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.

Do you really believe that when the airport and HS2 are still going ahead

Except the poor ones, they can die quicker when they can’t afford to buy food and stuff...

It would be interesting to see the difference in pollution between cars and planes.

It might just be an urban myths but it's rumoured that the G8 summit that was held in Glasgow produced more CO2 than Scotland does in a year with lots of private jets.

It’s hard and ULEZ is not perfect but bottom line is that we need to have less cars on the roads. Not everyone can use public transportation but A LOT of drivers in cars on the road can but prefer not to. After decades asking people to cut down and cut back it still isn’t happening so it looks like we need to be forced out of our cars by making it more painful to drive then take other options. Yes, there will be some who do not have that option but there are more who can. It’s not fair that the poor and disadvantaged will be hard hit but this government doesn’t care about them anyway. It’s not fair that the rich won’t feel it but that’s usually the case. We need to clamour for better public transportation options. We need cleaner air, children and vulnerable people are really suffering. We also need to look at other things such as fireplaces and wood burners as they are also massive polluters. And stop subsidising airline fuel etc etc.

It wasn't. It was just one you didn't like.

Ha ha - no - I really couldn't care less, but it was oddly written - maybe it was chatgpt or something.

Also this bit Just don't tell people what they are and not allowed to talk about on Mumsnet even in AIBU or not. was weird as at no point had I tried to do that.

But that is fulfilling government policy so it can't be wrong can it?

You obviously do care because you've replied twice. That's fine, I care about this issue too but I take a different view to you. I also think, though I might be wrong, that you've done the same thing as the OP in conflating the separate issues of air pollution and climate change.

You said:

"OP is BU as ULEZ is nothing to do with Climate Change as my example of the V8 Land Rover being compliant clearly shows."

Saying someone on AIBU is BU usually means you don't think the issue is worth debating and we should move on. In a way, it's telling people what they should or shouldn't talk about. I sometimes go along with it but in this case I don't.

OP made the mistake of thinking ULEZ was a climate change measure when we both know it's a measure to tackle air pollution on a localised level. But her mistake in conflating the two is not a grave one and also understandable, IMO.

You appear to have done it too. It's true that CO2 is associated with climate change, but it is also a factor in localised air pollution, particularly on very hot days in urban areas with heavy traffic where it contributes to a smog-like effect which is very dangerous for health.

Just because she made a mistake doesn't mean other people can't talk about what ULEZ really means. That's what I'm doing and some other people on this thread.

Lots of us file these issues under "things we should do about the environment to make the world a safer place."

Do you think measures to tackle air pollution from whatever source - motor vehicle, aircraft, wood burning stoves for instance - are a good idea?

I do, particularly because I live in an urban area where air pollution from all these sources is high and my health and that of my neighbours is compromised.

That's why I approve of ULEZ because it tackles one of these causes. Every scheme has its flaws and you've pointed one out with the Land Rover model from about 2005 that is ULEZ-compliant but also emits high levels of CO2.

I take back my earlier comment and admit it is an interesting point. But that's not a reason to scrap ULEZ, rather than saying: "Fightyouforthatpie has made a discovery about high CO2-emitting vehicles that though ULEZ-compliant are contributing to air pollution. Let's examine that and decide whether our rules should also exclude that particular vehicle and others that emit the same levels of CO2."

I now think that's worth looking at and could make ULEZ an even better scheme. Thanks.

Saying someone on AIBU is BU usually means you don't think the issue is worth debating and we should move on
What a ridiculous and illogical assertion - saying YABU means I disagree and wish to debate the issue, not "shut up let's never mention this again"

But that's not a reason to scrap ULEZ

And at no point did I suggest it was. I was pointing out that the OP was complaining about other people's attitude to climate change - which didn't make sense as the ULEZ isn't helping climate change. That doesn't mean I object to Londoners having clean air, but the OP was confused about what the point of ULEZ is.

You have a really odd approach to this - you seem to be suggesting I was trying to shut down debate when I definitely wasn't, and you keep making ridiculous straw man statements, lies actually, about what I've said.

Okay @Fightyouforthatpie as an olive branch I admit I was wrong. I was not lying about you though, so please don't say that.

OP was confused but you've cleared that up for her.

Lets continue the debate because that's what you said you want to do.

Do you think ULEZ in order to cut air pollution not just in London, but also similar schemes in other UK cities is a good idea or not?

Do you agree with me that the vehicle model you mentioned is a contributor to localised air pollution and ought to banned under an amendment to the ULEZ scheme? I think it should and so should others like it if they exist.

I have very little first-hand technical knowledge about this issue but as you appear to, your contribution is invaluable.

There are a lot of issues.
ULEZ in itself is a laudable aim - who doesn't want clean air to breathe?
There are some examples of how it will affect ordinary people in a really disproportionate and unfair manner though, and it only exports the issue somewhere else.
Your suggestion of banning certain vehicles is interesting - if the aim really is to eradicate the polluting vehicles, why charge a premium for their use? Why not just a ban (but with appropriate scrappage or similar assistance).

