I live just on the ULEZ side of the South Circ very close to where young Ella who died of traffic pollution lived. I am looking forward to the ULEZ extension even though it was ordered by a Tory government, because long queues of polluting vehicles 150 meters from my home is not particularly nice. I don’t know if there was an inner London scrap your vehicle scheme when our first ULEZ was brought in but the population of the inner London ULEZ area is large and as far as I can tell it has not devastated our community, and certainly would not be a policy issue that would swing an election in Lewisham East.
So you're saying you love the Conservative Party? Interesting.
I think it’s currently quite hard to love the Conservative Party, for me anyway, although clearly quite a lot of people still do. 27% of the electorate isn’t it?
I live just on the ULEZ side of the South Circ very close to where young Ella who died of traffic pollution lived. I am looking forward to the ULEZ extension even though it was ordered by a Tory government, because long queues of polluting vehicles 150 meters from my home is not particularly nice. I don’t know if there was an inner London scrap your vehicle scheme when our first ULEZ was brought in but the population of the inner London ULEZ area is large and as far as I can tell it has not devastated our community, and certainly would not be a policy issue that would swing an election in Lewisham East.
So you're saying you love the Conservative Party? Interesting.
Is that what my post is saying? What's interesting is why you should respond to the post at all and why you have put that spin on it.
I live just on the ULEZ side of the South Circ very close to where young Ella who died of traffic pollution lived. I am looking forward to the ULEZ extension even though it was ordered by a Tory government, because long queues of polluting vehicles 150 meters from my home is not particularly nice. I don’t know if there was an inner London scrap your vehicle scheme when our first ULEZ was brought in but the population of the inner London ULEZ area is large and as far as I can tell it has not devastated our community, and certainly would not be a policy issue that would swing an election in Lewisham East.
So you're saying you love the Conservative Party? Interesting.
Is that what my post is saying? What's interesting is why you should respond to the post at all and why you have put that spin on it.
You love ULEZ. ULEZ is Tory creation. Ipso facto you love Tories.
I live just on the ULEZ side of the South Circ very close to where young Ella who died of traffic pollution lived. I am looking forward to the ULEZ extension even though it was ordered by a Tory government, because long queues of polluting vehicles 150 meters from my home is not particularly nice. I don’t know if there was an inner London scrap your vehicle scheme when our first ULEZ was brought in but the population of the inner London ULEZ area is large and as far as I can tell it has not devastated our community, and certainly would not be a policy issue that would swing an election in Lewisham East.
So you're saying you love the Conservative Party? Interesting.
Is that what my post is saying? What's interesting is why you should respond to the post at all and why you have put that spin on it.
I live just on the ULEZ side of the South Circ very close to where young Ella who died of traffic pollution lived. I am looking forward to the ULEZ extension even though it was ordered by a Tory government, because long queues of polluting vehicles 150 meters from my home is not particularly nice. I don’t know if there was an inner London scrap your vehicle scheme when our first ULEZ was brought in but the population of the inner London ULEZ area is large and as far as I can tell it has not devastated our community, and certainly would not be a policy issue that would swing an election in Lewisham East.
So you're saying you love the Conservative Party? Interesting.
Is that what my post is saying? What's interesting is why you should respond to the post at all and why you have put that spin on it.
You love ULEZ. ULEZ is Tory creation. Ipso facto you love Tories.
Not so hard to follow is it?
I said i was looking forward to the ULEZ extension, you have decided that means I love ULEZ. I said I was looking forward to it even though it was ordered by a Tory government. The 'even though' implies that there are many extremely nasty and distasteful things about the Tories, but even though that is what I think to be true, I will have to hold my nose (handy against the pollution) and accept the policy.
What is hard to follow is your desire to lie about what I wrote.
You once accused EVERYONE who voted Conservative of being a racist.
Absolutely untrue.
