You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Charge has gone live this morning. Just dropped Son2 at LHR in the new compliant vehicle. A win since it has two bike boxes in the boot!
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ulez-payments
My 20y old (19 of them in my ownership) 3l petrol estate car is still compliant 🙂
Working on the sound principle that anything that upsets Lozza 'Lost Deposit' Fox is bound to be a good thing....
https://twitter.com/LozzaFox/status/1696051621132751214?s=20
Due to the ridiculous BBC 'balance' rules, theres just been one of his ilk on Radio 4 spouting the same nonsense
I can see the ulez zone from my shop and I’m about to buy a diesel.
Literally life on the edge.
The protestors lead us to believe that they've destroyed all the cameras, is that not true then?
Also I think I read somewhere that they're challenging the charges because on passing a sign you become liable for the charge, but the signs don't actually include the contractual information that you may be charged, just tell you you're entering a ULEZ zone. And while you can be deemed to have entered a contract without specifically having a paper copy that you've signed, etc. (car parks an example) you can't enter a contract without knowing what the terms are, etc.
I'm for it despite the inconvenience and do think the authorities need to have done more earlier to help out those that are substantially disadvantaged by this (scrappage subsidies for the low waged, etc.) but interested by some of these technicalities. Also whether the charge is an expensable charge for the costs of doing business (hence can be offset on tax for the self employed who need their non-compliant vans for work)
Gah I give up with this formatting
Let’s not forget sheeple, Cars Cause Chemtrails.
Also I think I read somewhere that they’re challenging the charges because on passing a sign you become liable for the charge, but the signs don’t actually include the contractual information that you may be charged, just tell you you’re entering a ULEZ zone. And while you can be deemed to have entered a contract without specifically having a paper copy that you’ve signed, etc. (car parks an example) you can’t enter a contract without knowing what the terms are, etc.
Brought to you by the same legal geniuses that quoted Magna Carta and "freedom of the land" bollocks during Covid lockdown rules...
Remember this is mandatory so that means unless both parties agree it’s not legal.
Like parking fines?
Or laws saying robbery, rape and murder are bad things? They're mandatory too
Sorry, it's a Sun link (it was that, Mail or Telegraph)
https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/23674896/ulez-expansion-landmark-legal-ruling-unlawful-signage/#:~:text=ULEZ%2 0'ILLEGAL'-,Hated%20ULEZ%20expansion%20in%20chaos%20after%20landmark%20legal%20ruling%20that,could%20get%20your%20money%20back&text=LONDON%20Mayor%20Sadiq%20Khan's%20hated,following%20a%20landmark%20legal%20verdict.
It's a tribunal, not a court but does carry some weight.
[edit] for avoidance of doubt I'm not saying this is a good thing (the challenges) - whether signs are clear or not no-one is in any doubt what they really mean, and I don't like loophole escapes on this any more than I do on PCN either. Do the 'act' pay the fee. And needless to say, of course Nick Freeman's all over it.
News at 10 last night the interviewed people on the street about it. One lady was complaining and said "you can't even breathe in London without them charging you".
Irony metre smashed off the scale.
The issue is much of the opposition to this comes from the certain wing of the population that gets all its news from Facebook and thinks things like this are all part of a grander, all encompassing conspiracy to insert microchips into our children and bring forth the New World Order etc etc.
They've latched onto this, Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and 15 minute cities and now you have barking mad Qanon types turning up to otherwise rather dull Council meetings, which makes them rather less dull I suppose.
So, if some of the reaction to this kind of policy comes across as a little extreme, this is what's driving it.
We also had a man complaining that his son has breathing difficulties and he needs his car to drive him to the hospital.
Ive mixed feelings on the ulez legislation.
Moving folk into new cars isn't exactly fixing the issue. Also what's the actual numbers of cars not ulez compliant? And is that going to make a huge difference?
Thinks like commercial vehicles, heavey construction plant. Gensets etc they're far worse for ppm.
