure what's the issue here? Or what's the alternative?

Indeed .... what is so special about the ULEZ?

We seem to have a situation where councils can legislate what is or is not allowed on the roads. It is for government to set the standards - and set some sort of consistency across the country as a whole.

The OP started this thread because a letter was sent to somebody outside of London regarding a policy of London's adninistration. This highlights the problem. Drivers in one part of the country shouldn't need to be informed of special rules in another part of the country. It's all very well the authorities in London extending the courtesy (or was it an obligation?) but the situation shouldn't have arisen in the first place.

We now have authorities putting in limits on motorways to 'reduce emissions'. I'm intrigued - how effective is a 60mph limit on a non-congested motorway at reducing emissions - partucularly where there is a high proportion of HGVs?

 

[ChipChop]

My behaviour (and others' behaviour) is constantly being modified. This is what societies do.

People smoke less because of the combined effect of anti-smoking campaign, anti-smoking laws, and increase in duty.

People drive less because fuel is heavily taxed - remember the 2000 refineries blockade?

People bought Diesel cars because the BIK was based on CO2 emissions.

People then bought Teslas because there's zero BIK and zero VED.

Etc etc.

It's all about shaping behavior... what's so special about ULEZ? It's just another behavior changing measure. That's how societies function. Not sure what's the issue here? Or what's the alternative?

ULEZ as a tool to change behaviour or to enforce observance of a rule is a failure by design because, if you have the financial wearwithal, you are allowed to pay to pollute.

App, online or phone payment gratefully accepted. You can even set up a TFL pay to drive in London account if you are a frequent polluter.

I suppose the aim is just to modify the behaviour of those unable to pay the ULEZ charge.

 

[markjay]

ULEZ as a tool to change behaviour or to enforce observance of a rule is a failure by design because, if you have the financial wearwithal, you are allowed to pay to pollute.

App, online or phone payment gratefully accepted. You can even set up a TFL pay to drive in London account if you are a frequent polluter.

I suppose the aim is just to modify the behaviour of those unable to pay the ULEZ charge.

I really don't understand your argument - almost anyone - other than the poorest of the poor - can sell their non-compliant car and buy a compliant one instead. Are you seriously suggesting that only wealthy people can afford a post-2004 petrol car...?

I understand that some people like their old Diesel cars (had one myself), and it's inconvenient to have to let it go and get a petrol car instead, or a newer Diesel, but what's the connection between this and your comment that '"...the aim is just to modify the behaviour of those unable to pay the ULEZ charge.".

I really don't see the how ULEZ is something you need to be able to 'afford'.

Or are you suggesting that wealthy people will now sell their brand new EVs and start buying old Diesel cars because they can afford to pay the ULEZ charge...? Not clear.

 

[markjay]

Indeed .... what is so special about the ULEZ?

We seem to have a situation where councils can legislate what is or is not allowed on the roads. It is for government to set the standards - and set some sort of consistency across the country as a whole...

True, though local vs central government is an old and ongoing debate.

More power to local communities, or more consistency and standardisation across the UK?

There was a great Yes Minister episode about this... I'll see if I can find it.

 

[markjay]

Yes Prime Minister, Series 2, Episode 5: "Power to the People" - aired 7 January 1988

 

[ChipChop]

I really don't understand your argument - almost anyone - other than the poorest of the poor - can sell their non-compliant car and buy a compliant one instead. Are you seriously suggesting that only wealthy people can afford a post-2004 petrol car...?

I understand that some people like their old Diesel cars (had one myself), and it's inconvenient to have to let it go and get a petrol car instead, or a newer Diesel, but what's the connection between this and your comment that '"...the aim is just to modify the behaviour of those unable to pay the ULEZ charge.".

I really don't see the how ULEZ is something you need to be able to 'afford'.

Or are you suggesting that wealthy people will now sell their brand new EVs and start buying old Diesel cars because they can afford to pay the ULEZ charge...? Not clear.

Sorry i do not recognise the notion of ULEZ compliant and ULEZ non-complaint cars when a non-compliant car magically after paying TFL some cash becomes in effect compliant and is allowed to drive and pollute in London.

Sounds like an extortion racket to me.

 

[davymead]

All the time that there is a payment procedure available to circumvent pollution (in this case ULEZ) in my eyes it becomes totally and completely hypocritical, an undoubtedly political. One law for the rich, and the rest ………

 

[markjay]

Again - does anyone really see rich people buying old polluting Diesel cars, driving through ULEZ and paying the charge, while laughing at all those poor peasants forced into driving newer cars because they can't afford to pay the charge on old cars like rich people can?