I am paraphrasing here but you said along the lines of “you can only assume that anyone who voted for that party, with their racist leader (BoJo at the time) can only do so as they too have the same opinions “
I think it’s currently quite hard to love the Conservative Party, for me anyway, although clearly quite a lot of people still do. 27% of the electorate isn’t it?
Sorry, that’s one for the group area thingy
43.6% share of the popular vote at the last election.
I'm amazed that anyone really thinks that this ULEZ scheme is about tackling pollution - if it was, all non-compliant cars would simply be banned, none of this pay £12.50 nonsense and carry on driving.
No the scheme is all about trying to restore TfL's finances that Khan has trashed and much more importantly, using the ULEZ technology as a trojan horse to bring in a pay to drive scheme in London.
It is estimated that the ULEZ scheme will cease to cover its costs in only 2 or 3 years time. So what will Khan do then to cover the money he has lost?
The answer is introduce a pay to drive scheme which uses the ULEZ cameras to enforce.
Khan may deny it but I can tell you for a fact his officials are already working on such a scheme. One technology under consideration is requiring everyone to have an app on their phone which will need to be turned on when driving in London.
In fairness, many in the transport world (in which i have worked all my life) view pay per drive as the way forward as the Chancellor faces losing almost a third of the revenue he gets from fuel duty from cars before the end of the decade because of the move to green motoring. But when I worked on this issue, the deal was that Fuel Duty would be reduced as pay per mile charges were introduced. Khan, of course, can't do this as he has no control over Treasury taxes so any pay per drive charges he introduces will be additional to current motoring taxes.
So it's pretty clear. If you want to pay every time you want to drive in London, vote for Khan. If not, vote for a party that will scrap the ULEZ.
But why can't it be both? TfL desperately requires more funding and they have to find different ways of doing so as constantly hiking fares for tube is unsustainable hence this and scrapping things like travel cards. At the same time air pollution in London is a serious issue and needs to be tackled so clearly expanding ulez is a start but we need more.
As with most things it isn't black and white. What you propose though is voting for a party that over the past decade has run public services even further into the ground. No doubt their aim would be to fully privatise public transport within London and we all know how well privatisation has been elsewhere in the country.
It's interesting you mention fuel duty because for far too long this country has pandered to the motorist, taxation on motoring has fallen in real terms over the past decade whilst public transportation charges have sky rocketed yet we arguably have a worse public transportation infrastructure over that time yet even more cars on the road. So yes maybe we do need to start charging more for cars coming in to London.
I also say this as someone living inside the south circular who owns a car. It's ridiculous at times trying to drive anywhere and anecdotally you only have to go and stand on the SC for 10 minutes to see how many single occupancy cars there are. We need to change our habits and asking people nicely doesn't work. And what definitely doesn't work is voting for a party with a history of lowering taxation and selling off public assets.
Exactly. The idea that if the Mayor really cared he would ‘simply ban’ your car. Think about that scenario for 10 seconds and you’ll probably realise how unworkable it is, and how much more you’d be kicking off about it.
But in the sensible and pragmatic Germany, that is exactly what has happened. You cannot drive in Berlin unless your vehicle meets the emissions standards. To prove this you have to buy a green sticker for your windscreen which lasts the life of the car (or until the ink fades). No green sticker - not allowed to enter Berlin. The sticker including postage costs €6. That's all. You need one as a tourist too. Not £12.50 each day!
The same system has been adopted elsewhere, Paris and Vienna for example. So why is London different? Are we right and they are wrong? It is only because the slimeball Khan needs the money for TfL. There is no other reason. If it was really about pollution, miscreant cars would be banned: not charged a fee for the right to kill people.
Khan's hypocrisy is demonstrated by the stupidity of the 20 mph zones with the sleeping policemen and other "traffic calming" measures. These all increase emissions as people slow down and then accelerate for the bumps and we all know about the increased pollution caused by bus lanes which lead to more traffic jams.
