You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Anti ULEZ person was a middle aged female carer.
Who probably hasn't checked her vehicle yet and won't be affected anyway. *sigh*
Exactly, and why the “think of the poor people” argument is tosh.
No - I said most of the poor people I know. That doesn't mean NO poor people are affected.
For example, lots of people get given cars from friends and relatives, so they drive whatever they can get. Being forced to change it and pay the going rates could put them under financial pressure. And there could be all sorts of issues.
You cannot use a statistical majority to justify every decision. Statistically, the overwhelming majority of people can walk up steps into a shop. But we still need to put ramps in.
I guess today is also the day that all the Boomers in their compliant cars who drive in from the home counties get to find out that not everything they read in the Mail or on Facebook is true...So that's something.
You can only buy new vehicles under the scrappage schemes
Can someone please direct me to this as I couldn't find anything on the tfl website in the pages which hadn't crashed due to demand.
I'm a SE London resident and I've one 2007 euro 4 petrol car and one 1991 non-compliant campervan so curious.
I wonder how this topic is playing out over on Pistonheads...
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/scrappage-schemes/car-and-motorcycle
I can't see anywhere that says you have to use the money to buy a new car; in fact one of the offers is for £1600 plus a year's TFL PT pass, which you presumably don't need if you're getting a new car with the scheme.
@tthew - ??
You can only buy new vehicles under the scrappage schemes
Can someone please direct me to this as I couldn’t find anything on the tfl website in the pages which hadn’t crashed due to demand.
It's not a scrappage scheme like the one in 2008(?) where payment was only towards a new vehicle. You can spend the London ULEZ scrappage grant money on C&H if you want.
Grant payment
We will process your grant payment cheque once we have received and verified the evidence that you have scrapped or retrofitted your vehicle. Your cheque will be made payable to the applicant (you) and sent by post to the address on your RUC account. If you applied for adult-rate Annual Bus & Tram Passes, these will also be posted to your address.
A BMW 120d is 1450kg
A BMW i3 with the biggest battery pack is 1345kg and has more interior space.
More space maybe. But still only 4 seats compared to 5!
And i3 is pretty niche example - doesn't it use lots of carbon body panels to achieve a comparable weight?
I'm not that familiar with the range, but i4 vs 4 series gran coupe might be a fairer comparison? I'm seeing 1990kg for the lightest i4 vs 1825kg for the heaviest (M440i xdrive)
’m seeing 1990kg for the lightest i4 vs 1825kg for the heaviest (M440i xdrive)
So less than 10% difference then?
The iX I had for a couple of weeks was 2.7T
I spent the weekend ill on a campsite so did a bit of research. This 9 in 10 being compliant in the ULEZ expansion I just dont believe. We live just outside it - KT7. My sis-in-law is inside, KT1 I think. When I walk about or ride the local area I see much more than 1 in 10 being older diesels and much older petrol. I dont think its true..
So I find the RAC research - they did a freedom of information request to the DVLA and very rough figures based just on an ave age of vehicle and rough postcodes they think the figure is more like 1/3 not compliant. I then read TFL got their figures from a few cameras on big trunk roads, so takes zero account of small local trips to the schools, shops, to pubs and doctors.
You know I agree with the concept, but the way it been imposed i think sucks in the current climate, ie not gradual like other cities such as Amsterdam etc. Not enough provision of more buses (and these need to be super clean also which they are not). I live in a rich area and I see a lot of families with two cars that are not compliant. I guess they will bin them with time and switch to one new one.
When I look at areas like Hillingdon i see a lot more non-compliant cars than the press maintains
and I guess Euro 7 will be here within a couple years, which scares me if I shell out a big bunch of money on car number two which is a 2014 Caravelle. Car number one is a leased Merc EQA so I am okay jack...
I lived for 7 years in Germany without a car, because that was possible and didn’t cause any great impact on my life.
I lived for 7 years in Manchester without a car. Bus/tram/train network is miles ahead of much of the north of England. Many people simply don't want to use public transport even when it's there. So more charging/banning is key to reducing traffic in the long run. Providing alternatives isn't enough.
I’m not that familiar with the range, but i4 vs 4 series gran coupe might be a fairer comparison? I’m seeing 1990kg for the lightest i4 vs 1825kg for the heaviest (M440i xdrive)
That seems reasonable. We've had this discussion before, and it seems EVs are typically 10-20% heavier in modest forms i.e. not the giant SUVs with massive battery packs. Sure you can get a huge SUV EV but you can also get the same in diesel form.
