If ULEZ is a cash grab, at what point does it cross the boundary of some £160 to £170 million that it is costing to set up and start to make a profit? I assume ULEZ is a step towards making the air cleaner for everybody.
If ULEZ was solely about cleaner air, then those with non compliant vehicles (myself included) should not be able to pay to enter the zone whatsoever - my vehicle should be banned outright - but I am welcome to (in TFL’s eyes) pollute London’s air if I pay them to do it
It’s utter nonsense
I'm amazed at just how many supporters of ULEZ are happy for people to be able to pay to kill peoples children and grandchildren.
Downside of the internet in one post. You’d never say that to someone down the pub in a conversation about ULEZ.
'Downside of the internet in one post' - pure hyperbole.
'You’d never say that to someone down the pub in a conversation about ULEZ.' - If I'm in the pub with friends then the last thing I'm wanting to talk about is the ULEZ scheme. If it did crop up then I'd have no issue saying that to someone who supported ULEZ and who had used the effects of pollution on their 'children and grandchildren' in their arguments for ULEZ expansion.
For what it's worth, I've taken huge steps to cut down on my carbon footprint, to the detriment of my previous every day life. I haven't needed to be legislated to force me to do things I know I could, and should, cut back on. If only others had the wherewithal to do the same...
I meant you wouldn’t say it to one of your mates if they supported UKEZ (down the pub, or when out for a walk or whatever) but you’ll say it about people generally when posting on the internet. This is the thing about the internet. People turn off their usual filters.
Debate is good, but it’s when genuine hyperbole kicks in (‘supporters of ULEZ are happy for people to be able to pay to kill peoples children and grandchildren’) that makes it less worthwhile perhaps.
I absolutely would say it to a friend that supported ULEZ if they used the 'children and grandchildren' line in their arguments for it (as you have on this very thread). Reason being that I find it massively wonky that the same people are happy to use the health implications of polluting vehicles on their families health yet are okay with their families health being compromised if people pay £12.50 to do so.
I find it very difficult to debate fairly with those that aren't willing to change their own habits without legislation forcing them to do so...primarily because they don't care enough to do it off of their own back, yet will preach to others about how they should change their habits and care more.
If ULEZ is a cash grab, at what point does it cross the boundary of some £160 to £170 million that it is costing to set up and start to make a profit? I assume ULEZ is a step towards making the air cleaner for everybody.
If ULEZ was solely about cleaner air, then those with non compliant vehicles (myself included) should not be able to pay to enter the zone whatsoever - my vehicle should be banned outright - but I am welcome to (in TFL’s eyes) pollute London’s air if I pay them to do it
It’s utter nonsense
I'm amazed at just how many supporters of ULEZ are happy for people to be able to pay to kill peoples children and grandchildren.
Downside of the internet in one post. You’d never say that to someone down the pub in a conversation about ULEZ.
'Downside of the internet in one post' - pure hyperbole.
'You’d never say that to someone down the pub in a conversation about ULEZ.' - If I'm in the pub with friends then the last thing I'm wanting to talk about is the ULEZ scheme. If it did crop up then I'd have no issue saying that to someone who supported ULEZ and who had used the effects of pollution on their 'children and grandchildren' in their arguments for ULEZ expansion.
For what it's worth, I've taken huge steps to cut down on my carbon footprint, to the detriment of my previous every day life. I haven't needed to be legislated to force me to do things I know I could, and should, cut back on. If only others had the wherewithal to do the same...
I meant you wouldn’t say it to one of your mates if they supported UKEZ (down the pub, or when out for a walk or whatever) but you’ll say it about people generally when posting on the internet. This is the thing about the internet. People turn off their usual filters.
Debate is good, but it’s when genuine hyperbole kicks in (‘supporters of ULEZ are happy for people to be able to pay to kill peoples children and grandchildren’) that makes it less worthwhile perhaps.
I absolutely would say it to a friend that supported ULEZ if they used the 'children and grandchildren' line in their arguments for it (as you have on this very thread). Reason being that I find it massively wonky that the same people are happy to use the health implications of polluting vehicles on their families health yet are okay with their families health being compromised if people pay £12.50 to do so.
I find it very difficult to debate fairly with those that aren't willing to change their own habits without legislation forcing them to do so...primarily because they don't care enough to do it off of their own back, yet will preach to others about how they should change their habits and care more.