Or is this whole argument just an ilogocal anti-establishment rant?

 

[Petrol Pete]

Aa per previous posts, we should differentiate between short-term and long-term goals.

The short-term goal is to improve air quality in the UK's city centres. Which is what ULEZ and similar schemes do, and do well. And, Mayors of UK cities are only responsible for the wellbeing of their own cities' residents, not for the health of those living in Chinese cities or elsewhere around the world.

The long-term goal is to save the planet... and indeed we won't be able to achieve that without help from evey country, China included.

Markjay I must correct you there. "The long term goal is to protect the planet " I disagree the planet can look after itself , it did for the Millenia we were not here and it will do so long after we are gone . The long term goal is to save mankind (can you say mankind these days ?) . I do agree with trying to clean thing up short term and try to figure out the 'long game' but all of these 'clean city zones' are less than a sticking plaster.

I have worked in China, and from what I saw we can tax ourselves into poverty and it will not make much difference to air quality worldwide.

 

[merc estate]

A little in site into whats going on. Watch on youtube Planet of the Humans and see whats really going on money talks and Bulls**t walks

 

[BoristheBounce]

In all honesty I thought all of these were common knowledge.

Nope, I know there are zones but as to where!!! not a clue.

 

[Deleted member 159894]

Deflection then.

Come on man, no one will laugh at you just say what you believe in. You’re ACE at criticising but offer little else.

Are you far right, far left, Marxist, KitKat or maybe your own personal philosophy?

What is it?

What do YOU want to happen?

@ChipChop

Well?

You are happy to criticise everything, what would you do? What's the answer?

Or are you just a shit-stirring agitator?

 

[markjay]

The distinction I pointed-out earlier between long-term and short-term goals, was made in order to try and stop the ULEZ discussion from going into polluting countries and 'dirty' multinational corporations.

Confounding the two together is unhelpful. ULEZ does deliver cleaner air in city centres, where there's a high density of people living and working. So do the financial incentives for EVs.

Criticising these schemes because they do not have a significant global impact on worldwide pollution, is like objecting to having constables on the beat in your neighbourhood looking-out for pushers because this won't solve the issue of the Colombian drug cartels or Afghanistan's opium fields.

 

[m80]

The distinction I pointed-out earlier between long-term and short-term goals, was made in order to try and stop the ULEZ discussion from going into polluting countries and 'dirty' multinational corporations.

Confounding the two together is unhelpful. ULEZ does deliver cleaner air in city centres, where there's a high density of people living and working. So do the financial incentives for EVs.

Criticising these schemes because they do not have a significant global impact on worldwide pollution, is like objecting to having constables on the beat in your neighbourhood looking-out for pushers because this won't solve the issue of the Colombian drug cartels or Afghanistan's opium fields.

Not an unreasonable point, so it should be nationally unified so as to reduce the 'gotcha' culture that exists.
The letters recognise an issue of educating about the London ULEZ, now what about all t'others that operate differently. I don't have the time or inclination to educate myself on the 16 (or how ever many now) different policies around our country in case I might stray over a line.
Even if I get 16 letters + from all these wannabe Chinese Party local authorities I'm not going to remember a small part of the guff.

I say there is a national Gov't responsibility to make this workable.

That way they might actually reduce the numbers that pollute their cities naively, but their revenues would be lower.

£15 if you pay on the day, £80 if you're not aware. There's no justification for the loading of a disproportionate fine and demonstrates a kerching attitude.

All that ignores the masses of motors that are now being devalued. Then the waste of so many good and healthy motors that will be scrapped and cause premature pollution as they are theoretically recycled, and the pollution as new EV's are produced to replace them.

It also ignores the pollution to produce the electric the recharge these miracle motors, and the pollution (and disruption) as cabling and equipment is installed on industrial scale throughout many nations.

So we move the pollution from the cities to an 'elsewhere'.
A great part of the ban the diesel debate is around the selfishness of us diesel drivers polluting with disregard, and loading other 'elsewhere's ' isn't selfish?

To meet local needs our waste was sent to Malaysian rural areas . There they used their plants to incinerate over night poisoning the local communities. Which poor sods will suffer the increase of pollution while London's elite pat themselves on each others backs?
Nowts for nowt.

 

[PhantomF4]

Living far away from London I’m something of an outsider on this subject but Glasgow is heading in the same direction.

A blanket 20mph speed limit across most of the city centre, roads have been narrowed to facilitate cycle lanes, taxes on parking spaces and they’re now considering workplace parking fees and emission zone charging.

