Ulez zone start April 19

[ahmedali44]

I'm sure everyone knows about new ulez tax is coming soon in April. I check my Is250 and it's exempt from it but diesel owners b aware of driving into London as it's gonna b 24/7. Government is really ripping consumers off.

[Linas.P]

I thought IS200d should be exempt too just based on the age, but that is not the case... only diesels from 2015 with some exceptions.

I cannot say it makes me sad, as honestly diesels were never suited for city, except of the fact government pushed for the diesel with the policy and the taxation and now motorists have to take a hit.

If the goverment wouldn't have promoted diesel in the first place, it would have not caused the problems and those few who would have diesel would no make any difference, hence there would be no need to for targeted bans. They call it tax, but lets face it - what are the alternatives? Change the car of use stinking public transport which is even less fit for purpose?!

[Texas]

Vehicle checker here. https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/vrm-checker-ulez

And on 25/10/21the zone will be extended out to the North & South Circular Road!!!!

paul m.

[leelacey17]

The south circular starts at the bottom of my road it's going to be a massive Impact to people. So many cars will effectively become worthless

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[The-Acre]

1 hour ago, leelacey17 said:

The south circular starts at the bottom of my road it's going to be a massive Impact to people. So many cars will effectively become worthless

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 

And you can't help wondering if that's the plan, to make many cars worthless. Annoyingly my Volvo gets hit but my wife's 11 year old Astra doesn't.  Thankfully my driving in London days are few and far between these days, but a feel for anyone living and driving near the zone.  I have to admit though, driving and parking in Mount Pleasant recently was almost enjoyable due to the lack of traffic within the congestion zone.

[leelacey17]

And you can't help wondering if that's the plan, to make many cars worthless. Annoyingly my Volvo gets hit but my wife's 11 year old Astra doesn't.  Thankfully my driving in London days are few and far between these days, but a feel for anyone living and driving near the zone.  I have to admit though, driving and parking in Mount Pleasant recently was almost enjoyable due to the lack of traffic within the congestion zone.

I'm currently considering a change of car for practicality purposes and it effectively writes off diesel even for a few years as it would be worthless by the time it gets introduced. People driving older cars now will really struggle with it in a few years as they won't have the money to upgrade. My is250 gets in now but how soon will the requirement be euro 5 petrol.



Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Linas.P]

It is just another way to rip the people-off. New car sales are slowing down, electric cars demand is not as high as some investors like - problem solved by planned obsolescence, which in this case is congestion charge. It is impossible to drive in central London even with congestion, so it makes no difference for pollution or locals being better off with less traffic. The key is that UK roads are not fit for purpose - fixing capacity issues would be expensive, but banking on cycling (trowing people to die on the roads - if not from lorry then from cancer 20 years later) and forcing people to use public transport is always cheaper.

[The-Acre]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

It is just another way to rip the people-off. New car sales are slowing down, electric cars demand is not as high as some investors like - problem solved by planned obsolescence, which in this case is congestion charge. It is impossible to drive in central London even with congestion, so it makes no difference for pollution or locals being better off with less traffic. The key is that UK roads are not fit for purpose - fixing capacity issues would be expensive, but banking on cycling (trowing people to die on the roads - if not from lorry then from cancer 20 years later) and forcing people to use public transport is always cheaper.

I would use public transport more if it was any good, but generally it isn't. We travel along our coast road to Brighton often and I can do it by car in 25 mins, the bus can take 75 minutes and I have to listen to everyone's phone calls, smell their kebabs and stick to their chewing gum. The train, Southern Rail, is sooo bad. Twice I've gone back to the ticket office for a refund because no train has appeared.  So I'll keep on driving until they squeeze me off the road, which possibly won't be long as the NCP car park in Brighton is £16 for 3 hours! Just a thought, maybe I should buy a small power boat!🛥🚢

[Linas.P]

9 minutes ago, The-Acre said:

.... bus can take 75 minutes and I have to listen to everyone's phone calls, smell their kebabs and stick to their chewing gum.

That is public transport, it always stinks... I doubt it is possible to make it any different without making it so expensive it would price out most of public, by which point is not longer really a public transport. Think air-planes or first class in trains... they usually look decent, but that is because usual Joe on his way for kebab would not take one.

You living outside of bigger city, totally makes sense to drive, but I even find ways in London to justify driving... for one reason - public transport is just inadequate.. awful even if it would be free it would still be awful, but as we know it actually isn't. I have to take it from time to time i.e. going out for the drinks or my car is left in garage for some sort of work - but usually that is end of the world for me... 

[The-Acre]

11 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

That is public transport, it always stinks... I doubt it is possible to make it any different without making it so expensive it would price out most of public, by which point is not longer really a public transport. Think air-planes or first class in trains... they usually look decent, but that is because usual Joe on his way for kebab would not take one.

