- Messages
- 21,287
I'm inclined to agree. It's a city with 9 million people in it, what do you expect??
ULEZ is expanding
- Thread starter Leicesterminiracer
- Start date
Around 15% of cars are not compliant, so indeed most drivers aren’t affected. On the other hand:
1. The 85% of compliant cars produce a lot more more NOx and Particulate pollution in total than the 15% who have to pay.
2. The £93m of charges mentioned previously equates to over 7 million journeys by non-compliant cars in the year, when we were still coming out of Covid. So what exactly has the ULEZ achieved (apart from raising £93m from the 15% of drivers who can least afford to pay it)? Nobody believes his fake pollution and death cause-and-effect statistics which is why he accuses protesters of being right-wing Covid deniers rather than presenting the source data.
In the interests of impartiality, I actually voted for him.
CatmanV2
Member
- Messages
- 48,947
I did actually find some stats about how the original ULEZ had seemed to improve air quality a chunk but there was also a clear statement that the expansion was not expected to do anything like as much
This and
This
C
midlifecrisis
Member
- Messages
- 16,285
So ULEZ is here and is going to stay. meanwhile you can claim the tax back if you're self-employed...
Ulez: Drivers can reclaim charge in tax return - HMRC
Self-employed workers can reclaim if their journey is "exclusively for the purposes of the trade".
www.bbc.co.uk
Wack61
Member
- Messages
- 8,816
Have you still got the black snot problem down there in that London , or is it white snot these days
I remember trips to London as a child and the black snot when you blew your nose as you left.
There's plenty of civil action going on by the look of it but unless they're going to cut all of the cables on every camera it's pointless as they've only got to get you on one , if you've not paid it'll still cost you the fine rather than the £12.50
I remember trips to London as a child and the black snot when you blew your nose as you left.
There's plenty of civil action going on by the look of it but unless they're going to cut all of the cables on every camera it's pointless as they've only got to get you on one , if you've not paid it'll still cost you the fine rather than the £12.50
Motorsport3
Member
- Messages
- 889
I actually live in zone 2, right outside the current ulez border and about to be included in the expanded donut. My most travel is on bicycle so I would be more than happy to see cleaner air, but I'm not convinced that it will move the needle. What may make some difference is the progressive renewal of taxis, buses and lorries fleet that tend to be driven 24/7. But then again with the Heathrow and other airports expansion there is every scope to cancel any progress.
Have you still got the black snot problem down there in that London , or is it white snot these days
I used to get that for years commuting, but not for the last 10-15.
I live 500m from the ‘border’. It’s going to cost
me about £500 a year for my occasional use of my Maserati toy, even if it’s just to drive into Hertfordshire to a pub or see friends. I can handle that, it’s just another car tax.
As for my neighbour who is having to sell the 10 year old basic diesel 4x4 he bought a couple of years ago, and buy a newer equivalent for at least £8k more, I can’t see how it’s OK. He would miss £500, never mind £8k.
If it was a tax proportional to how much pollution each driver produced, with available alternatives and help for the poorest then I’d be in favour.
That a Labour mayor is trying to raise money by lying about the data, from the poorest people in the community, disgusts me.
- Messages
- 21,287
This is behind a paywall but if you don't subscribe maybe you can get one article free or something. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...khan-claims-air-quality-london-2023-ndfsc9h8w
I'll paste the summary below, but full article is worth reading:
With so many claims and counterclaims across the figures used to justify or criticise the zone’s expansion, it is difficult to get to the truth of the matter.
However, it does seem that the best science and evidence from the existing zone suggests that there may be some small air quality benefit to extending it. This benefit will most likely be felt by people in poor health.
Nonetheless, it seems equally clear that the mayor and his team have been disingenuous in their use of science and data to justify expansion.
Ultimately, whether the minor air quality improvements of the expansion justify the costs imposed on people and the economy is a political decision, and one that Khan will have to account for when Londoners go to the polls next year.