I also lived in Manchester without a car. But I specifically rented near a station on a suitable line to allow this. Not everywhere is on a train line, which is the issue.
A mate told me this the other day. He works in the City of London, and lives in Farnham. He goes in by train 4 or 5 times a week and it costs him £50 a day. He has now leased a little BMW EV and drives in and parks and gets a free charge for £15 a day, so he is now up £700 a day which easily pays for the Beemer lease
I lived in central Bristol for almost ten years with no car. Loved it. TBH I scrounged a lot of lifts to go mtb'ing bitd.
Since children and not living in really central its not as easy. mtbing would not happen, camping would not happen for a start. We both do only a few k miles pa but we need cars, and one needs to be big.
He has now leased a little BMW EV and drives in and parks and gets a free charge for £15 a day, so he is now up £700 a day which easily pays for the Beemer lease
even allowing for shonky maths (I assume you mean £700/mo - at £700/d where do I sign!!!) that illustrates the issue - £50 a day return on public transport. I live in Guildford and a day return from here is about £30 and that only gets me to Waterloo and tubes, where I actually work isn't accessible without going all the way in to then come 8 miles back out on another line. And takes 60-75 mins. In car, it's 45 mins and 20 miles e/w = a gallon of petrol, about £8. In my ULEZ compliant but 7 year old car.
He works in the City of London, and lives in Farnham.
Rail travel gets expensive quickly.
My 12 mile commute from SE London to Camden costs me between £9-12 via public transport (depending on routes/times) or slightly more in my very thirsty old petrol car even though parking is free.
Cycling for the win, saving more than covers maintenance and C2W payments 🙂
Farnham's a bit further out than me though...
I can swallow £12.50 to move the camper as it moves infrequently and usually out of London, that said for other reasons we're looking to move it on... but I can see how for many used to running older diesels who live and work around me, (3-4 cars in house driveways in the 'burbs is not uncommon) this is a big deal.
Thread drift: although a supporter, I'm more concerned about the impact of net-zero targets on existing housing stock and what appears to be the lack of joined up govt support to assist in the transition.
Who probably hasn’t checked her vehicle yet and won’t be affected anyway. *sigh*
TBF, she did know. What she had not done was go out and change her car - she was worried a 'cheap' car would not be reliable for work. And she earned £1-1.2k gross a month so cannot just go out an get a new car / lease / pcp. She had my sympathy - her employer had my frustration.
I see it on my street - we have about 6 homes who have carers visiting twice or three times daily. That is 6 different carers, in 6 cars, from 6 directions. Where it could be one carer who could walk between the homes....
Home carer on R4 this morning saying she will have to give up work.
I managed home care teams for years and I know how desperate they are for staff. Her council or agency will pay the expense, pay her additional mileage rate or provide a pool car. They cannot afford to lose any staff. It was a non argument.
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 issue is that the problem is constantly resolving itself, with every
year that passes there are less earlier made vehicles on the roads. So as a means of generating revenue it becomes less effective.
There are relatively not many cars made over 16 years old on the roads today, in 2 or 3 years there will be obviously even less. The problem is mostly diesel vehicles because many were bought in good faith 8 or more years ago by people who wanted low emission vehicles which complied to Euro 5.
It would be fairer to wait until the non compliant diesel vehicles were, like the petrol vehicles, only effected if they were made over 16 years ago, but as I said, that would affect revenue for TfL.
The Mayor of London makes a huge thing concerning his claim that very few vehicles are affected by non compliance, the vast majority are according to him, so the effect on pollution is really not great but leaving it another 2 or 3 years will mean a huge loss of revenue.
More space maybe. But still only 4 seats compared to 5!
Nitpicking - how many times do you squeeze 3 people into the back of a 1 series? My guess it would be just the one time unless it's kids.
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.
Or no car? Isn't not having/using a car an option in the one UK city with the most extensive and well funded public transport system? Or you know... (Gulp) using a bicycle?
Unless there's a compelling reason I wouldn't drive into London, you'd have to be mental to choose, if you're rich enough to drive a non-ULEZ compliant car or stump up for a Tesla, you can probably afford a Railcard...
More broadly I'm sort of ok with being priced out of driving so much. I would like.to see leccy cars trickling down to us plebs faster, there still seem to be too many 'affordable' petrol cars on the market (new and used) so I'll echo the points about scrappage schemes and the like being needed...