I also agree that far more needs to be done to combat other sources of harmful emissions - but cars are an easy target for cynical short-termist politicians.

BTW on a technical point - that Land Rover was just one example that popped into my head, but there are countless others - in fact most petrol cars of the type that ULEZ permits will have much higher Co2 output than the diesel versions.

I've seen this attitude at public meetings - eco activists who entirely dismiss the needs and wants of the elderly and disabled. I've heard a disabled woman say she hadn't left the house for a week because of a trial road closure and no one advocating for the road closure gave a fuck. It's really ugly.

I'm parking the bit about the need to eat, pay bills etc because I'm sure you realise that just like you and your husband, we don't live for free either.

I don't disagree with you that this will cause hardship, but clean air should not be a luxury. That's why I have said on this thread or another one that we should increase the scrappage scheme.

This is a public health issue and as such should be tackled by the current Government rather than being left to local authorities to deal with while they sit back and watch people squabbling and hope to enjoy the electoral gain like where they saved their skin in the Uxbridge by election.

You'd never say: "There's a cost of living crisis so we sadly have to cut the NHS." But that's essentially what this government is saying. It is forcing people to make major decisions that are their responsibility.

Since the 1950s, successive governments, both Tory and Labour, have passed Clean Air Acts to improve life for their citizens and also to cut hidden costs to the NHS of treating illnesses caused by air pollution.

If a better scrappage scheme is needed to help people make the transition to cleaner cars for the good of all citizens then that is the responsibility of central, not local government. They could impose a tax and we could all chip in a little bit, even people like me who hasn't had a car for 20 years.

I think that is fair, don't you?

Local government could then concentrate on things like discouraging car journeys or directing all but essential traffic away from certain areas such as residential roads and schools.

Public transport should be much better. It's good where I live, which is why I am so in favour of ULEZ, but I realise that in many areas it is not. Again, that's an issue for central Government because there is only so much local councils can do. That's not possible in rural areas but it certainly is for most people in most circumstances in urban and suburban areas which is where most of us live. It's not pie in the sky as a PP has said.

I'm not anti-car. I enjoyed driving both for the convenience and also owning a nice car. There are many cars that other people own that I think are things of beauty. I also understand that many people need cars, but most of us don't.

I've noticed all the eco types are usually able bodied, middle class, childfree, with WFH jobs and zero caring responsibilities

Does it put you out of work? It puts us straight out and closes a business that has run for 50 years. Two doctors a teacher and 3 others without choldcare

You are closing a 50 year old business for want of a newer vehicle?

What do you plan to do in 2030 when petrol cars will not longer be sold?

I knew someone 30 years ago who had a 20-year-old Land Rover - that huge brick on wheels in beige - and it was reliable as anything. I doubt if it's still going, despite his formidable skills as a mechanic, but it might be and therefore might be compliant under ULEZ rules as a vintage vehicle.

I have a very rich friend who has two cars from the 1970s. One is a hard top E-type and the other is a Mercedes sports convertible circa 1975. I specifically asked him about this because ULEZ is £12.50 a day, and even though he's rich I thought that was a bit steep even for him. He told me they were exempt because they are classed as vintage.

My point is that I like seeing those cars about - I am not anti-car either for essential or decorative use - but that there is such a vanishingly small number of people who drive E-Types and Mercedes or ancient Land Rovers that they are not making a major contribution to air pollution so I'll let them off.

The rich friend's big end has just gone on the Mercedes. It's going to cost about £3,000. He'll pay it but most of us would wave goodbye if the repair bill cost £500. Scrappage schemes and sentiment aside, there comes a point where it is economic madness to keep a car going. Therefore I don't see the few anomalies to ULEZ as a major problem. They will just die.

@Comedycook

I've encountered a few women like this, very nice but quite well off, their husbands earn good salaries and they have time to participate in the climate protests like extinction rebellion as they are not working or have flexible working and do not have to be in the office every day reporting to someone else

I was born working class but am arguably middle class by reason of my education and occupation if not income. I don't have children and it's not anyone's business to ask me why. I work in an office which I travel to by public transport. My biggest regret is not being able-bodied. I have no caring responsibilities because my parents and cat are dead and as I've said, I have no children.

WTF has any of this to do with the price of fish?

@woodhill it is now about 11.30am. What allows you the luxury to be on Mumsnet rather than earning a living? Should you not be getting on with it? Is there not someone you should be reporting to? Or are you that person?

Please don't say you're starting a shift as a trauma surgeon later because I'm afraid I won't believe you.

Lol I'm on leave😀

I'll go and do something more exciting like the ironing

@limitedperiodonly

What about you?

Does what put me out of work? Not ULEZ. But you suggested that I didn't have to pay bills like you and your husband, which is silly. Everyone has to pay bills.

I said there should be a better scrappage system sponsored by the Government because this is a public health issue. As you talked about two doctors who will presumably lose their jobs, I'd have thought public health would be an important point to you.

It is to me. What is your 50-year-old business involving doctors and a teacher that doesn't involve public health and educational standards in some way? It sounds like a loss to the community for want of a ULEZ-compliant car or two.