What's so scary about telling a ulez supporter in real life that you can pay £12.50 to kill someone's children. Genuinely can't see it.
What’s killing people (including young people) are health problems caused by, or exacerbated by pollution. (Respiratory diseases, cancer etc). Reducing pollution will save lives. Fining people £12.50 is one way of gradually reducing the number of polluting cars in London.
You can’t ‘ban cars’, not without using draconian measures like manned roadblocks etc. Calling people who support ULEZ ‘child killers’ is just silly, especially when many saying it would be against ULEZ, so basically happy to see the current levels of pollution maintained.
If ULEZ is a cash grab, at what point does it cross the boundary of some £160 to £170 million that it is costing to set up and start to make a profit? I assume ULEZ is a step towards making the air cleaner for everybody.
If ULEZ was solely about cleaner air, then those with non compliant vehicles (myself included) should not be able to pay to enter the zone whatsoever - my vehicle should be banned outright - but I am welcome to (in TFL’s eyes) pollute London’s air if I pay them to do it
It’s utter nonsense
I'm amazed at just how many supporters of ULEZ are happy for people to be able to pay to kill peoples children and grandchildren.
Downside of the internet in one post. You’d never say that to someone down the pub in a conversation about ULEZ.
'Downside of the internet in one post' - pure hyperbole.
'You’d never say that to someone down the pub in a conversation about ULEZ.' - If I'm in the pub with friends then the last thing I'm wanting to talk about is the ULEZ scheme. If it did crop up then I'd have no issue saying that to someone who supported ULEZ and who had used the effects of pollution on their 'children and grandchildren' in their arguments for ULEZ expansion.
For what it's worth, I've taken huge steps to cut down on my carbon footprint, to the detriment of my previous every day life. I haven't needed to be legislated to force me to do things I know I could, and should, cut back on. If only others had the wherewithal to do the same...
I meant you wouldn’t say it to one of your mates if they supported UKEZ (down the pub, or when out for a walk or whatever) but you’ll say it about people generally when posting on the internet. This is the thing about the internet. People turn off their usual filters.
Debate is good, but it’s when genuine hyperbole kicks in (‘supporters of ULEZ are happy for people to be able to pay to kill peoples children and grandchildren’) that makes it less worthwhile perhaps.
I absolutely would say it to a friend that supported ULEZ if they used the 'children and grandchildren' line in their arguments for it (as you have on this very thread). Reason being that I find it massively wonky that the same people are happy to use the health implications of polluting vehicles on their families health yet are okay with their families health being compromised if people pay £12.50 to do so.
I find it very difficult to debate fairly with those that aren't willing to change their own habits without legislation forcing them to do so...primarily because they don't care enough to do it off of their own back, yet will preach to others about how they should change their habits and care more.
Maybe it's just me, I don't know.
But that's absolutely not what is happening. This approach of an effective tax on the polluter has been used in so many industries (Manufacturing, shipping etc.) as well as the original ULEZ in London and other cities across the country and around the world. It used price elasticities of demand to create incentives that are behavioural nudges creating changes in people behaviour. They reduce journeys into the zone or switch to other means of transport or upgrade their car depending on their circumstances. So the reduction in pollution (that can be remarkably accurately targeted with this approach) is achieved but in the most cost effective and economically efficient way.
If ULEZ is a cash grab, at what point does it cross the boundary of some £160 to £170 million that it is costing to set up and start to make a profit? I assume ULEZ is a step towards making the air cleaner for everybody.
If ULEZ was solely about cleaner air, then those with non compliant vehicles (myself included) should not be able to pay to enter the zone whatsoever - my vehicle should be banned outright - but I am welcome to (in TFL’s eyes) pollute London’s air if I pay them to do it
It’s utter nonsense
I'm amazed at just how many supporters of ULEZ are happy for people to be able to pay to kill peoples children and grandchildren.
Downside of the internet in one post. You’d never say that to someone down the pub in a conversation about ULEZ.
'Downside of the internet in one post' - pure hyperbole.
'You’d never say that to someone down the pub in a conversation about ULEZ.' - If I'm in the pub with friends then the last thing I'm wanting to talk about is the ULEZ scheme. If it did crop up then I'd have no issue saying that to someone who supported ULEZ and who had used the effects of pollution on their 'children and grandchildren' in their arguments for ULEZ expansion.