Poorer people are less likely to own cars and more likely to have issues from pollution
Poorer people still need / would like to shuffle their kids around, are more likely to have to travel to multiple jobs and are less likely to afford newer more compliant cars.
On the scrappage scheme note - that was only widened to “everybody” last week giving short notice for “everybody” to know they could source a repalcement car for £2k, but also to be remembered is the second hand price of second hand vehicles currently.
In general terms I agree it’s a good thing and in principle plenty of notice was given, but the scrappage scheme turnaround was short notice and the deadline should have been extended to allow people a grace period to make use of it - albeit for most people (I’d be an example) that’s a retrospective frustration. I traded our non compliant car a month ago for £1800…
I like the idea of less pollution, less congestion and less cars overall.
I like more than this;
Affordable, dependable and efficient public transport.
Segregated cycle infrastructure in urban areas.
To me, if we got the second two right nationally we probably wouldn’t need to worry as much about the first one.
RM.
It would be fairer to wait until the non compliant diesel vehicles were, like the petrol vehicles, only effected if they were made over 16 years ago, but as I said, that would affect revenue for TfL.
It's not about "revenue", it's about reducing the number of journeys made in urban areas in the vehicles that have the greatest negative impact on local air quality.
but the scrappage scheme turnaround was short notice and the deadline should have been extended to allow people a grace period to make use of it
Makes sense. There's always a good reason to delay though.
It would be fairer to wait until the non compliant diesel vehicles were, like the petrol vehicles, only effected if they were made over 16 years ago, but as I said, that would affect revenue for TfL.
That would be a better deal for the owners of those vehicles, but a worse deal for the people who have to live and breathe around where they would be driving.
You have to break the cycle at some point and much like investing, while doing it in the 1970s as with Amsterdam would have been best now is better than at some notional point in the future when it is magically fair for everyone.
I managed home care teams for years and I know how desperate they are for staff. Her council or agency will pay the expense, pay her additional mileage rate or provide a pool car. They cannot afford to lose any staff. It was a non argument.
For nhs and council that might be true but many careworkers with private agencies only receive 10 pence per mile now so their journeys are already underpaid.
I'm not convinced that agencies are willing to throw any more money at their staff, shortages or not.
https://www.homecare.co.uk/news/article.cfm/id/1671962/Home-care-workers
2 more days and my smokey old diesel land rover is 40 years old. Just a matter of time now till i get it re-registered as an historic vehicle and then I will be free to go upset cyclists and pedestrians in all those ULEZs
😉
Im all for anything that has the magic combination
a) doesnt effect me
b) winds up Lawrence Fox and his friends at G Beebies
but whats the plan RE the Euro Compliance thing?
If you go out and buy a new Euro6 compliant car to keep Mr Kahn happy, how long do you have before they decide that its not good enough, and you need to go and buy a Euro 7, or whatever they get it up to in the time frame?
I bet it isnt going to be 10-15 yrs that you can easily get out of a car, even as a relatively high mileage user?
I guess it points to people leasing cars rather than buying them, so that they can upgrade them readily? and/or then selling their non compliant cars to people who dont have the same limitations (out of the city)?
"It would be fairer to wait until the non compliant diesel vehicles were, like the petrol vehicles, only effected if they were made over 16 years ago, but as I said, that would affect revenue for TfL."
"It’s not about “revenue”, it’s about reducing the number of journeys made in urban areas in the vehicles that have the greatest negative impact on local air quality."
I think its totally above the revenue, TFL is bankrupt, and most people will just pay and carry on, trades will just pass the cost on to you and me. What might have worked in central London will not work out in say Hillingdon
There is so much mis-information about ULEZ. My wife is an NHS worker and drivers a very old car, because that's what NHS workers can afford, and yet it would not be affected by ULEZ. I drive a large family sized car which I consider quite a luxury vehicle, although it's now nearly 10 years old. Again, it would not be affected by ULEZ.
The Manchester clear air zone was not affecting private cars. It was the camper van brigade who were most upset about it, because their expensive middleclass hobby was going to cost them a few pounds more. It would negate the cost savings they were having by camping at the side of the road instead of at a proper campsite. It was a large zone, but businesses would pass the costs onto consumers, so it made sense to be the whole of GM.
ULEZ zones have been in place for quite a while and studies into their health effects have been very positive. Why do we hear so little about this in the media, and instead all the scare stories about costs? The 2k, or money and annual pass scrappage scheme London has seems generous on first read.
If you go out and buy a new Euro6 compliant car to keep Mr Kahn happy, how long do you have before they decide that its not good enough, and you need to go and buy a Euro 7, or whatever they get it up to in the time frame?