I'll paste the summary below, but full article is worth reading:
With so many claims and counterclaims across the figures used to justify or criticise the zone’s expansion, it is difficult to get to the truth of the matter.
However, it does seem that the best science and evidence from the existing zone suggests that there may be some small air quality benefit to extending it. This benefit will most likely be felt by people in poor health.
Nonetheless, it seems equally clear that the mayor and his team have been disingenuous in their use of science and data to justify expansion.
Ultimately, whether the minor air quality improvements of the expansion justify the costs imposed on people and the economy is a political decision, and one that Khan will have to account for when Londoners go to the polls next year.
Phil H
Member
- Messages
- 4,196
Khan seems to think that no one, including Parliament, has a right to question his ULEZ plans or motives; imho those motives are at best misguided and at worst fraudulent. The problem is that even if he loses the next election the ULEZ programme is unlikely to be withdrawn as it creates a revenue stream that a new mayor will find difficult to replace, so it will be a case of "We intended to reverse ULEZ but can't".
I'm so thankful that I live in the sticks, and feel for those living in other cities where his antics are being copied.
I'm so thankful that I live in the sticks, and feel for those living in other cities where his antics are being copied.
Having gone down the rabbit hole of investigating the science, I’d agree this is a helpful and accurate summary.
It’s a bit like those ‘People’s Lotteries’, that donate a small amount of money to charity to help sell tickets.
If he really wanted to reduce particulate and NO/NO2 pollution he’d introduce road pricing per km for all cars, coupled with dramatically improved public transport in the outer boroughs and introduce it over 3-5 years.
Incidentally, NO2 levels in cities in the UK have been falling by around 3.5% per year since 1990, as national and international vehicle production policies have taken effect. Roadside NO2 is higher but has fallen faster. That means that just waiting 3 years and doing nothing new would have achieved the same outcome as Khan is claiming for the ULEZ expansion - that’s how marginal it is. I guess some will say that any improvement is good, but reducing car usage across the board would have made much more difference and been fairer.
PS I must have something better to do, like take the Spyder out for a blast
. Or go for a ride on my bike
philw696
Member
- Messages
- 25,661
Here you go Boys and Girls.
www.topgear.com
12 of the UK’s best classic cars to avoid ULEZ charges in 2023
As the ULEZ expands to all London boroughs, it's time to go old or go home
Motorsport3
Member
- Messages
- 889
Here you go Boys and Girls.
12 of the UK’s best classic cars to avoid ULEZ charges in 2023
As the ULEZ expands to all London boroughs, it's time to go old or go home
Much as I love classic cars the fact that the 40yr rule adopted in the UK can't help but think create a loophole that could ultimately work against the air quality goal.
Is a 05 maserati with 4 cats more polluting than a 70s jaguar with carburetor?
P R
Member
- Messages
- 1,391
Another issue with such a large ULEZ zone is that when (and if) Euro 7 comes in to force, then will they just say any non Euro 7 vehicles have to pay?? And that goes for every ULEZ zone in the UK and beyond..
mowlas
Member
- Messages
- 1,743
Great share Adam. I read the article.
It’s fair to say that the old adage about staying ignorant to how laws and sausages are made applies to some of the research coming out of Imperial… something I’ve observed first hand.
The claimed economics on ULEZ contradict the health objectives, as does saying that it only affects 10% of cars on the road - because if you assume that only some of those 10% will use the roads less, then the reduction in emissions and pollution will be small.
All of which leads me to personally think that ULEZ is a Trojan horse to embed the infrastructure to exert more control over your average citizen and it’s the very poorest who will fund it. Immoral from whichever angle you look at it.
HTAFC4200
Member
- Messages
- 503
The TFL website says my wife's 2010 RAV4 2.2 diesel is ULEZ compliant, yet every other check reckon it's not.
Decision has been made and another EV is coming on my works salary sacrifice scheme.