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.

Because ....and I know about Asthma so it's not ignorance....the air quality in our area even though it's under Heathrow and boarded by roads isn't that bad but people are already using food banks and struggling once they can't get to work that will be worse. Our town is on the borders and this will mean even more shops will close down.
We have mount vernon cancer centre a 15 minute drive a very much longer multiple bus ride away who has the energy to do that every day after an hour bus journey knowing it's an hour back in all weathers....or knowing your oncology appointment is already going to run 3 hours late on top.
My bus ride to Woking to look after my twin grandchildren will take just under 2 hours and cost £6 (cheapest route) each way...I need to be there from 8.30 to 5.30 so that's now 6.30 to 7.30 instead of a 40 minute drive. So that's one of them out of work as childcare for 3 children is unaffordable (twins and a 5 year old).
My husband has had to give notice to his customers he doesn't have £24k for a van and you can't take stairs and gates on public transport so that's 4 of them out of work. Plus the loss to his landlord and suppliers.
My sister and brother are both disabled ..sister terminal....that's her final outings gone and both loose family contact and their carers.
What's good about it?

Clean air is not a luxury, it is vital wherever we work or live.

Why do you think it's negotiable?

Thats not at all what I was saying, but, it kind of is when you’re struggling to feed or house your children.

But hey, you’ve got clean windows so why would you care?

Because obviously somebody can’t possibly think air should be clean, but also not agree with the way it’s being done.

Bodega, lots of people in cities cycle

The scrappage scheme is now open for people who claim child benefit.

Clean air is not a luxury, it is vital wherever we work or live.

Why do you think it's negotiable?

Perhaps because it's been decided you can pay £12.50 a day to contaminate it?

It would be good if they stopped building on every scrap of land and felling trees

If they are lucky enough to be able to finance the rest of the car

Would you prefer it all cars that didn't fit the scheme were instantly banned when the latest ULEZ extension comes into force at the end of this month?

This way they have a choice. It's a hard one - I couldn't afford £12.50 a day - but if you don't make it hard, people will just carry on.

This came in for central London in 2019. It was extended to the North and South Circular Roads two years later. It's really not a problem.

Why do you not value clean air and the subsequent savings in distressing illness and cost to the the NHS over people's desire to drive polluting vehicles?

I have said many times that the scrappage scheme should be extended but for that, we need central Government to step in. We should be asking why they are not doing that in this important matter of public health.

It is entirely their responsibility. There are all sorts of things that private citizens want to do but which we expect the Government of the day to step in on for the good of the community.

Age restrictions on sex, alcohol, tobacco, gambling; various health and safety laws including the first Clean Air Act in 1956 after the infamous "pea soupers"; seat belt and crash helmet laws; laws saying you can't put lead paint on children's toys; the indoor smoking ban etc.

The indoor smoking ban is interesting. I'm in favour of it but not militant about it;. I'm a non smoker and it works for me. But on many Mumsnet threads you read posts from people who want smoking banned outdoors too, seemingly unconcerned about pollution from traffic.

Traffic is a much bigger cause of air pollution than smoking. The national average for smoking tobacco is 13 per cent. I was shocked at how low that was. Before I looked it up I guessed it was about 20 per cent, which is still low.

Not many people on Mumsnet would argue that the Government-imposed punitive cost on tobacco should be lifted or say that smokers should be given an indefinite grace period to give up their habit because the rising costs caused hardship to them or their families. I think many people would say the cost should be increased and other measures, such as making it that one day no young people would ever be able to buy cigarettes legally, should be imposed.

This would undoubtedly cut the misery of illness and early deaths and save the NHS money.

It makes sense to me. So why is this different? Why has Rishi Sunak, whose transport of choice is the private jet or the helicopter, declared himself on the side of the motorist? I'm not a motorist any more but even if I was, I'd still want to be able to breathe.

He thinks there votes in it. That's all. And some people here don't value health as much as they claim to.

Given that you are in favour of cleaner air, how do you think we should go about getting it?

What is so ridiculous is that a friend has an '02 petrol car and I have an '04 petrol car and they are both compliant with ULEZ. I wouldn't be able to afford a new one, the scrappage scheme doesn't give people much money.

People need affordable homes to live in and when they get them, jobs and schools and doctors and dentists and shops and public transport. Where should they go? It's pretty full up where I live.

Hmmm I'm not going to answer that one but the government's policies of the last 30 years' haven't helped

I'll give you a clue. I'm a journalist and have been covering local and national government since 1983.

It was under those Conservative governments from 1979 to 1997 that Britain saw a revolution in many things but I'm going to concentrate on planning laws.