You living outside of bigger city, totally makes sense to drive, but I even find ways in London to justify driving... for one reason - public transport is just inadequate.. awful even if it would be free it would still be awful, but as we know it actually isn't. I have to take it from time to time i.e. going out for the drinks or my car is left in garage for some sort of work - but usually that is end of the world for me... 

Up until last October my wife was having treatment, followed by regular checkups at a Chelsea hospital. This went on for over five years.  We used to drive from Sussex to Putney where we could park and get the bus from there. That became such an ordeal that eventually we would just drive all the way.  Parking in Chelsea was always a challenge but we always found somewhere.  It just became so much more convenient, and so much quicker. And with pay by phone the cost of parking was easy to get just right without paying more than we needed.  Thankfully that's all behind us now but I would never do it by bus again, especially after being on it in 34 degrees at one time.

[Linas.P]

Sometimes, we have to pay for out "dignity"... We buy maybe not the worst clothes just to look decent, eat not the worst food if we care about nutrition and I see no difference in driving - sometimes driving car into the city is not most economical way, but considering alternatives that extra cost is necessary. I personally don't think people should be making such choices for "privilege" of being independent and driving them selves around (that is basic right in my opinion and we already pay for it more then anyone else), but that is still better then sharing diseases and farts on the public transport. 

[leelacey17]

Currently as I work in most of London I have to use trains and tubes bit don't use buses as they are vile. I do have to drive to a larger station but once the extension kicks in I will pass through the zone even though the station is only a few miles away.

It's going to cause massive rat runs around the local roads as people try to escape around it.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[IS200D]

This will affect me massively, but I do see the need for London to be cleaned up, I also see that it will be a strain on poorer households and will cripple business that depend on passing trade.

While I understand our Mayor's overriding need is to make a name for himself, I fail to see the difference ulez will make. Black cabs will still churn out black smoke (they've suffered enough due to uber so deserve a break), businesses will pay the fee and pass it on to customers, and my neighbour (still wondering what village is missing its idiot) will carry on chucking manky old pallets on his open fire.

[leelacey17]

This will affect me massively, but I do see the need for London to be cleaned up, I also see that it will be a strain on poorer households and will cripple business that depend on passing trade.
While I understand our Mayor's overriding need is to make a name for himself, I fail to see the difference ulez will make. Black cabs will still churn out black smoke (they've suffered enough due to uber so deserve a break), businesses will pay the fee and pass it on to customers, and my neighbour (still wondering what village is missing its idiot) will carry on chucking manky old pallets on his open fire.

I absolutely agree to it being cleaned up. It's just amazing how many cars will be effected with this extension. Literally millions I would guess. Think you get a short term discount if you live inside the zone. I live half a mile out of it.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Linas.P]

London wouldn't need clean-up if the infrastructure would be up-to scratch, if measures for taking out polluting cars would be in place (I mean real polluting cars, not just paper checks) and if goverment would not have spend 2 decades promoting diesels. Secondly, simply taxing until it hurts doesn't require much brain, but to actually make the system which works is more difficult... It is sad that in UK community and especially motorists do not have some sort of collective mind and do not protest government non-sense, if any such new stupid measure would cause mass riots goverment woudl think twice.

[Linas.P]

Just by accident (or if one wear tin-hat - "mass surveillance") I came across this documentary - fact check done (DW is actually very high on the rate of facts and just mildly leftist): 

Some interesting findings... One thing I have noticed myself is that monitoring stations are always set in the locations completely misrepresenting average conditions. Quite insightful (but not surprising at all) are that pollution is higher by the traffic lights, same can be applied to any congested area. So by making traffic more free flowing and less stationary would actually reduce pollution significantly without reducing number of cars on the roads (again nothing new), however charging congestion charge makes money, whereas fixing roads costs money - guess what goverment prefers...

Other thing which is quite interesting is how much NOx gas heaters and cookers produce! I guess the point is clear - cars do pollute, but so does 100 other sources, why only the car drivers have to pay? maybe because it is easy to demonise us and because cars have license plates it is as well easy to charge.

Now by now means I do not support drivers removing DPFs and for no good reason emitting unnecessary pollutants, or the ones driving with smoke screen behind. However, the bans and fines should be more targeted, instead of simply applying blanked ban or charge for everyone - that is just lazy. 

Finally, government pushed for the diesels based on flimsy evidence, now they ban them on flimsy evidence... 10 years later we will find that they have pushed us wrong direction and actual production of electric cars, electricity and wasted potential by scrapping good cars actually produces similar amount of waste if not more as continue driving as we do.