If you’re buying a new car and are likely to be driving it in London (or any other city in the world) with any regularity… don’t buy a diesel.
The Manchester clear air zone was not affecting private cars. It was the camper van brigade who were most upset about it, because their expensive middleclass hobby was going to cost them a few pounds more.
Round here it was the horsey brigade and their ancient smoky horse boxes. But so much if the anti-CAZ stuff was based on misinformation, and there’s no possible CAZ scheme that’s going to be perfect or free from unintended consequences. Meanwhile there is a real (health and economic) cost to poor air quality, and often this is borne by those who are poorest and don’t have access to a car.
If you’re buying a new car and are likely to be driving it in London (or any other city in the world) with any regularity… don’t buy a diesel.
We are looking at getting a euro 6 diesel cmax to replace our petrol one.
Tax for petrol is £240 ,diesel is £180.
Surely that means the petrol is more polluting?
Because they were not automatically exempt, to get my motorbikes cleared for ULEZ I had to get a data sheet from the manufacturers as proof of emissions, cost £0 from BMW & cost £100 from Moto guzzi & then get them registered with TFL. Same must be available for some older cars too.
Surely that means the petrol is more polluting?
You are conflating particle pollutants with CO2 emissions, two different things
I'm not really bothered about whats happening in London but kind of waiting for a CAZ in Leeds, which I'd be fine with generally. Apart from my local transport links are shocking, got stung with a £26 taxi fair home on Sunday evening as trains were cancelled and there were no buses. This afer a nice walk along the canal into Leeds with the kids and dog and something to eat in a pub. Bloody Northern Rail.....
Anyway, I am interested in the other CAZ's around that don't affect private cars. I have a small petrol car that would be ULEZ compliant so any driving we might do into the CAZ would be fine any way, but it's interesting that camper vans and I assume small commercial vehicles like a Transporter or Vito would have to pay even if privately owned? How does it affect a T5 Caravelle or Merc Viano that is M1 car on the log book, are they exempt as they are classed as a car?
I ride in to Leeds to the office when I go in anyway, wouldn't dream of driving in.
. Meanwhile there is a real (health and economic) cost to poor air quality
The benefits of ULEZ have been massively overstated, the independent Imperial report reckoned air quality benefits were marginal at best. Good way for TFL to repair its black hole by taxing the poor. Ridiculous policy marketed through overblown scare stories - politics at its worst.
I see it on my street – we have about 6 homes who have carers visiting twice or three times daily. That is 6 different carers, in 6 cars, from 6 directions. Where it could be one carer who could walk between the homes….
Thats because of the tories privitisation and fragmentation of the home care service
Ridiculous policy marketed through overblown scare stories – politics at its worst.
Yeah I know. Those people announcing it would repair the tfl black hole by taxing the poor is an insanely overblown scare story.
I have a small petrol car that would be ULEZ compliant so any driving we might do into the CAZ would be fine any way, but it’s interesting that camper vans and I assume small commercial vehicles like a Transporter or Vito would have to pay even if privately owned
Yes - I had a Transit commercial van that i ran as a private vehicle. It would have been caught up in the Manchester CAZ. Sold it and bought an older diesel Berlingo Multispace that is compatible as it's classed as a car.
I think its totally above the revenue, TFL is bankrupt, and most people will just pay and carry on, trades will just pass the cost on to you and me.
You might think that, but you would be wrong.
The benefits of ULEZ have been massively overstated, the independent Imperial report reckoned air quality benefits were marginal at best.
Do you have a link to that report please?
Ridiculous policy marketed through overblown scare stories – politics at its worst.
Or what it takes to change the world as we disappear under a climate and ecological disaster of our own making.
but it’s interesting that camper vans and I assume small commercial vehicles like a Transporter or Vito would have to pay even if privately owned
I have a T6 and although live several hundred miles away, would not have to pay. Its a 2017 Diesel.
Or what it takes to change the world as we disappear under a climate and ecological disaster of our own making.
Perfect example - well done.
ULEZ really shouldn’t be a surprise to any Londoners. It’s been known that that it would be inner London first and then outer London a few years later. The whole issue has been weaponised even though it was brought in under Bojo’s watch to bash Mayor Khan, labour etc etc. The idea that it was done as a revenue boost because of conditions placed on the GLA/TFL because of the lack of revenue is ludicrous!
London has a very good transport network and should be the minimum standard nationwide!
