Dump dirty diesel for all cars...
Expanded ULEZ
- Thread starter Mottie
- Start date
Sponsored Links
What's with the acronyms?
My dirty old diesel will do over 800 mile to the tank. Happy to be 'allowed' to continue driving it without being penalised (well...beyond the artificial fuel prices, car tax, etc.)
If the car is maintained and road safe, then it should be allowed to continue being used. The move to electric will happen over time and diesel use will continue to decline.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,446
- Reaction score
- 2,647
- Country
Last edited:
'Low' traffic, but not zero traffic. Cycle/pedestrian paths and such like. Hardly a revert back to the 1800's though. I'm pretty sure they still use motor cars in Holland.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,446
- Reaction score
- 2,647
- Country
and how does an ambulance, police car or fire engine get through the road block?
Holland is <1/5th the size of the UK.
Holland is <1/5th the size of the UK.
Some of the anomalies about ULEZ are very strange...
I keep a very cheap old vehicle for all the crap jobs such as dump runs...
It costs approx £300 to tax because of a relatively high emissions rating...
And at MOT time it requires an ethanol top up to pass the emission test...
Yet according to the TFL website it is ULEZ compliant...
Bonkers!
I keep a very cheap old vehicle for all the crap jobs such as dump runs...
It costs approx £300 to tax because of a relatively high emissions rating...
And at MOT time it requires an ethanol top up to pass the emission test...
Yet according to the TFL website it is ULEZ compliant...
Bonkers!
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,446
- Reaction score
- 2,647
- Country
Petrol?
I have the same with the O/hs Beemer. 60+mpg /modest 2l engine 115bhp. not compliant. the other car registered 3 months later, 3l twin turbo, 315bhp, 40mpg. compliant.
I have the same with the O/hs Beemer. 60+mpg /modest 2l engine 115bhp. not compliant. the other car registered 3 months later, 3l twin turbo, 315bhp, 40mpg. compliant.
It's not rocket science, when any type of change is implemented people tend to complain about said change to varying degrees if they feel they're adversely affected by it. Equally, if people see it as a direct or indirect benefit to them, they'll either be neutral about said change or will react positively. In terms of the impact on individual citizens and whether it's broadly positive or negative, it's usually only x months/years later that we know whether something has been a success, and of course even then it can be subjective to a degree. The introduction of LEZ and ULEZ schemes is no different.
In relation to the London scheme, if the officially reported air quality stats over the coming months/years can be trusted, that will indicate whether the scheme has achieved its objectives.
I personally think we'll start to see LEZ schemes in more and more towns across the country in years to come, even smaller ones. Whether we as citizens think this is a positive move or not largely depends on our personal circumstances as per my opening paragraph.
And of course, as with any scheme that operates a financial model, those who can easily afford to pay can essentially carry on regardless. It's the masses on lower incomes that face the challenges. Then we're into a whole other debate about personal transport gradually becoming the preserve of those who are financially better off. Using London as an example, you can almost picture it a few decades from now. More devoid of personal vehicles, except for those of the better off.
In relation to the London scheme, if the officially reported air quality stats over the coming months/years can be trusted, that will indicate whether the scheme has achieved its objectives.
I personally think we'll start to see LEZ schemes in more and more towns across the country in years to come, even smaller ones. Whether we as citizens think this is a positive move or not largely depends on our personal circumstances as per my opening paragraph.
And of course, as with any scheme that operates a financial model, those who can easily afford to pay can essentially carry on regardless. It's the masses on lower incomes that face the challenges. Then we're into a whole other debate about personal transport gradually becoming the preserve of those who are financially better off. Using London as an example, you can almost picture it a few decades from now. More devoid of personal vehicles, except for those of the better off.
Different route, I guess.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,446
- Reaction score
- 2,647
- Country
two factors influence politicians:
1. will this win the next election for me.
2. do I have the funding.
There are a few nailed on anti car lobby groups like road peace, sustains, road.cc etc. who spend a lot of time trying to influence policy. But at the end of the day. If it's not funded or a vote winner it will go in the bin.
The expanded ULEZ is coming now, because we already had 20% of new cars being electric, so the opportunity to fleece people is drying up.
ULEZ/LEZ makes sense in central London where you can jump on a buss or tube, but there are no trams or tubes in the areas close to the m25 and of course it boarders are not under the control of TfL, so its a tax without representation.
1. will this win the next election for me.
2. do I have the funding.
There are a few nailed on anti car lobby groups like road peace, sustains, road.cc etc. who spend a lot of time trying to influence policy. But at the end of the day. If it's not funded or a vote winner it will go in the bin.
The expanded ULEZ is coming now, because we already had 20% of new cars being electric, so the opportunity to fleece people is drying up.
ULEZ/LEZ makes sense in central London where you can jump on a buss or tube, but there are no trams or tubes in the areas close to the m25 and of course it boarders are not under the control of TfL, so its a tax without representation.
Yep...
A 1.8 that isn't particularly great fuel wise either, but totally reliable.
Of course as these zones are rolled out to other places around the country, then the compliance ratings will inevitably change!
He would (in fact did) introduce an ULEZ for INNER London only where it is more concentrated, more polluted and was needed. It just isn’t needed in outer london boroughs. Worse still, it affects those just outside the expanded zone that have to drive in to the zone to work at unsociable hours in poorly paid jobs when there is no public transport that can be used. No help given to those people at all. Proof again that Labour cares absolutely **** all for the poor working classes despite what they claim. We could afford to buy a non compliant car (but didn’t) but many others just can’t. We could have applied for 'scrappage' but why scrap a perfectly serviceable vehicle that is going nowhere near central London?
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