[olliesgrandad]

On 1/28/2019 at 1:57 PM, Linas.P said:

I thought IS200d should be exempt too just based on the age, but that is not the case... only diesels from 2015 with some exceptions.

I cannot say it makes me sad, as honestly diesels were never suited for city, except of the fact government pushed for the diesel with the policy and the taxation and now motorists have to take a hit.

If the goverment wouldn't have promoted diesel in the first place, it would have not caused the problems and those few who would have diesel would no make any difference, hence there would be no need to for targeted bans. They call it tax, but lets face it - what are the alternatives? Change the car of use stinking public transport which is even less fit for purpose?!

Yes we all bought diesels because Blair and his cronies told us they were better for the environment. 

When I was a small boy I stayed with my Uncle in Ireland. He owned the local garage. I vividly remember him saying that one puff of diesel smoke from a bus or lorry was worse than smoking a thousand cigarettes. This was around 1967. 

Wasn't he ever a wise man. 

[First_Lexus]

Given just a few short years this sort of thing will be implemented in every city and large town.

Consultations are on-going almost everywhere if you look hard enough on local Government websites, although some are better publicised than others - Bath being a good example. Interestingly on their website they even recommend drivers choose petrol over diesel when changing their vehicle.

I've posted a couple of the links to the consultations/plans active at the moment - but if you use a search engine with your nearest large town and 'clean air zone' you should - eventually - be able to find what they are consulting on. They're all having to come up with plans to meet central Government air quality targets.

Bath low emissions zone

Bristol clean air zone

Leeds clean air zone

 

[dutchie01]

Diesel is dead. Only company using them in future will be Caterpillar.

[Linas.P]

5 hours ago, First_Lexus said:

Interestingly on their website they even recommend drivers choose petrol over diesel when changing their vehicle.

And that is actually the problem - petrol is not always better than diesel. For city driving yes, but if ones does 30k miles a year on motorway and just occasionally have to drive past the city you are not even better off - you are best of with diesel and environment is better of as well.

That is common problem, goverment only seems to be interested to find scapegoats to hide their inability to manage the infrastructure. All passenger cars combined are only 2.4% of the pollution, now NOx seems to be new buzz word, but previously it was CO2.. next one will be something else, but after all this is just a tip of an iceberg of the pollution problem. If everyone going to stop driving tomorrow we would only reduce pollution by 2.4%.. that all it is. If we replace coal and oil fired power stations with say nuclear ones, we can safe 10-15% of overall pollution. If we stop consuming like crazy, trowing away half worn tyres, wearing disposable "fashion" clothes and shoes, buying stupid kids toys which last 5 minutes after box is open, scrapping 5 years old diesel cars - we can reduce pollution by another 20%. But hey - that would cost money, that would not be popular... it is much easier to vilify motorists - yeah motoring is dirty, lets slam them with taxes (make nice money) and add another picture of "fumes" when the condensate of pure H2O is pouring out of exhaust pipes in the colder morning - you see "pollution"!

[dutchie01]

all passenger cars combined and 2.4% pollution, that doesnt sound right to me...

i did not do any factchecking but i thought all cars did some 20% of carbondioxide and some 50 or 70% of nox?

[Linas.P]

4 hours ago, dutchie01 said:

all passenger cars combined and 2.4% pollution, that doesnt sound right to me...

i did not do any factchecking but i thought all cars did some 20% of carbondioxide and some 50 or 70% of nox?

Measured where - at the kerb side? Probably you right.

Just to clarify 2.4% is specifically for CO2 and it is national figure for UK. Meaning average ton of X gas a year, locally to you it could be more or it could be less. Accurate figures for pollution are hard to come by as they often omits many pollutants or like TFL did for London - they simply disregarded all the rest of the sources and took the "pie chart" just about transportation and concluded some 40% NOx from passenger vehicles - that is at the street level somewhere in Camden only considering road transportation which itself is like 10% of total pollution, so 40% of 10% at the street level in Camden during evening rush hour in winter.

When you see the graphs check sources and what they actually showing, because most of the time they are total non-sense.

E.g. compare these 3 graphs from the same presentation. One states cars makes 70% of emissions (that is probably what you are referring to):

But ... it is just road transportation, the entire transportation graph is here:

But.... then this is just transportation, without considering other industries:

Ok... so we finally getting somewhere.. But these are just GHG, not total pollution?! And in the end I am not even sure I trust the sources.

If we go by this specific presentation, then you can clearly see how it gets abused and confusing for average Joe, what you will get in you evening news or morning newspaper is the first graph which says in capitals "CAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 70%!!! POLLUTION, DANGER, KILLS PEOPLE", but if you check then actually what they mean is 70% of 71.8% of 19.7% which is actually ~10%, but includes vans and other light commercial vehicles and in the end this is only GHGs if you adjust for PM, Sulphur, Soot, non-industrial etc.... well you see the picture.