It boils my piss some of the nonsense getting put about.
The benefits of ULEZ have been massively overstated, the independent Imperial report reckoned air quality benefits were marginal at best.
I'm guessing it's a quote from The Spectator
"A team at Imperial College has looked at the data (collected by hundreds of sensors all over the city) and reached dramatically different conclusions. Ulez, they said, had helped lower NO2 levels by just 3 per cent, with a negligible effect on ozone and particulate pollution.
Here is Imperial college's view..
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/245774/low-emission-congestion-charge-zones-linked/
and the study is
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(23)00120-2/fulltext#seccestitle50
I think the Spectator have cherry picked some quotes from the resport, and ignored it's conclusion:
"Available evidence suggests observable health benefits from schemes restricting private vehicles in cities."
Here is an article about the greatly overstated benefits linking in some of those studies.
And many articles in right wing press seem to miss out the conclusions of these studies an cherry pick certain sentances. More examples of mis-information about ULEZ.
I think the Spectator have cherry picked some quotes from the resport, and ignored it’s conclusion:
Nope -two separate teams did reports the first independent report based on London alone is here
had helped lower NO2 levels by just 3 per cent
Already? And that can only get better, yes... with this new pressure on fleet managers, delivery schedulers, commuters... behaviour changes and vehicle switching will continue... it's not a magic switch that transforms everything overnight... it's just an additional calculation in everyone's decision when it comes to journeys taken and vehicles used.
I think that 3% was the 2021 expansion
had helped lower NO2 levels by just 3 per cent
This gets used a lot in all sorts of traffic / pollution reduction - "oh it *only* gave a 3% improvement..." or "oh there was *only* a 5% reduction in traffic..." as though that's too small to be worth bothering with so we shouldn't do anything.
The answer is to do MORE - if a small expansion of ULEZ gave a 3% drop overall in NO2, then a bigger expansion and/or more stringent conditions would be better.
Yes, that was for the 2021 implementation and it had only been running a few weeks. This is the associated article, and again they neglected to include the reports conclusion ULEZ was needed as part of other measures like public transport, active travel etc.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/231894/london-pollution-improved-with-evidence-small/
I'm pretty surprised by how many people are ok with air pollution, with pretty well known deleterious effects, if it saves them a few quid.
The IOP ER Letter was published in Nov 2021 and given the expansion from 2019 (Central, same as congestion charge) to the N/S circular in 2021 happened in October I strongly suspect the data had already been gathered and analysed by then and hence effect was only evaluated in the zone already covered by congestion charge - ie: an area that was already substantially restricted.
Nonetheless - the letter does say
On the other hand, the ULEZ is one of many policies implemented to tackle air pollution in London, and in combination these have led to improvements in air quality that are clearly observable. Thus, reducing air pollution requires a multi-faceted set of policies that aim to reduce emissions across sectors with coordination among local, regional and national government
What was the reduction in areas that weren't restricted but then became so - the wider N/S circular enclosure?
Or what it takes to change the world as we disappear under a climate and ecological disaster of our own making.
Ulez hasn't nothing to do with climate or climate change. Nitrogen dioxide is not a greenhouse gas.
I agree that tacking climate change is the most important issue currently facing humanity, but it isn't relevant to this thread.
It is an indirect greenhouse gas. 'Main' issue is with respiratory disease though
The answer is to do MORE – if a small expansion of ULEZ gave a 3% drop overall in NO2, then a bigger expansion and/or more stringent conditions would be better.
So why not make the whole country a ulez zone then?
A total ban on wood burners would be far more effective at improving air quality than the ulez expansion, but obviously there are problems generating revenue out of a ban in wood burners, so that is a non starter.
Bus routes can’t get you into manchester within 90 plus minutes.
They're not gonna get quicker unless there are significantly fewer other vehicles on the road OR there's a comprehensive network of elevated vacuum tubes to teleport the buses above the traffic.
It is an indirect greenhouse gas
What is "an indirect greenhouse gas"?
So why not make the whole country a ulez zon then?
Because the Government can't outsource that to individual councils (or TfL) then sit back and reap the howls of outrage against the leftie socialists who would dare restrict the absolute freedom of the poor oppressed motorist. The country absolutely needs some sort of road-user-charging system but it needs that in conjunction with a national transport strategy and as discussed earlier in this thread, there isn't one and the Government has no plans to actually do anything about anything, especially not if it's going to be unpopular.
I was thinking more along the lines of why aren't you arguing in favour of expanding ulez to the whole country.