I'm amazed that anyone really thinks that this ULEZ scheme is about tackling pollution - if it was, all non-compliant cars would simply be banned, none of this pay £12.50 nonsense and carry on driving.
No the scheme is all about trying to restore TfL's finances that Khan has trashed and much more importantly, using the ULEZ technology as a trojan horse to bring in a pay to drive scheme in London.
It is estimated that the ULEZ scheme will cease to cover its costs in only 2 or 3 years time. So what will Khan do then to cover the money he has lost?
The answer is introduce a pay to drive scheme which uses the ULEZ cameras to enforce.
Khan may deny it but I can tell you for a fact his officials are already working on such a scheme. One technology under consideration is requiring everyone to have an app on their phone which will need to be turned on when driving in London.
In fairness, many in the transport world (in which i have worked all my life) view pay per drive as the way forward as the Chancellor faces losing almost a third of the revenue he gets from fuel duty from cars before the end of the decade because of the move to green motoring. But when I worked on this issue, the deal was that Fuel Duty would be reduced as pay per mile charges were introduced. Khan, of course, can't do this as he has no control over Treasury taxes so any pay per drive charges he introduces will be additional to current motoring taxes.
So it's pretty clear. If you want to pay every time you want to drive in London, vote for Khan. If not, vote for a party that will scrap the ULEZ.
But why can't it be both? TfL desperately requires more funding and they have to find different ways of doing so as constantly hiking fares for tube is unsustainable hence this and scrapping things like travel cards. At the same time air pollution in London is a serious issue and needs to be tackled so clearly expanding ulez is a start but we need more.
As with most things it isn't black and white. What you propose though is voting for a party that over the past decade has run public services even further into the ground. No doubt their aim would be to fully privatise public transport within London and we all know how well privatisation has been elsewhere in the country.
It's interesting you mention fuel duty because for far too long this country has pandered to the motorist, taxation on motoring has fallen in real terms over the past decade whilst public transportation charges have sky rocketed yet we arguably have a worse public transportation infrastructure over that time yet even more cars on the road. So yes maybe we do need to start charging more for cars coming in to London.
I also say this as someone living inside the south circular who owns a car. It's ridiculous at times trying to drive anywhere and anecdotally you only have to go and stand on the SC for 10 minutes to see how many single occupancy cars there are. We need to change our habits and asking people nicely doesn't work. And what definitely doesn't work is voting for a party with a history of lowering taxation and selling off public assets.
Exactly. The idea that if the Mayor really cared he would ‘simply ban’ your car. Think about that scenario for 10 seconds and you’ll probably realise how unworkable it is, and how much more you’d be kicking off about it.
But in the sensible and pragmatic Germany, that is exactly what has happened. You cannot drive in Berlin unless your vehicle meets the emissions standards. To prove this you have to buy a green sticker for your windscreen which lasts the life of the car (or until the ink fades). No green sticker - not allowed to enter Berlin. The sticker including postage costs €6. That's all. You need one as a tourist too. Not £12.50 each day!
The same system has been adopted elsewhere, Paris and Vienna for example. So why is London different? Are we right and they are wrong? It is only because the slimeball Khan needs the money for TfL. There is no other reason. If it was really about pollution, miscreant cars would be banned: not charged a fee for the right to kill people.
Khan's hypocrisy is demonstrated by the stupidity of the 20 mph zones with the sleeping policemen and other "traffic calming" measures. These all increase emissions as people slow down and then accelerate for the bumps and we all know about the increased pollution caused by bus lanes which lead to more traffic jams.
It's been said multiple times that there's a funding issue in TFL but if it's only to make money why the scrappage scheme? I'm certain that if cars were banned posters would be asking 'why don't we can't we just pay a daily rate like city X?'.
I agree with your last paragraph, cars should be driving 40/50 miles in busy residential streets, especially near areas kids play in.
The scrapage scheme has now been extended to anyone owning a non-compliant car within the ULEZ area, the mayor has added £50m to the scheme. I wonder why he did not do it do this when he first announced the extended zone (Political Pressure?).