Essentially they were scrapped. Yes, local councils could object to development but all the developers, who were by chance all Tory party donors, had to do was appeal to the Environment Secretary and it would be over ruled. It was perfectly legal because the Government changed the law to make it so. It was pointless objecting because it would be overturned and cost a fortune, so local councils stopped doing it.

So that's why lots of out-of-town places like housing estates and shopping centres that you needed cars to get to were built. It was said that Margaret Thatcher said that any one over the age of 30 on a bus was a loser. To be fair, she didn't say that, but it sounded like the kind of thing she would say.

But developers aren't really interested in building infrastructure and to be fair again, that's not strictly their job, Their job is making money for their shareholders and to bung political donations so they can build more and make more money for their shareholders. it's the job of local government to do the smaller things like schools, shopping parades and GP surgeries and central government for the big things like railways and attracting big employers.

Because the government of the 1980s was so keen on their donors is the reason why we have so many housing developments which don't have decent public transport or amenities within walking distance like shops and GP surgeries and swimming pools. It's also the reason lots of poor souls find themselves living in homes built on flood plains that fill up with freezing foul water every few years in the winter.

Lots of people now rely on cars because all their local amenities have been destroyed. It seemed such a good idea at the time but 40 years later, it doesn't look like that.

I do sympathise with people in outer London over ULEZ but only up to a point. Whether actively or not, people voted for the destruction of local amenities and their reliance on cars for 40 years without a thought to what that might mean for people who didn't have a car.

Lots of people drive compliant vehicles. For those that don't, we should extend the scrappage scheme to include more of them.

But doing that is a public health matter where central Government should take the lead.

Yes I agree about the scheme being extended

Would you prefer it all cars that didn't fit the scheme were instantly banned when the latest ULEZ extension comes into force at the end of this month?

Well, I don't agree with the ULEZ extension, so no. I think the cars should be phased out via a sensible, decent scrappage scheme. And no decent Labour administration should ever introduce policy that has the potential to cause hardship and distress to the least wealthy.

@woodhill and @ScribblingPixie I agree the scrappage system should be more generous. I don't know how many more times I have to say that.

But this is a public health issue and as such should be tackled by the government of the day like the Clean Air Act 1956 which did so much to improve health and was under a Conservative government.

Remind me again which party has been in government for 13 years? They could do it if they wanted - just look at the billions spent (and often wasted) on Eat Out To Help Out, Furlough and PPE.

Labour is as desperate to win the next election as the Conservatives are not to lose it so I can see why Keir Starmer is ticked off with Sadiq Khan.

But that shouldn't be at the expense of public health.

What would you do apart from vaguely saying there should be a better scrappage system from someone or other and the issue should be kicked down the road?

I live under ULEZ. It is not a problem.

'It was said that Margaret Thatcher said that any one over the age of 30 on a bus was a loser. To be fair, she didn't say that, but it sounded like the kind of thing she would say.'
Crumbs, @limitedperiodonly . One of our daughters is a journalist for a large international news agency and I'd be ashamed of her if she wrote something like that! Not because I agree with everything Margaret Thatcher did (don't get me started), not because it shows a biased view of Conservatism. But because it's a blatant, unfounded assumption not backed up by facts. Unprofessional.

Ooh what about wood burners

They don't seem to be regulated

Motorists are an easy target

Crumbs! I'm a journalist too and what I said was not at all inaccurate. I said Thatcher didn't say it but it sounded like the kind of thing she would say which is the reason why it stuck.

There's nothing wrong with that observation. If you think there is perhaps you ought to ask your daughter for a lesson in comprehension and not me.

Yes, wood burners are a problem. Probably not so much in rural areas but definitely in urban and suburban settings where they are installed by fashionable folk.

I don't blame them; it's an interior design Kirsty and Phil kind of fad and they were not aware of the danger. But they have to be ripped out, just like polluting vehicles for the good of the rest of us.

The thing is with wood burners in urban homes is that most of them were installed by rich people so you don't have to worry about them.

'Motorists are an easy target', well yes they are certainly ubiquitous

@limitedperiodonly we have an out of town shopping centre which was built in the late 90s. We also have a shopping centre that was built in the town as an extension of the other shops that were already there. They knocked down a beautiful church to do it though. And moved the gravestones

@woodhill they were looking at banning wood burners in London and London has hasdrestrictions on the types of domestic heating fuel that can be burnt for decades - mainly due to smog caused by burning coal that killed thousands of people.

Shocking. But obviously everyone needs more branches of Boots and estate agents and those old people buried in the beautiful and peaceful church graveyard where people go to sit on benches with personalised brass plaques and eat their sandwiches of a lunchtime and just be happy for an hour are just dead.