Not so much why the current Tory government isn't.
So why not make the whole country a ulez zone then?
Because kids are being maimed right now in cities by local pollution, less so in the Yorkshire Dales.
A total ban on wood burners
Mayor of London is working on that as well, but needs other bodies to step up for further progress…
…a reminder that there is no “total ban” on any type of car in London.
Arguably neither measure is as urgently needed in the Yorkshire Dales, and wood stoves and diesel based transport is less harmful and harder to move away from there (and loads of other places across the country).
When targeting local pollution, target the pollution generated locally first for the biggest impact.
The tabloid tv press were doing 'man on the street' interviews all morning, but it appears 3 out of 5 were in favour. So they kept quoting businesses said such and such against it, but provided no footage.
It is generally accepted by all those concerned and political pundits that Labour lost the Uxbridge by-election recently because of the ulez expansion, so I wouldn't overemphasis its popularity.
Very disputed actually Ernie - and ULEZ zones are popular
I thought that both Labour and the Tories agreed that ulez was the deciding factor in Labour not winning the Uxbridge by-election TJ?
The last time I checked the Labour lead over the Tories in London was about twice the national Labour lead - 40%. So what do you put Labour not winning the Uxbridge by-election down to?
Edit: Surely if it's in the Guardian it must be true??
It’s a Tory seat, I don’t think it was a surprise that it may not be won.
+1 - I don't think they'd even won it in 1997. They did very well to come within 400 votes of winning it. The problem was expectation management rather than the ULEZ.
I think Labour not winning the Uxbridge by-election came as a surprise to everyone, and not least the Tories.
Boris Johnson only had a 7k majority in Uxbridge in 2019
"Labour has opened a 40-point lead over the Conservatives in London"
In Uxbridge, I thought the Labour candidate was *also* anti-ULEZ?
So maybe he just wasn't very good.
I would love to see a ULEZ in Cambridge but I guess the Tories have different ideas so I shall carry on delighting in breathing in crap from other people's exhausts. Thanks.
Our car car is not ulez compliant, it will cost £12 or whatever it is to drive and see my mother in law. Oh well. Sad thing is we could easily take a train but even for only 1 person it still works out cheaper to use the car. ( if you assume we need a car anyway, which we do).
In Uxbridge, I thought the Labour candidate was *also* anti-ULEZ?
So maybe he just wasn’t very good
It suits Starmer to blame Khan's ULEZ instead of e.g. Labour nationally still isn't compelling in trad Tory seats or Starmer is uninspiring.
But if ULEZ did cost Labour this time around, I reckon it'll be forgotten by the next election there. No-one is moaning about the congestion charge in London or the original ULEZ and even LTNs are much less controversial than they were. Like gay marriage, everyone's just realised it's not the end of the world and got on with their lives.
Thinks like commercial vehicles, heavey construction plant. Gensets etc they’re far worse for ppm.
@dangeourbrain I believe the MCPR (Mobile Combustion Plant Regulations) may address the gen sets at least. They also cover static plant somewhat surprisingly.
I spent the weekend ill on a campsite so did a bit of research. This 9 in 10 being compliant in the ULEZ expansion I just dont believe. We live just outside it – KT7. My sis-in-law is inside, KT1 I think. When I walk about or ride the local area I see much more than 1 in 10 being older diesels and much older petrol. I dont think its true..
I checked our car.
19 year old Astra 1.6 petrol is exempt.
I assume it’s mostly Diesels and massive petrols that fall foul.
I think the zone it doesn’t is in Birmingham.
So those of you against this. Howmany deaths disproportionately among the poorer is acceptable to you so you can drive you dirty car into a city centre?
Thats the reality. Ulez saves lives
I am not sure that a modern low emission diesel car, with a euro 5 engine, and which passes the MOT emission test, is necessary a dirty car.
I am not even sure that vehicles are the main contributors to nitrogen dioxide levels, have you got a gas boiler?
What I do know is that it is a problem which is currently resolving itself through the natural replacement of old vehicles with those with the very latest technology.
I also know that wood burners are incomparably more damaging to health than modern vehicles, and yet there seems very little concern about that. Why are people even allow to sell wood for burning? Won't someone think of the children?
Ernie, how about we see how the results of the Scottish ULEZ councils pan out? That's a flat out ban, no charge, just a doubling fine every time you break the rules.
A total ban on wood burners would be far more effective at improving air quality than the ulez expansion,
That depends on which air quality objective you're trying to improve, and where.