I'm amazed that anyone really thinks that this ULEZ scheme is about tackling pollution - if it was, all non-compliant cars would simply be banned, none of this pay £12.50 nonsense and carry on driving.
No the scheme is all about trying to restore TfL's finances that Khan has trashed and much more importantly, using the ULEZ technology as a trojan horse to bring in a pay to drive scheme in London.
It is estimated that the ULEZ scheme will cease to cover its costs in only 2 or 3 years time. So what will Khan do then to cover the money he has lost?
The answer is introduce a pay to drive scheme which uses the ULEZ cameras to enforce.
Khan may deny it but I can tell you for a fact his officials are already working on such a scheme. One technology under consideration is requiring everyone to have an app on their phone which will need to be turned on when driving in London.
In fairness, many in the transport world (in which i have worked all my life) view pay per drive as the way forward as the Chancellor faces losing almost a third of the revenue he gets from fuel duty from cars before the end of the decade because of the move to green motoring. But when I worked on this issue, the deal was that Fuel Duty would be reduced as pay per mile charges were introduced. Khan, of course, can't do this as he has no control over Treasury taxes so any pay per drive charges he introduces will be additional to current motoring taxes.
So it's pretty clear. If you want to pay every time you want to drive in London, vote for Khan. If not, vote for a party that will scrap the ULEZ.
But why can't it be both? TfL desperately requires more funding and they have to find different ways of doing so as constantly hiking fares for tube is unsustainable hence this and scrapping things like travel cards. At the same time air pollution in London is a serious issue and needs to be tackled so clearly expanding ulez is a start but we need more.
As with most things it isn't black and white. What you propose though is voting for a party that over the past decade has run public services even further into the ground. No doubt their aim would be to fully privatise public transport within London and we all know how well privatisation has been elsewhere in the country.
It's interesting you mention fuel duty because for far too long this country has pandered to the motorist, taxation on motoring has fallen in real terms over the past decade whilst public transportation charges have sky rocketed yet we arguably have a worse public transportation infrastructure over that time yet even more cars on the road. So yes maybe we do need to start charging more for cars coming in to London.
I also say this as someone living inside the south circular who owns a car. It's ridiculous at times trying to drive anywhere and anecdotally you only have to go and stand on the SC for 10 minutes to see how many single occupancy cars there are. We need to change our habits and asking people nicely doesn't work. And what definitely doesn't work is voting for a party with a history of lowering taxation and selling off public assets.
Exactly. The idea that if the Mayor really cared he would ‘simply ban’ your car. Think about that scenario for 10 seconds and you’ll probably realise how unworkable it is, and how much more you’d be kicking off about it.
But in the sensible and pragmatic Germany, that is exactly what has happened. You cannot drive in Berlin unless your vehicle meets the emissions standards. To prove this you have to buy a green sticker for your windscreen which lasts the life of the car (or until the ink fades). No green sticker - not allowed to enter Berlin. The sticker including postage costs €6. That's all. You need one as a tourist too. Not £12.50 each day!
The same system has been adopted elsewhere, Paris and Vienna for example. So why is London different? Are we right and they are wrong? It is only because the slimeball Khan needs the money for TfL. There is no other reason. If it was really about pollution, miscreant cars would be banned: not charged a fee for the right to kill people.
Khan's hypocrisy is demonstrated by the stupidity of the 20 mph zones with the sleeping policemen and other "traffic calming" measures. These all increase emissions as people slow down and then accelerate for the bumps and we all know about the increased pollution caused by bus lanes which lead to more traffic jams.
It's been said multiple times that there's a funding issue in TFL but if it's only to make money why the scrappage scheme? I'm certain that if cars were banned posters would be asking 'why don't we can't we just pay a daily rate like city X?'.
I agree with your last paragraph, cars should be driving 40/50 miles in busy residential streets, especially near areas kids play in.