For what it's worth, I've taken huge steps to cut down on my carbon footprint, to the detriment of my previous every day life. I haven't needed to be legislated to force me to do things I know I could, and should, cut back on. If only others had the wherewithal to do the same...
I meant you wouldn’t say it to one of your mates if they supported UKEZ (down the pub, or when out for a walk or whatever) but you’ll say it about people generally when posting on the internet. This is the thing about the internet. People turn off their usual filters.
Debate is good, but it’s when genuine hyperbole kicks in (‘supporters of ULEZ are happy for people to be able to pay to kill peoples children and grandchildren’) that makes it less worthwhile perhaps.
I absolutely would say it to a friend that supported ULEZ if they used the 'children and grandchildren' line in their arguments for it (as you have on this very thread). Reason being that I find it massively wonky that the same people are happy to use the health implications of polluting vehicles on their families health yet are okay with their families health being compromised if people pay £12.50 to do so.
I find it very difficult to debate fairly with those that aren't willing to change their own habits without legislation forcing them to do so...primarily because they don't care enough to do it off of their own back, yet will preach to others about how they should change their habits and care more.
Maybe it's just me, I don't know.
Sadly, that’s the vast majority of people in this country. That’s why legislation is always used in the end, whether it’s to maintain speed limits, to force people to wear seat belts, or to stop people smoking in pubs and other public areas etc. None of these things that most people now accept as beneficial would have happened without legislation. I know you’re calling me out as someone who isn’t willing to change my own habits and ‘doesn’t care enough’, but I actually changed my habits some time ago, I just didn’t want to be seen as a virtue signaller soft target tosser lol.
So here the virtual signalling bit (cos you said I don’t care) - I do have a car, (I changed from diesel to petrol after it was revealed that they actually aren’t less polluting) but I cycle or walk whenever I can. When my knee was dodgy I took public transport. I haven’t driven ‘into town’ for donkey’s years. I grow my own fruit and veg, I always use a bag for life when shopping, or use my bike panniers, I recycle tons, and I’ve improved the insulation in my house. No idea if any of this makes any difference, but might as well try. I’m not telling anyone to change their habits, but I am supporting the idea that governments are right to bring in schemes like ULEZ and the congestion charge. Sadly, the fight against climate change won’t be won through the voluntary actions of individuals, but by governments. I do a tiny bit, that’s all, less than you by the sounds of it. I was originally pointing out that I take about six flights a year, and I know it would be better if I took fewer. I suspect that a big majority are like me, and encouraging people to fly less through education might well be worthy, but it’s a bit like trying to change the direction of an oil tanker by blowing on it. It just won’t be enough. But next time I go to to the Netherlands I’ll take the Eurostar, as someone on here suggested. Cheers for that. 👍
If ULEZ is a cash grab, at what point does it cross the boundary of some £160 to £170 million that it is costing to set up and start to make a profit? I assume ULEZ is a step towards making the air cleaner for everybody.
If ULEZ was solely about cleaner air, then those with non compliant vehicles (myself included) should not be able to pay to enter the zone whatsoever - my vehicle should be banned outright - but I am welcome to (in TFL’s eyes) pollute London’s air if I pay them to do it
It’s utter nonsense
I'm amazed at just how many supporters of ULEZ are happy for people to be able to pay to kill peoples children and grandchildren.
Downside of the internet in one post. You’d never say that to someone down the pub in a conversation about ULEZ.
'Downside of the internet in one post' - pure hyperbole.
'You’d never say that to someone down the pub in a conversation about ULEZ.' - If I'm in the pub with friends then the last thing I'm wanting to talk about is the ULEZ scheme. If it did crop up then I'd have no issue saying that to someone who supported ULEZ and who had used the effects of pollution on their 'children and grandchildren' in their arguments for ULEZ expansion.
For what it's worth, I've taken huge steps to cut down on my carbon footprint, to the detriment of my previous every day life. I haven't needed to be legislated to force me to do things I know I could, and should, cut back on. If only others had the wherewithal to do the same...
I meant you wouldn’t say it to one of your mates if they supported UKEZ (down the pub, or when out for a walk or whatever) but you’ll say it about people generally when posting on the internet. This is the thing about the internet. People turn off their usual filters.
Debate is good, but it’s when genuine hyperbole kicks in (‘supporters of ULEZ are happy for people to be able to pay to kill peoples children and grandchildren’) that makes it less worthwhile perhaps.
