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.