I realise you are exaggerating to make your point and that's fine. And maybe, by having 20mph rather than 30 mph residential roads a few kids lives will be saved. (At least in the short term - but see below).
But to put that into context in 2021, according to the road safety charity Brake, across the whole of the UK, there were only 17 deaths of pedestrian children under the age of 15.
In total there are currently less than 1,000 deaths per year in accidents in residential areas in England. It goes without saying that each single one is a tragedy for those involved but overall that's not a terrible figure for a country with huge, congested, built-up areas and pedestrians who are more interested in being on their devices and listening to music rather than looking where they are going. It will be interesting to see how that figure changes over time.
The oft brought out (especially by Brake) percentages for the chances of survival in an accident at either 20 mph or 30 mph are I am sure correct. But they are disingenuous. Probably deliberately so because of Brake's agenda. Hardly anyone travelling at 30 mph will hit a kid at that speed. Because they will slam on the anchors. My personal view is that a compromise limit of 25 mph would have been more than adequate for the purpose. In any event by far the single largest contributory factor to pedestrian KSIs is "pedestrian failed to look properly", followed by "pedestrian careless, reckless or in a hurry". These two factors feature in over 18,000 KSIs involving pedestrians. Whereas excessive speed by a driver only features in just over 1,000. Interesting don't you think?
Now as far as I know, no research has been carried out on the impact of all these changes (and on kids spending their lives staring at a device while sitting on a settee) on children's ability to gain the very important skill set of spacial awareness. It is important to prompt children into gaining spacial awareness by talking with them about size, distance and location of objects. And of course speed of mobile objects. Kids abilities in this matter - or lack thereof - will drastically effect their chances of becoming a good and safe road user in the future. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that cosseting children now will lead to a population who actually are totally rubbish drivers of the future and long term that could cost more lives not less.
The entitlement of the average motorist really is quite something. My speed is more important than the safety of your child. My air polluting car is more important than your health. Those bus lanes are taking up space my car could be using.
The scrapage scheme has now been extended to anyone owning a non-compliant car within the ULEZ area, the mayor has added £50m to the scheme. I wonder why he did not do it do this when he first announced the extended zone (Political Pressure?).
Exactly, I had to replace my diesel car a few years ago when they brought in the last ULEZ on the south circular border, otherwise it would have cost me every time I went to The Valley and visit my mum. Like most I only bought the diesel because the government "told me to". I always thought diesel was a strange recommendation when you look at the exhaust fumes from lorries.
In order of priority I would put motorists looking out for pedestrians first however careless a pedestrian might be. Yes pedestrians need to look out, most do because they can’t be sure that drivers will be careful, but if a motorist hits a pedestrian my starting assumption before looking into it, is the motorist shouldn’t have been hitting a pedestrian.
I'm amazed that anyone really thinks that this ULEZ scheme is about tackling pollution - if it was, all non-compliant cars would simply be banned, none of this pay £12.50 nonsense and carry on driving.
No the scheme is all about trying to restore TfL's finances that Khan has trashed and much more importantly, using the ULEZ technology as a trojan horse to bring in a pay to drive scheme in London.
It is estimated that the ULEZ scheme will cease to cover its costs in only 2 or 3 years time. So what will Khan do then to cover the money he has lost?
The answer is introduce a pay to drive scheme which uses the ULEZ cameras to enforce.
Khan may deny it but I can tell you for a fact his officials are already working on such a scheme. One technology under consideration is requiring everyone to have an app on their phone which will need to be turned on when driving in London.
In fairness, many in the transport world (in which i have worked all my life) view pay per drive as the way forward as the Chancellor faces losing almost a third of the revenue he gets from fuel duty from cars before the end of the decade because of the move to green motoring. But when I worked on this issue, the deal was that Fuel Duty would be reduced as pay per mile charges were introduced. Khan, of course, can't do this as he has no control over Treasury taxes so any pay per drive charges he introduces will be additional to current motoring taxes.