I personally, have not found a single source which would have total pollution with up to date figures for all sources of pollution. If I would care I could potentially do the study myself combining multiple secondary sources and getting somewhere closer to real pollution figures. But frankly I am not bothered - even if I do it government still going to continue to vilify motorists just because it is convenient. Finally, any source you take they will quote different figures, but one thing stays very clear that ~70% of pollution worldwide is caused by 3 main industries - Manufacturing, Energy and Agriculture. If you looking for big change you need to go against these 3.. the rest are just to "save the face".

[dutchie01]

I dont often visit big cities but today i did. Walked on the pavement in a very busy road and oh dear, the smell of exhaust fumes was just terrible. It blocked my nose hurt my throath and i just wanted to get away from it. This is a street where people live, children grow up.

i cant wait until the moment all inner cities will be electric only this  just cannot be accepted anymore.

want a big engine, fine store it somewhere and drive it in the weekend like people now gave horses as a hobby. 

For daily commute it is time to move on

 

 

 

 

[Linas.P]

On 2/19/2019 at 6:00 PM, dutchie01 said:

I dont often visit big cities but today i did. Walked on the pavement in a very busy road and oh dear, the smell of exhaust fumes was just terrible. It blocked my nose hurt my throath and i just wanted to get away from it. This is a street where people live, children grow up.

i cant wait until the moment all inner cities will be electric only this  just cannot be accepted anymore.

want a big engine, fine store it somewhere and drive it in the weekend like people now gave horses as a hobby. 

For daily commute it is time to move on

So you walked on next to the busy road...was it congested, queuing traffic? Right? So obviously if the traffic would be free flowing there would be much less fumes at the pavement level? Based on most basic estimates the pollution would be at least 3 times less... 

Where I am getting with this - pollution problem is not only with the car, largely it is with design of the roads. Lets say in right conditions car can do 50MPG @ 50 MPH, which means per hour you going to burn 1 gallon and travel 50 miles and generate pollution equal to burning that 1 gallon, however if the road infrastructure is bad (as it mostly is), then you will only be able to achieve 25MPG and only @ 25MPH, so you will burn double the amount of fuel and generate double the amount of pollution in the same car. So it is always easy to blame cars for everything, but what have we done to allow them to run efficiently?

Additionally, all the parts in the car wears much less in free flowing traffic, the roads wears wears less as well and all emission controls are more effective, engines more effcient. When it comes to wear of parts that is PM pollution... and guess what - regularly cleaning/washing the roads can reduce PMP by over 70%. I remember rather archaic method was used some time ago in the summers (when PM pollution can get very bad), there were simply truck spraying water on the road. It is claimed it reduces PMP by 20%, which isn't much but helps reduce PM pollution to acceptable levels.. just simply by making the road wet! Imagine if they properly washed.. and so... when was the last time you seen roads being washed - again we blame cars even though we do not properly maintain roads?!... with austerity in UK I have forgotten how this thing looks:

Again you say that fumes were terrible, but what I often see - closest to the pavement you have HGVs and Buses which are unbelievably inefficient in traffic, burns diesel and have lax emission controls or just generally pollutes much more then average car... but whenever issue comes-up it is always issue with the cars... bizarre. Then you said it was burning you throat right? Here is the thing - CO2, NOx, CH and most of other gasses coming from tailpipe are colourless and has no smell or taste - you could not know if you inhale them. It might make you dizzy over time, but you would not smell them, never mind have sore throat. What you can feel on the other hand is SO2 - because of sulphur (but assuming you anywhere in EU.. that should not exist anymore), soot  - so it must have been diesel cars, or PM... which as explained indicates poorly maintained road above anything else.

To summarise... without changing cars we can still reduce pollution massively and I mean by 70% or more, not marginally. Just by planning, building and maintaining road infrastructure correctly. Oh but here is a catch - to build roads it costs money... not good for politics. What is good for politics instead is push bull crap like this about car pollution because it makes money, there is good justification to tax cars heavily (especially small private ones which pollutes least), cars sales heavily and promote cars depreciation and scrapping, because more sales generates more revenue. Furthermore, making sales generates even more income, because that stimulates economy by manufacturing new cars. What is result of that - over consumtion, scrapping of perfectly good cars, planned obsolescence etc. So what we save in driving more fuel efficient cars we waste 10 times over making them.

Finally, driving electrical cars in the city will create more pollution in country side where power stations and car manufacturing plants are (and where I assume you live)... so worse for you. Not sure why you would want that. To save half of 2.4% (personal vehicles) pollution in the city to double 70% (manufacturing and power generation) pollution in the country side?! wrong logic.