I stopped driving in Glasgow (and Edinburgh) years ago to avoid the stress. Bus and cycle lanes, with cameras for fines (an epidemic of speed cameras in Edinburgh) and the possibility of entering bus and taxi only roads in error and getting fined did it for me and for many other motorists it seems.

Now you find closed down stores because people have stopped shopping in town and are driving to out of town retail parks instead.

Hope street in Glasgow is one of Europe’s most polluted yet for most of its length is restricted to buses and taxis, as is the road under Central Station and some days the stench of exhaust fumes can literally make your eyes water, so that’s working well (sic)

Meanwhile the underground (one of the worlds earliest) still only serves the stations in did when it first opened, with none beyond the City Centre. Not a single yard of track has been added to encourage people out of their cars.

It feels like motorists are being used as “cash cows” but the money isn’t being spent improving transport alternatives but for propping up the councils finances.

It’s an odd way to save the planet....

 

[markjay]

Not an unreasonable point, so it should be nationally unified so as to reduce the 'gotcha' culture that exists.
The letters recognise an issue of educating about the London ULEZ, now what about all t'others that operate differently. I don't have the time or inclination to educate myself on the 16 (or how ever many now) different policies around our country in case I might stray over a line.
Even if I get 16 letters + from all these wannabe Chinese Party local authorities I'm not going to remember a small part of the guff.

I say there is a national Gov't responsibility to make this workable.

That way they might actually reduce the numbers that pollute their cities naively, but their revenues would be lower.

£15 if you pay on the day, £80 if you're not aware. There's no justification for the loading of a disproportionate fine and demonstrates a kerching attitude.

All that ignores the masses of motors that are now being devalued. Then the waste of so many good and healthy motors that will be scrapped and cause premature pollution as they are theoretically recycled, and the pollution as new EV's are produced to replace them.

It also ignores the pollution to produce the electric the recharge these miracle motors, and the pollution (and disruption) as cabling and equipment is installed on industrial scale throughout many nations.

So we move the pollution from the cities to an 'elsewhere'.
A great part of the ban the diesel debate is around the selfishness of us diesel drivers polluting with disregard, and loading other 'elsewhere's ' isn't selfish?

To meet local needs our waste was sent to Malaysian rural areas . There they used their plants to incinerate over night poisoning the local communities. Which poor sods will suffer the increase of pollution while London's elite pat themselves on each others backs?
Nowts for nowt.

I do not disagree.

Re Local vs Central government, as said this is ongoing debate. In, fact, similar debates exists in all areas of life - from local NHS Trusts providing different levels of care (aka 'NHS Post Code Lottey'), and up to England, Scotland, Wales, and NI each having the autonomy to set their own standards in many areas of life.

So 'power to the people' and 'empowering local communities', ot 'setting national standards'? In the case of cleaner-air initiatives, I don't have a strong personal opinion. There's much to be said for either.

In respect of 'moving the pollution elsewhere', again you are correct, though I would call it 'moving the pollution away from city centres'. Which, in my book, is a good thing, because city centres is where most people live and work.

Obviously, if you live in a small village and a new power plant has just been built a stone throw away from your back garden, you will beg to differ, and I can understand that - but my view is that the principle of the greater good trumps here.

 

[markjay]

As for ULEZ being nothing more than a 'money-making scheme'... if no one will replace their non-compliant cars with compliant ones, and still continue to drive through the ULEZ just as they did before, payinf the charge, then yes the accusation is correct.

But if a significant number of drivers either replace their cars or reduce traveling through ULEZ with their older car in order to avoid the charge, then ULEZ is a success.

Now, which of these two scenarios seems more plausible?

 

[m80]

As for ULEZ being nothing more than a 'money-making scheme'... if no one will replace their non-compliant cars with compliant ones, and still continue to drive through the ULEZ just as they did before, then yes the accusation is correct.

But if a significant number of drivers either replace their cars or reduce traveling through ULEZ with their older car in order to avoid the charge, the ULEZ is a success.

Now, which of these two scenarios seems more plausible?

It's not going to be a digital outcome.
Some will continue to drive and pay, others will replace with more expensive mo mos. Some will buy older petrol jobbies.

But there is a financial incentive for these councils to top up their coffers. That makes the corruption of the stated cause likely.

As various cities tell their residents how much these revenues have been used to offset council tax rises, other councils will say "we're missing out here".
I'll bet council taxes will still rise.
I'll bet the councils still congratulate themselves.

Us all becoming closer to the 1984 scenario is inevitable as the masses don't have the skills to build guillotines any longer .