So it's pretty clear. If you want to pay every time you want to drive in London, vote for Khan. If not, vote for a party that will scrap the ULEZ.
But why can't it be both? TfL desperately requires more funding and they have to find different ways of doing so as constantly hiking fares for tube is unsustainable hence this and scrapping things like travel cards. At the same time air pollution in London is a serious issue and needs to be tackled so clearly expanding ulez is a start but we need more.
As with most things it isn't black and white. What you propose though is voting for a party that over the past decade has run public services even further into the ground. No doubt their aim would be to fully privatise public transport within London and we all know how well privatisation has been elsewhere in the country.
It's interesting you mention fuel duty because for far too long this country has pandered to the motorist, taxation on motoring has fallen in real terms over the past decade whilst public transportation charges have sky rocketed yet we arguably have a worse public transportation infrastructure over that time yet even more cars on the road. So yes maybe we do need to start charging more for cars coming in to London.
I also say this as someone living inside the south circular who owns a car. It's ridiculous at times trying to drive anywhere and anecdotally you only have to go and stand on the SC for 10 minutes to see how many single occupancy cars there are. We need to change our habits and asking people nicely doesn't work. And what definitely doesn't work is voting for a party with a history of lowering taxation and selling off public assets.
Exactly. The idea that if the Mayor really cared he would ‘simply ban’ your car. Think about that scenario for 10 seconds and you’ll probably realise how unworkable it is, and how much more you’d be kicking off about it.
But in the sensible and pragmatic Germany, that is exactly what has happened. You cannot drive in Berlin unless your vehicle meets the emissions standards. To prove this you have to buy a green sticker for your windscreen which lasts the life of the car (or until the ink fades). No green sticker - not allowed to enter Berlin. The sticker including postage costs €6. That's all. You need one as a tourist too. Not £12.50 each day!
The same system has been adopted elsewhere, Paris and Vienna for example. So why is London different? Are we right and they are wrong? It is only because the slimeball Khan needs the money for TfL. There is no other reason. If it was really about pollution, miscreant cars would be banned: not charged a fee for the right to kill people.
Khan's hypocrisy is demonstrated by the stupidity of the 20 mph zones with the sleeping policemen and other "traffic calming" measures. These all increase emissions as people slow down and then accelerate for the bumps and we all know about the increased pollution caused by bus lanes which lead to more traffic jams.
Good post, but you’re confusing which parameters you can compare….
If your car complies: Germany - €6 cost for the lifetime of the car London - No cost If your car does not comply: Germany - unknown, please advise @cafcfan London - £12.50 for each day you drive inside M25
The entitlement of the average motorist really is quite something. My speed is more important than the safety of your child. My air polluting car is more important than your health. Those bus lanes are taking up space my car could be using.
It's rare that I'm lost for words. This thread is something else.
The scrapage scheme has now been extended to anyone owning a non-compliant car within the ULEZ area, the mayor has added £50m to the scheme. I wonder why he did not do it do this when he first announced the extended zone (Political Pressure?).
Complete guess work, but £50m is probably a large slice of his budget.
I'm amazed that anyone really thinks that this ULEZ scheme is about tackling pollution - if it was, all non-compliant cars would simply be banned, none of this pay £12.50 nonsense and carry on driving.
No the scheme is all about trying to restore TfL's finances that Khan has trashed and much more importantly, using the ULEZ technology as a trojan horse to bring in a pay to drive scheme in London.
It is estimated that the ULEZ scheme will cease to cover its costs in only 2 or 3 years time. So what will Khan do then to cover the money he has lost?
The answer is introduce a pay to drive scheme which uses the ULEZ cameras to enforce.
Khan may deny it but I can tell you for a fact his officials are already working on such a scheme. One technology under consideration is requiring everyone to have an app on their phone which will need to be turned on when driving in London.