Again its a form of taxation that hits the poorer end of the spectrum. Folk in new cars are fine. Folk with no money are being pushed into finance deals or new cars.
Working on the sound principle that anything that upsets Lozza ‘Lost Deposit’ Fox is bound to be a good thing….
And yet your Labour mayor has decided that now, during a cost of living crises, is not the time to do it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/aug/01/andy-burnham-clean-air-manchester-ulez-caz
^^
The Manchester one was shot down partly by being far too wide an area yet not actually wide enough in terms of dealing with private cars and by the ridiculous referendum years ago which got a resounding "no" to the question of whether their should be a congestion charge.
Plus a mix of politics (again) and the staggering shit-ness of public transport in and around Manchester.
Again its a form of taxation that hits the poorer end of the spectrum.
Poorer people are less likely to own cars and more likely to have issues from pollution
Good news for air quality. Also, the scrappage fund increased and more people qualify now - could have been done earlier but better late than never. Next they need to impose French style additional costs on SUVs to get them out of the city. Better for everyone.
One of the reasons I moved out of London because the air was awful - I used to cycle to work and everytime I blew my nose it produced black snot and it really freaked me out.
Yes but there are still lots of people who are poor but still need cars to get around, outside of London. I know a few. If we had decent busses then it wouldn't be anywhere near as much of an issue, but we don't. I know you'll argue about this, but your world of experience is not universal.
That said - is your typical small cheap petrol car ULEZ compliant?
What TJ says. There’s a whole ‘poor people’ narrative that rich people who don’t want to be inconvenienced use to justify their stance. When in fact people on lower incomes are the highest non-car owners and most dependent on public transport. Generally the fewer cars on the road, the better buses run so reducing cars improves the lives of people who use buses.
BUrnham is a weathervane populist. Anything to get elected no matter how poor a policy / statement
When in fact people on lower incomes are the highest non-car owners and most dependent on public transport.
Statistically, yes, but that doesn't mean ALL lower income people don't have cars. Don't use averages and statistics to justify ignoring outliers.
The Manchester one was shot down partly by being far too wide an area yet not actually wide enough....
So it's not true that it has simply been put on "pause"?
BUrnham is a weathervane populist. Anything to get elected no matter how poor a policy / statement
Or maybe as a Labour politician he does indeed believe that now, during a cost of living crises, isn't the best time to add extra costs to struggling families?
I don't expect Tory politicians to give a monkeys mind.
I have to agree with Burnham, I think alternative transport methods need a lot of investment to make them more suitable and flexible for a lot of people to use daily, and once that investment starts then their can be a progression of also higher financial penalties for polluters (who are largely going about their normal daily lives, ie getting to work).
Unfortunately with both major parties doubling down on austerity, that isn't going to happen.
I can see the point that the "clean air" campaigners in Manchester are making, and do think that is important to clean up the air. But punishing people for travelling to work, adding extra stress, costs and time to their daily routine can't be the only path to do that.
<All our cars are ULEZ compliant, even my 22 year old car. I also cycle to work. Just got to see what now happens in Greater Manchester. Although our public transport is crap, and apparently half of all England's public electric vehicle chargers are in London.
Most small petrol cars are compliant, even some bigger ones.
@duncncallum My understanding (from some of the discussion about the Manchester CAZ) that the overwhelming majority of private cars (something like 90-95%) are compliant because of scrappage schemes. There were no scrappage schemes for vans though. I thought London had rules about buses needing to be under 10yo for TfL franchising so most of them ought to be compliant.
@MSP Manchester is a mess. If Burnham is so sure a non-charging CAZ will work, why won’t he pilot it in the boroughs where the air quality is worst, ie. Manchester & Salford? Remember it was never going to affect private cars so the public transport argument doesn’t stand up.
Take that to extremes Molgrips - one person is inconvenienced then the policy must be dropped?
