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.

Like you I'm here all day today

^^ all that

Publicly owned roads funded by taxes are now charging people again to use them. That's on top fuel duty.

Revolutions have started over less.

The congestion charge has exisited in London for 20 years - with little sign of a revolution yet.

I mean the rrailway infrastructure is publically owned but somehow I still keep being charged to use it. It's an outrage.

The congestion charge covers a tiny geographic area which also has the best public transport in the country.

Are you thinking about the anti-English Rebecca riots in mid-19th century Wales? I love that story and the film with Peter O'Toole and Keith Allen based on the Dylan Thomas novella. But it's not the same as ULEZ in London.

I strongly approve of direct action but as an ordinary car-free resident who'd just like to breathe you can trust me that I will not be womanning the barricades for people's right to drive all over my neighbourhood just because it's easier. I take a dim view of anyone who insists it's their right.

LOL this is such a middle class mumsnet OP.

Of course you don't know what the fuss is.

Neither did the Labour party.

That's why they failed to win Uxbridge.

Yeah, but two out of three by-elections from the Tories ain't bad @ScreamingBeans. And breathe.

Screaming beans, I thought it was the middle classes baying to keep their big cars

@ScreamingBeans I live in the ULEZ and I like it. But if you don't, make an argument against it. Extra points if you live here.

The eco types aren't really anything to do with this policy.

Ella Kissi-Debrah is

Ella Kissi-Debrah death: Family 'didn't know about toxic air' - BBC News

Children should not be dying because of unclean air, nor should we ignore the rates of asthma and other lung diseases

I agree. This little girl should not have died. Every time I hear her mum speak for her so eloquently, as she did on Radio 4 last week, I punch the polluted air. Ella's death was the first put down with air pollution as the cause of her death. I don't live that far from Ella but I didn't have her little lungs But I do have my middle aged lungs. We should not have to put up with people's selfish decisions to drive where we live and the refusal of central or local government to invest in public transport.

A 6year diesel old car is not old, and it was recommended by government to use diesels up until recently. We have one of the strictest tests in the world called an MOT, and unless you regularly Service your car, it’s difficult to get your car through the stringent emissions test.

a fifteen/sixteen year old petrol car that has been well maintained will have more years left in it, and if it isn’t well maintained the MOT will see that it’s either brought back to legal standard if possible or it’s sold abroad or scrapped

I totally agree that cars should be clean and that it’s not like a few years ago, where you couldn’t see or breathe sometimes because of exhaust fumes, but strict mot rules has changed all that, but we know that ulez is the gateway for pay per mile, otherwise it would be like Scotland - a hefty fine for driving your vehicle in the area, not pay a few pounds to drive in the zone as it is in London

Yes exactly

Why are classic cars exempt

It doesn't make any sense

And it was too hard to come up with something that wouldn’t also affect low earners who need to drive?

like, I don’t know, an actual decent scrappage scheme? They could means test it and people would have to prove they couldn’t use public transport.

Or exemptions for certain professions.

I’m sure people who are actually paid to think up stuff like that could come up with actual workable idea better than the ones it took me two seconds to think up.

Except it didn’t cross their minds that there are home carers and parcel couriers (and all the rest) now trying to work out if they’re better getting into debt they can’t afford to buy a new car or lose nearly a full days pay on charges every week.

I don't know what you mean. Would you mind running it by me again only slowly this time?

There are lots of lowly paid jobs that require you to drive your own car, either as part of the job or because of being outside the hours public transport runs.

If you work for round about minimum wage (and actually some get away with paying less) and have a car that isn’t ULEZ compliant, then it’s going to cost nearly a day’s pay every week to work.

People aren’t complaining that someone will have to pay it occasionally rather than take a bus they’re going to have to pay it daily out of a low wage just to work.

If anyone had even remembered or cared people like that exist, they’d have come up with a better system.

Interesting article from Imperial College about the effects of ULEZ.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/231894/london-pollution-improved-with-evidence/

Thanks. I understand that. But what about people like me who live here? Are we supposed to put up with air pollution and the ill health it causes?

I said earlier on today to someone saying that she and her husband would be put out of business that this was a matter that should be dealt with by central, not local government as a matter of public health policy.

She didn't come back to me.

It was a long and considered reply and I don't like to quote myself but it's there if you want to look it up.

Why does it have to be one or the other?

It’s entirely possible to care about air pollution and also think the way they’re doing it is hugely problematic.

Aviation contributes about 2-3% of CO2 emissions right now and the number is expected to fall with more efficient engines and Sustainable Aviation Fuel. The issue with SAF right now is lack of availability.

I agree. It isn't about one or the other and it wasn't me that was saying that.

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.

@Sugarfree23 it does seem like an urban myth judging by what @Grapefruitsquash told you 10 hours ago. Here it is again but feel free to carry on to spread those urban myths and whataboutery.

"Aviation contributes about 2-3% of CO2 emissions right now and the number is expected to fall with more efficient engines and Sustainable Aviation Fuel. The issue with SAF right now is lack of availability."

Yesterday I visited a friend who has had an op at Chelsfield Hospital which is in a country village about a mile from the M25. However it's within the London borough of Bromley. Her elderly dad was there visiting. You can't get there except by car, but if her operation was in a few weeks time he'd have to pay the congestion charge as he has an older car which he hardly ever uses as he uses his freedom pass to travel on public transport most of the time. He wouldn't dream of driving from the suburbs to central London. He hardly drives at all.

Yet next month there will be rich people coming from the Middle East to escape the heat and will race their super cars around Knightsbridge and Mayfair and park where they like because they can afford to do what they like and pay the fines. They couldn't care less. Neither could TFL because it's good revenue.

I'm not affected as my car is fine but I know who I support. Whatever Khan says this is about revenue, just as the original Ulez zone is and the congestion charge is. It's absolutely disgraceful how people are being treated.

Sorry, I should have said that my friend's dad would have to pay the Ulez charge, not the Congestion Charge. Sorry, I'm angry on his behalf so apologies for the mistake.