In fairness, many in the transport world (in which i have worked all my life) view pay per drive as the way forward as the Chancellor faces losing almost a third of the revenue he gets from fuel duty from cars before the end of the decade because of the move to green motoring. But when I worked on this issue, the deal was that Fuel Duty would be reduced as pay per mile charges were introduced. Khan, of course, can't do this as he has no control over Treasury taxes so any pay per drive charges he introduces will be additional to current motoring taxes.
So it's pretty clear. If you want to pay every time you want to drive in London, vote for Khan. If not, vote for a party that will scrap the ULEZ.
But why can't it be both? TfL desperately requires more funding and they have to find different ways of doing so as constantly hiking fares for tube is unsustainable hence this and scrapping things like travel cards. At the same time air pollution in London is a serious issue and needs to be tackled so clearly expanding ulez is a start but we need more.
As with most things it isn't black and white. What you propose though is voting for a party that over the past decade has run public services even further into the ground. No doubt their aim would be to fully privatise public transport within London and we all know how well privatisation has been elsewhere in the country.
It's interesting you mention fuel duty because for far too long this country has pandered to the motorist, taxation on motoring has fallen in real terms over the past decade whilst public transportation charges have sky rocketed yet we arguably have a worse public transportation infrastructure over that time yet even more cars on the road. So yes maybe we do need to start charging more for cars coming in to London.
I also say this as someone living inside the south circular who owns a car. It's ridiculous at times trying to drive anywhere and anecdotally you only have to go and stand on the SC for 10 minutes to see how many single occupancy cars there are. We need to change our habits and asking people nicely doesn't work. And what definitely doesn't work is voting for a party with a history of lowering taxation and selling off public assets.
Exactly. The idea that if the Mayor really cared he would ‘simply ban’ your car. Think about that scenario for 10 seconds and you’ll probably realise how unworkable it is, and how much more you’d be kicking off about it.
But in the sensible and pragmatic Germany, that is exactly what has happened. You cannot drive in Berlin unless your vehicle meets the emissions standards. To prove this you have to buy a green sticker for your windscreen which lasts the life of the car (or until the ink fades). No green sticker - not allowed to enter Berlin. The sticker including postage costs €6. That's all. You need one as a tourist too. Not £12.50 each day!
The same system has been adopted elsewhere, Paris and Vienna for example. So why is London different? Are we right and they are wrong? It is only because the slimeball Khan needs the money for TfL. There is no other reason. If it was really about pollution, miscreant cars would be banned: not charged a fee for the right to kill people.
Khan's hypocrisy is demonstrated by the stupidity of the 20 mph zones with the sleeping policemen and other "traffic calming" measures. These all increase emissions as people slow down and then accelerate for the bumps and we all know about the increased pollution caused by bus lanes which lead to more traffic jams.
Good post, but you’re confusing which parameters you can compare….
If your car complies: Germany - €6 cost for the lifetime of the car London - No cost If your car does not comply: Germany - unknown, please advise @cafcfan London - £12.50 for each day you drive inside M25
Point taken about the differences. But as ever, it's complicated. In Berlin and many other German cities, you get a fine whether or not your car is compliant if you don't have a sticker. I believe it is €100 and your car could be seized. There is no charge for non-compliant cars in the zone because they are not allowed in the zone, full stop. I have no idea whether there was a Berlin scrappage scheme or whether people just had to suck it up. I believe this was all introduced in 2010 and there might have been help with retro-fitting costs rather than scrappage. So the chances are there won't be many (any?) non-compliant vehicles around near German cities. If you see a Trabant in Berlin it has been retro-fitted; has a special exemption; or it is November 9th.
Edited to add: In Germany it is compulsory to use winter or all season tyres in wintery conditions. While we just tootle around on our regular summer tyres and wonder why we slide about all over the place. I guess there would be uproar about costs if we were forced to be safer in winter conditions?