Listening to the radio on the way in (in my car, natch 😉 ) - seems that there is lot of of whataboutery going on about it, a lot of vocal resistance from a minority. The privilege of driving, or driving wherever and whenever we want, and without paying the full costs, is being eroded and people really don't like that.
Half of London does not own a car, most of those journeys are under 5km, a growing proportion of vehicles are compliant, most can afford if needed to change a car. this then is a minority.
By inconveniencing a few (with a lot of notice given) we save the health of many dying from polluted related, climate related and low health. We speed up our cities. We are happier and healthier.
Hearing things like a health worker who crosses London daily to 14 appointments/7 elderly people and earning minimum wage made we wonder - why has the business or local NHS not worked out that there are probably 7 people within a few streets or her home or a bus stop she could care for by walking between them?
So it’s not true that it has simply been put on “pause”?
Its officially been 'put on pause' Ernesto, but its a sort of indefinite one. Its effectively been hoofed into the long grass
and the staggering shit-ness of public transport in and around Manchester.
This is the main issue. The area I'm in was in the zone, but the public transport in areas like this is virtually non-existent. The utter uselessness of the Rail System in the North West is legendary.
You just can't rely on public transport in Manchester to get around. Its as simple as that. You'd have to experience it, just to see how bad it is
And for gods sake TJ lets not make this another thread with you rattling on about Andy Burnham
Also I think I read somewhere that they’re challenging the charges because on passing a sign you become liable for the charge, but the signs don’t actually include the contractual information that you may be charged, just tell you you’re entering a ULEZ zone. And while you can be deemed to have entered a contract without specifically having a paper copy that you’ve signed, etc. (car parks an example) you can’t enter a contract without knowing what the terms are, etc.
Do these bozos expect a load of small print on a 30 sign? It's a law, enacted by Parliament (with a majority Conservative government, if we're being precise).
Take that to extremes Molgrips – one person is inconvenienced then the policy must be dropped?
Of course not, taking things to extremes is exactly not what this debate needs. You just need to acknowledge the issue and don't use statistics to bulldoze those who don't fit - avoid the tyranny of the majority.
Just because 90% of people can do a thing, we don't want to tell the 10% of people who can't to go **** themselves. I am absolutely in favour of an ULEZ and I'd even go further if I were a dictator, but these things need to be well managed and implemented otherwise they will either a) cause huge misery for some people or b) get overturned.
Gonna be interesting when it's realised we need to tackle tyre particulates too - heavy electric vehicles anyone?
The £2k scrappage fee is enough to buy a compliant vehicle and just about anyone qualifies.
Heavy electric vehicles is a myth rolled out by the anti-brigade. They are generally a bit heavier, but not a huge amount, and it's dwarfed by the damage and emissions caused by HGVs.
Its what you are doing Molgrips. Taking a outlier position that is not backed by facts.
the concern is NOT for poor people. Its an excuse
@binners I too am in GM, and in an area where the public transport doesn’t really exist. But as above this is irrelevant as private cars weren’t in scope, and even if they were, the overwhelming majority would’ve been compliant.
There was a huge amount of misinformation swirling - posters about “Burnham’s congestion charge” in Heywood, and a taxi protest in Bolton largely made up of Priuses which would’ve been exempt anyway spring instantly to mind.
Gonna be interesting when it’s realised we need to tackle tyre particulates too – heavy electric vehicles anyone?
This is just noise created by those in the pit of the Kubler-Ross. Tyres vs BURNING fuel? Really? And it's not like ICE car's aren't using their tyres, so we're talking about a what? A 20% increase in possible rubber particulates (assuming non-ev specific tyres) vs a 100% decrease in ICE emissions? Come on.
That said – is your typical small cheap petrol car ULEZ compliant?
Have a look on eBay, lots of cars have "ULEZ compliant" in the description and you can get a Fiesta, Aygo, etc for about £1000.
It's the same argument made by lazy people about LTNs citing poor disabled people as the reason they want to drive their range rover everywhere.
