To wonder what all the fuss is about ULEZ

[Winterday1991]

Hardly anyone is affected, only if you have a very old car. No, you should not be free to pollute the air by driving around in a polluting vehicle and so should have to pay a penalty to do so.

It annoys me as everyone agrees we need to tackle climate change, but no one wants the hit on their life/ change their lifestyles.

Your last bit isn't true.

You can have UB, DA, EN, IG, RM, CR, SM, KT, BR, TW etc postcodes and live in Greater London.

Replacement of Bathrooms and Kitchens due to them being "dated" could be another candidate for banning to prevent emissions we can live without.

They earn a fortune considering most of them come from very working class backgrounds

Wow, you sound like a peach

I would like to know @Pigsears 's answer to this too.

Many people say "dated" when they are actually falling apart.

However you can't sell a bathroom/kitchen saying it is "falling apart" so you have to use the term "dated".

The 40000 deaths is a statistical estimate of excess deaths due to PM2.5 for the whole of the UK.
Of course PM2.5 levels are higher in densely populated areas, but they don't just come from older diesel vehicles, woodburners are a major source in cities, along with Industry.

They may be behind it but that doesn't mean it's been brought in to address health issues.

Even with the introduction of "tougher" rules on tailpipe emissions NOx has not been reduced as much as expected because emissions in ‘real-world’ driving are often higher than those measured during the approval tests. Even brand new vehicles, completely exempt from ULEZ charges, produce unsafe levels of NOx.

And the health detriments from PPM 2.5 and 10 are not in doubt either, yet a significant producer of those emissions (brake / tyre / road wear) are just ignored.

If it was really about improving health there would be a blanket ban on the worst offending vehicles, not a "if you're rich enough to pay you can get around it" ban, as well as some regulations about the composition of tyres, breaks, etc, the same way they've done with exhaust emissions.

I live in an LTN.

Except emissions have increased on my road, because they funnelled all the bloody traffic down it - in fact, all of the roads with schools on in the area have had emissions increases and slower traffic, because they chose not to block car access to schools. So children can walk down slightly less polluted side roads to very polluted main routes.

And the rush hour buses go slower.

The thing that will actually reduce traffic - the new railway line - is delayed due to budgetary reasons. They spent several million on their plant pots in the road.

The Councillor behind it lives on what is now a publicly funded private road.

I'd rather have a few nice, old/vintage cars than thousands of Range Rovers etc😵‍💫

This is the fault of people making unnecessary journeys and nothing else, I'm afraid.

I'm both a car owner and someone who mostly uses public transport.

They've been making Range Rovers since 1970, so you could have both :)

This , plenty of people with low paid jobs ie carers retail staff hospital hca’s living just outside the outer boroughs ie Havering Hillingdon are going to have to pay to come into work or find jobs elsewhere.
I also find the OP’s post about tradesmen offensive, and goady.

I will have to pay £12.50 to drive ds to school if I don't manage to change cars, which I won't be able to do without my parent's help. Second hand cars are now very expensive.

The charge is really punitive for those of us right on the border. Literally half my life is on the other side: school, gym, friends, family.

What an odd thing to say. I have a KT postcode but pay my council tax to Elmbridge. Not London Borough of Kingston, even though it's one road away. I do know where I live!

If it was really about improving health there would be a blanket ban on the worst offending vehicles, not a "if you're rich enough to pay you can get around it" ban
The effect's the same - poorer people who can't afford a compliant car will have to pay the charge. A total ban on older cars would mean only wealthier people could have a car.

A 2017 Astra K Diesel is compliant, according to the LEZ checker website.

So, you're correct that not all diesels are non-compliant.

What? Why?

An electric car produces zero emissions....and why should someone be penalised because they can afford a new car?

Why should someone be penalised because they can't afford a newer car?

I'm not saying they should be. Obviously.

I wildly disagree with the ULEZ charge, and that's one reason I do.

I just wondered what convoluted logic OP was using to make such a bizarre statement.

Absolutely. Woodburning should also be banned in all but the very most rural areas, where there is a genuine reliance on it as the only form of beating. Absolutely no need to do it in a city.

It’s not an either/or. We shouldn’t ignore pollution from vehicles because we’re being too lax on woodburning. We need to be doing all we can to reduce air pollution across the board.

I agree with you that ULEZ expansion on its own isn’t enough, but it needs to happen as one important step forward and then we go forward feom
there.

The flip side of that is why should someone be penalised because they can’t afford to move out of the city?

The people most affected by air pollution are the poorer among us. The ones who are trapped in social housing on main roads and in inner cities who don’t have the freedom to move out to leafier areas. Poorer people and those from ethnic minorities are bearing the brunt of the negative health impacts of air pollution, even though as a group they contribute the least to it. That’s not fair. It’s not just. It needs to change.

My car is 2015 plate and I live just on the London boundary so I will now be impacted by the ULEZ expansion and we got no say in the matter. I actually paid extra for my car to have blue motion to reduce emissions but it’s still deemed non compliant. I live in an area where the public transport is infrequent and unreliable and we don’t have the tube so we have to rely on our car. Our local school for example is 6 miles away and there isn’t a straightforward or reliable public transport link to get there. My neighbours car will be non compliant too, she is a carer and says she will have to give up her position as she can’t afford a new car or the £12.50 a day of which she’ll find herself paying twice a shift. Khan manipulated the consultation in his favour when the results showed opposition to ULEZ and the EXPANSION also wasn’t in his manifesto - If this goes through the goal posts will keep being moved so that more cars are deemed non compliant, then we’ll start seeing road charging such as pay per mile.

If it was really about improving health there would be a blanket ban on the worst offending vehicles, not a "if you're rich enough to pay you can get around it" ban, as well as some regulations about the composition of tyres, breaks, etc, the same way they've done with exhaust emissions

There has been a very clear, substantial, reduction in non-compliant vehicles within the ULEZ zone after its introduction, both the first time and the existing expansion. It’s expected that this will happen again. Revenue tails off and that is fine, because revenue is not the goal, the gaol is to reduce the amount of the most polluting vehicles, to get the reduction in air pollution and health benefits that follow.

The results previously have not been perfect, but are still well worth having. We should not let our desire for perfection get in the way of having something good.

@onefinemess hope none of them need a district nurse then or figure out ways of people being looked after at home which is what they keep pushing for. I live rurally and work in community nursing covering that wide rural area so will need my car for quite some time to come

https://www.cityhallconservatives.com/post/fact-check-ulez-has-negligible-effect-on-air-quality