Comments
Sorry, that’s one for the group area thingy
Cars that are ULEZ compliant:
- 2015-2023 Ford Mustang GT 5.0 V8
- 2001-2005 Vauxhall Monaro 5.7 V8
- 2005+ Aston Martin V8 Vantage
What's interesting is why you should respond to the post at all and why you have put that spin on it.
ULEZ is Tory creation.
Ipso facto you love Tories.
Not so hard to follow is it?
I said I was looking forward to it even though it was ordered by a Tory government.
The 'even though' implies that there are many extremely nasty and distasteful things about the Tories, but even though that is what I think to be true, I will have to hold my nose (handy against the pollution) and accept the policy.
What is hard to follow is your desire to lie about what I wrote.
43.6% share of the popular vote at the last election.
The same system has been adopted elsewhere, Paris and Vienna for example. So why is London different? Are we right and they are wrong? It is only because the slimeball Khan needs the money for TfL. There is no other reason. If it was really about pollution, miscreant cars would be banned: not charged a fee for the right to kill people.
Khan's hypocrisy is demonstrated by the stupidity of the 20 mph zones with the sleeping policemen and other "traffic calming" measures. These all increase emissions as people slow down and then accelerate for the bumps and we all know about the increased pollution caused by bus lanes which lead to more traffic jams.
I agree with your last paragraph, cars should be driving 40/50 miles in busy residential streets, especially near areas kids play in.
But to put that into context in 2021, according to the road safety charity Brake, across the whole of the UK, there were only 17 deaths of pedestrian children under the age of 15.
In total there are currently less than 1,000 deaths per year in accidents in residential areas in England. It goes without saying that each single one is a tragedy for those involved but overall that's not a terrible figure for a country with huge, congested, built-up areas and pedestrians who are more interested in being on their devices and listening to music rather than looking where they are going. It will be interesting to see how that figure changes over time.
The oft brought out (especially by Brake) percentages for the chances of survival in an accident at either 20 mph or 30 mph are I am sure correct. But they are disingenuous. Probably deliberately so because of Brake's agenda. Hardly anyone travelling at 30 mph will hit a kid at that speed. Because they will slam on the anchors. My personal view is that a compromise limit of 25 mph would have been more than adequate for the purpose. In any event by far the single largest contributory factor to pedestrian KSIs is "pedestrian failed to look properly", followed by "pedestrian careless, reckless or in a hurry". These two factors feature in over 18,000 KSIs involving pedestrians. Whereas excessive speed by a driver only features in just over 1,000. Interesting don't you think?
Now as far as I know, no research has been carried out on the impact of all these changes (and on kids spending their lives staring at a device while sitting on a settee) on children's ability to gain the very important skill set of spacial awareness. It is important to prompt children into gaining spacial awareness by talking with them about size, distance and location of objects. And of course speed of mobile objects. Kids abilities in this matter - or lack thereof - will drastically effect their chances of becoming a good and safe road user in the future. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that cosseting children now will lead to a population who actually are totally rubbish drivers of the future and long term that could cost more lives not less.
11 Ultra Low Emission Zone cameras were reported stolen and a further 17 vandalised just last week alone.
Like most I only bought the diesel because the government "told me to".
I always thought diesel was a strange recommendation when you look at the exhaust fumes from lorries.
Yes pedestrians need to look out, most do because they can’t be sure that drivers will be careful, but if a motorist hits a pedestrian my starting assumption before looking into it, is the motorist shouldn’t have been hitting a pedestrian.
If your car complies:
Germany - €6 cost for the lifetime of the car
London - No cost
If your car does not comply:
Germany - unknown, please advise @cafcfan
London - £12.50 for each day you drive inside M25
Complete guess work, but £50m is probably a large slice of his budget.
Edited to add: In Germany it is compulsory to use winter or all season tyres in wintery conditions. While we just tootle around on our regular summer tyres and wonder why we slide about all over the place. I guess there would be uproar about costs if we were forced to be safer in winter conditions?