I'm about 10 miles South East of Manchester. The new zone stretches way past where I live. Locally we have two trains an hour in rush hour, that are standing room only by the third stop, where I get on. Bus routes can't get you into manchester within 90 plus minutes. Car journey takes 45-60 minutes to get in, but traffic near home is terrible. I cycle, but many can't do 10 miles.
I now dip in to Daily Mail website every now and again. I do this to see how furious they are. I have concluded that the more furious they, and their readers are, the better something is for the country.
See:
ULEZ
Woke
15min cities
Environmentalism
Immigration
Boris
etc etc.
why has the business or local NHS not worked out that there are probably 7 people within a few streets or her home or a bus stop she could care for by walking between them?
Have you seen how much gear District Nurses have to carry? Also they do use software to try and create 'routes' but unfortunately patients are bloody annoying and tend not to be all ill on the same day.
Watching BBC news this morning interviewing a lady who took her son to school in the car and went to see her Mum in the car. She sighed and said perhaps she will have to walk now
Heavy electric vehicles is a myth rolled out by the anti-brigade.
I dont know about that. Cars used to weigh less than half the weight ie less than 1000kg. Most EV's are now 2000kg or more. Of course they will cause more damage, probably not twice as much, but definitely more.
I do find it odd that in a day where the Conservatives cannot do anything right, and they are doers of evil. A lefty Labour brings in some sensible policy and people want to get rid of him. Just shows how shallow UK politics is (population) and how we are so far from tackling environmental issues.
So if 90/95% are compliant how much difference will this make?
I believe there should be more carrot less stick...
Moving everyone into newer cars doesn't fix the congestion issue.
@MSP Manchester is a mess.
Oh I know, I lived in Manchester for nearly 40 years, and have now lived in Germany for just over 10 years.
Where I live in Germany has also banned older more polluting cars from the city center (not a charge a complete ban). But there is also joined up thinking, a pretty decent and still improving cycle network, a decent tram network (even if it is frequently overcrowded in rush hour, a tram and bus terminal at the train station, bike racks at many tram stops and many bike racks at the train station. There are multiple points in the conurbation that I guess can be described as mini tram and bus terminals.
I lived for 7 years in Germany without a car, because that was possible and didn't cause any great impact on my life. In the UK for most people I don't think that choice is anywhere near as easy, it shouldn't just be forced on the poorest people who have to pay with time and stress just to make the basic journeys that modern life entails.
It isn't a quick fix, but it is clear that massive investment is required, and just using financial penalties isn't the best solution, it isn't even a good solution unless lots of other things are also being done to create alternatives.
Cars used to weigh less than half the weight ie less than 1000kg. Most EV’s are now 2000kg or more.
Let's clear that up a bit. Cars generally used to weigh 1000kg in the 80s, when they were flimsy and had little safety gear (with some exceptions). That went up to around 12-1400kg in recent years. A comparably modest EV is around 1600kg - my last one and my current one are around that. The 2t ones are the monstrous premium SUV types, whose ICE counterparts aren't that much lighter. So it's not accurate to say that EVs are twice as heavy as a general statement.
Have a look on eBay, lots of cars have “ULEZ compliant” in the description and you can get a Fiesta, Aygo, etc for about £1000.
That's the kind of car most of the 'poor' people I know are already driving.
I dont know about that. Cars used to weigh less than half the weight ie less than 1000kg. Most EV’s are now 2000kg or more. Of course they will cause more damage, probably not twice as much, but definitely more.
Is that because they have become larger SUV's in the process?
But there is also joined up thinking, a pretty decent and still improving cycle network, a decent tram network
You could be describing Manchester TBH. I live in Chorlton, and the Tram stop is a 5 min walk away, and they're currently hosting the 2023 North West Championship Road Works installing a cyclops junction at a notorious accident spot and connecting up a segregated cycle path that goes all the way to the centre of town. Plus next year all the buses are regulated again, and will run to a timetable that suit passengers and the trams not the bus companies, and we'll have a one-ticket-for-everything travel that's promised to be cheap...
But Burnham's apparently a weather vane politician so I expect I'm just imagining all this.
@fossy I don’t want to sound like a broken record but public transport has no relevance to the Manchester CAZ as it wasn’t going to include private cars.
The fact that people who live in GM don’t appear to know this just shows how poor the official comms and how effective the misinformation was.
@nickc It’s very variable though - in Bury/Rochdale/Oldham you’d be hard pressed to know there was a Bee Active Network. Bus re-regulation very promising mind you…
On a brighter note - I posted about being in central Glasgow last week for a couple of days and how much nicer it was. I also chatted with another person cycling from Dunblane - Stirling Uni yesterday. This is becoming more and more common - I have gone from nearly the only bike (plus my neighbour) to most days overtaking / being overtaken by 2-3 bikes in one 30 min journey.
We are starting to see change and mode shift happening.
It is painful, ULEZ most of all, and needs huge investment in public transport and active travel infrastructure, but it is coming.
And the whataboutery complainers can [s]get in the sea[/s] go play in the road....
I believe there should be more carrot less stick…
It has been shown time and time gain that a diet of carrots does nothing to enable modal shift. You can put on the world's greatest free bus service but if people are used to driving, they'll still drive. You absolutely need stick as well. Ideally beforehand because the stick (be that LTNs, congestion charge, parking charges, ULEZ...) gets them out of cars and then the money raised can be reinvested into public transport and the fewer cars on the road, the better the public transport will be.
Putting 1000 new buses onto existing roads just means you have 1000 buses stuck in traffic.
Moving everyone into newer cars doesn’t fix the congestion issue.
I agree with that but the point with all these measures is they're supposed to be used as part of a package, a combination of tools to enable modal shift (like putting in LTNS, bike lanes etc), discourage car use (by making it more expansive and less convenient) and by encouraging public transport use (more frequent/reliable buses - which you can only do if you take out some of the car traffic).
The £2k scrappage fee is enough to buy a compliant vehicle and just about anyone qualifies.
You can only buy new vehicles under the scrappage schemes.
The fact that people who live in GM don’t appear to know this just shows how poor the official comms and how effective the misinformation was.
@ratherbeintobago - I didn't see a single piece of official comms. Nothing. And I'm someone who generally pays attention to this kind of thing. The misinformation I saw lots of, but I took it all with the usual bucketload of salt
in Bury/Rochdale/Oldham you’d be hard pressed to know there was a Bee Active Network.
This is very much the case. We have one bus an hour into Manchester (which I always use if I'm heading into town - I never drive), and this is constantly being threatened with removal. My nearest tram stop is 5 miles away, the nearest station 6 miles away
Chorlton has had money spent, you go East, nothing.
@binners I assume this is because they thought that, as private cars weren’t included, they didn’t have to do any. But of course if there are no official comms, then there’s a big hole for disinformation to fill.
In terms of cycling provision, GMCA is long on fine words but has no power to compel councils, hence Rochdale has one scheme that’s not nearly complete and has taken more than three years to get to the point it’s at, which doesn’t connect to anything else except the canal towpath, and isn’t part of any strategic borough-wide plan because there isn’t a strategic borough-wide plan /rant
Chorlton has had money spent
As has Trafford and Rusholme, Hulme and Moss side. They all got the cycle lanes before Chorlton did. The curry mile cycle lane is so old it's not even current standard any more.
I'm not going to pretend it's perfect, but at least there's a plan, and it's getting built, and the buses are being re-regulated.
Is that because they have become larger SUV’s in the process?
They haven't. There are many small EV options, we looked at them. The issue is that people like big SUVs.
It has been shown time and time gain that a diet of carrots does nothing to enable modal shift.
We need the right balance of carrot and stick, and not to beat people who have no realistic choice whilst letting off those who do. I don't think anyone's advocating no stick at all.
PS you all know that this isn't what the carrot/stick metaphor really means right?
The £2k scrappage fee is enough to buy a compliant vehicle and just about anyone qualifies.
And what if your 8 year old non compliant vehicle is worth £5k? Or at least was before the ulez expansion was introduced.
And what about someone who lives just outside Greater London (and therefore doesn't qualify for the scrappage scheme) and drives into the outskirts of London a couple of times a week.... suck it up buttercup and cough up £25 a week?
This is a scheme designed to generate revenue for Transport for London which is in dire financial straits following lockdown and the pandemic (£240 million was raised last year for the much smaller inner zone) if everyone drives compliant vehicles it will have failed in its most important aim. The 3% improvement in nitrogen dioxide levels following the inner London expansion was simply an added bonus.
I think what all this illustrates is the complete and utter absence of anything even remotely resembling a proper transport strategy in this country
It seems more like an experiment in chaos theory
And what about someone who lives just outside Greater London (and therefore doesn’t qualify for the scrappage scheme) and drives into the outskirts of London a couple of times a week…. suck it up buttercup and cough up £25 a week?
That just sounds like the polluter pays principle in action to me.
Regarding Manchester…
This is the main issue. The area I’m in was in the zone, but the public transport in areas like this is virtually non-existent.
Proposed zone was huuuge. Everyone was in the zone - not city centre, not inside M60 but the whole of Greater Manchester all the way to the West Yorkshire border.
This is a scheme designed to generate revenue for Transport for London
Well, the amount of edgelord car-rights folks on Twitter and the like who bang on about how they pay road tax...This should make them well happy, they're finally being charged directly for their use of roads.
That just sounds like the polluter pays principle in action to me.
Or, those least able to afford to buy a new vehicle pays principal.
I think what all this illustrates is the complete and utter absence of anything even remotely resembling a proper transport strategy in this countryIt seems more like an experiment in chaos theory
+1.
Tories gonna Tory - they're all dinosaurs who are still wedded to this "motoring is freedom" idea from the 60's, they're all in the pocket of big oil / big auto and (with a few notable exceptions like TfL), there's no joined up thinking, no ambition and everything is mired in consultation -> water down to avoid upsetting the gammons -> reconsult -> run out of money -> put plans on hold -> reapply for money -> reconsult on new plans -> water down to avoid upsetting the gammons -> build something entirely shit -> spend the next 40 years consulting on rebuilding it marginally better.
Everyone was in the zone
Excellent news! Here's a BBC report and the first paragraph explains who gets charged. The fact that the scheme has been mothballed indefinitely just goes to show the power of of the car-rights propaganda machine
Well, the amount of edgelord car-rights folks on Twitter and the like who bang on about how they pay road tax…This should make them well happy, they’re finally being charged directly for their use of roads.
Is that what people with older vehicles are....."edgelord car-rights folk"?
Just to say I mentioned the tyre particulates thing not as an ice Vs EV thing but as a general pollution thing, IE we need to really be thinking about improving alternatives to private cars & especially large private cars, EV sports cars & SUVs are definitely not the solution...
Or, those least able to afford to buy a new vehicle pays principal.
At some point (that will never be the perfect time) we have to make a decision about whether we continue to let people suffer from pollution related diseases, or we change how we move people around. The least able to afford that change will always suffer, how much we mitigate that should be the argument, not whether this is the right thing to do.
Is that what people with older vehicles are…..”edgelord car-rights folk”?
Nope.
Or, those least able to afford to buy a new vehicle pays principal.
Those least able to afford should be assisted. Those buttercups who are able to afford the £25 a week should pay, after all the people who live where they are driving to are already paying indirectly for the consequences of their actions through air pollution, traffic congestion etc.
At some point (that will never be the perfect time) we have to make a decision about whether we continue to let people suffer from pollution related diseases, or we change how we move people around. The least able to afford that change will always suffer, how much we mitigate that should be the argument, not whether this is the right thing to do.
This is bang on. This thread actually reminds me of the absolute fury that TfL incurred when they built a segregated cycleway through Chiswick, there's always a loud group who just will not accept the requirement that we will need to materially change how we move about as the status quo is not scalable, or even currently acceptable, in cities with limited space and already poor air quality.
At some point (that will never be the perfect time) we have to make a decision about whether we continue to let people suffer from pollution related diseases, or we change how we move people around.
This one gets brought up a lot as part of "there's a cost of living crisis, we shouldn't charge people more at this difficult time" but you then get to the point of - well WHEN is a good time? Next year the argument will be "people are still recovering from the cost of living crisis..." and the year after it'll be "well inflation is still really high..."
The counter argument is that there is actually no better time to do it than in a CoL crisis because you're potentially enabling someone to finally shift away from their expensive car - ditch it altogether, no more tax, insurance, fuel, parking, ULEZ etc - and they can use the better P/T that has been paid for by the ULEZ charges.
Same with bike lanes, LTNs, bus lanes. Make it easier and cheaper to use bikes and buses and people can start to shift away from the very expensive car ownership. It's not instant, it doesn't happen overnight but, especially using ULEZ in conjunction with other measures like LTNs, parking, hire scheme like ZipCar, Lime etc, you can gradually start to get people away from the notion that a private car is essential for everyone.
Bury/Rochdale/Oldham you’d be hard pressed to know there was a Bee Active Network
No one in their right mind would ride a bike around Rochdale. A police culture driven by lack of resources leads to tolerating bad and dangerous driving in Rochdale and Oldham. It's enforced the idea among drivers that anyone on a bike is just holding them up and is therefore fair game for a dangerous overtake.
Rochdale is where people come to practice their overtake-and-immediately-turn-left technique. Even segregated infrastructure won't protect against this and might even make it worse. It needs driver education and some action from the police.
a health worker who crosses London daily to 14 appointments/7 elderly people and earning minimum wage made we wonder
Unless they're doing their rounds in a Diesel Range Rover I imagine this won't affect them, if it does then they can claim it on expenses from their employer or there's the scrappage scheme to get them into a compliant vehicle.
Ideally they'd ditch the car entirely and use the scrappage scheme to get an electric cargo bike, but I appreciate that's not the solution for everyone.
My sister lives in the new expanded ULEZ zone, between seeing her and the occasional run to Heathrow I reckon the expansion will cost us approximately £100-£200 a year.
If that means than my baby Nephews and Niece who live in zone 3 are less likely to grow up with serious lung problems due to air pollution then so be in, bargain IMHO.
Anyone watch the BBC breakfast news this morning?
They had a roving reporter who just happened to have two random strangers to interview
Anti ULEZ person was a middle aged female carer. Nice tug of the emotional heart strings.
Pro ULEZ person was a trans cyclist called Julie.
I have to think the BBC knew exactly what they were doing by choosing Julie to go on camera and be interviewed. I can only begin to imagine what the typical enlightened member of society had to say about that.
That’s the kind of car most of the ‘poor’ people I know are already driving.
Exactly, and why the "think of the poor people" argument is tosh.
I think what all this illustrates is the complete and utter absence of anything even remotely resembling a proper transport strategy in this country
I think at least part of that comes from the absolutely abhorrent cost of doing anything involving infrastructure in this country. Almost every project is double what it would cost elsewhere in the EU. I really don't understand why, but I'm guessing nimbyism, land ownership and price, everything privately contracted?
I dont know about that. Cars used to weigh less than half the weight ie less than 1000kg. Most EV’s are now 2000kg or more. Of course they will cause more damage, probably not twice as much, but definitely more.
A BMW 120d is 1450kg
A BMW i3 with the biggest battery pack is 1345kg and has more interior space.