I absolutely would say it to a friend that supported ULEZ if they used the 'children and grandchildren' line in their arguments for it (as you have on this very thread). Reason being that I find it massively wonky that the same people are happy to use the health implications of polluting vehicles on their families health yet are okay with their families health being compromised if people pay £12.50 to do so.
I find it very difficult to debate fairly with those that aren't willing to change their own habits without legislation forcing them to do so...primarily because they don't care enough to do it off of their own back, yet will preach to others about how they should change their habits and care more.
Maybe it's just me, I don't know.
But that's absolutely not what is happening. This approach of an effective tax on the polluter has been used in so many industries (Manufacturing, shipping etc.) as well as the original ULEZ in London and other cities across the country and around the world. It used price elasticities of demand to create incentives that are behavioural nudges creating changes in people behaviour. They reduce journeys into the zone or switch to other means of transport or upgrade their car depending on their circumstances. So the reduction in pollution (that can be remarkably accurately targeted with this approach) is achieved but in the most cost effective and economically efficient way.
If ULEZ is a cash grab, at what point does it cross the boundary of some £160 to £170 million that it is costing to set up and start to make a profit? I assume ULEZ is a step towards making the air cleaner for everybody.
If ULEZ was solely about cleaner air, then those with non compliant vehicles (myself included) should not be able to pay to enter the zone whatsoever - my vehicle should be banned outright - but I am welcome to (in TFL’s eyes) pollute London’s air if I pay them to do it
It’s utter nonsense
I'm amazed at just how many supporters of ULEZ are happy for people to be able to pay to kill peoples children and grandchildren.
Downside of the internet in one post. You’d never say that to someone down the pub in a conversation about ULEZ.
'Downside of the internet in one post' - pure hyperbole.
'You’d never say that to someone down the pub in a conversation about ULEZ.' - If I'm in the pub with friends then the last thing I'm wanting to talk about is the ULEZ scheme. If it did crop up then I'd have no issue saying that to someone who supported ULEZ and who had used the effects of pollution on their 'children and grandchildren' in their arguments for ULEZ expansion.
For what it's worth, I've taken huge steps to cut down on my carbon footprint, to the detriment of my previous every day life. I haven't needed to be legislated to force me to do things I know I could, and should, cut back on. If only others had the wherewithal to do the same...
I meant you wouldn’t say it to one of your mates if they supported UKEZ (down the pub, or when out for a walk or whatever) but you’ll say it about people generally when posting on the internet. This is the thing about the internet. People turn off their usual filters.
Debate is good, but it’s when genuine hyperbole kicks in (‘supporters of ULEZ are happy for people to be able to pay to kill peoples children and grandchildren’) that makes it less worthwhile perhaps.
I absolutely would say it to a friend that supported ULEZ if they used the 'children and grandchildren' line in their arguments for it (as you have on this very thread). Reason being that I find it massively wonky that the same people are happy to use the health implications of polluting vehicles on their families health yet are okay with their families health being compromised if people pay £12.50 to do so.
I find it very difficult to debate fairly with those that aren't willing to change their own habits without legislation forcing them to do so...primarily because they don't care enough to do it off of their own back, yet will preach to others about how they should change their habits and care more.
Maybe it's just me, I don't know.
But that's absolutely not what is happening. This approach of an effective tax on the polluter has been used in so many industries (Manufacturing, shipping etc.) as well as the original ULEZ in London and other cities across the country and around the world. It used price elasticities of demand to create incentives that are behavioural nudges creating changes in people behaviour. They reduce journeys into the zone or switch to other means of transport or upgrade their car depending on their circumstances. So the reduction in pollution (that can be remarkably accurately targeted with this approach) is achieved but in the most cost effective and economically efficient way.
Cost effective remains to be seen obviously. We need to see the 9/10 compliant cars improved upon don't we to justify the infrastructure investment.
My nagging doubt is that the 9/10 pre ULEZ claim was genuine but wont much change and we have spent large sums on the scheme to stay where we already were /are.
I think this was on the 4the September. London has been one of the most polluted cities anywhere during the recent hot spell. The reading today is 33 where I am, as it’s much more breezy.
Glasgow scheme offers temporary exemptions (12 months) for non compliant cars owned by people living within the zone. Non compliant vehicles are charged £60.00 for the first offence, then £120 for second offence then £240 etc. I think the exemption scheme seems fairer then the London Scheme.
That's what you call a deterrent. Paying £12.50 every time you fancy polluting is a cash grab.
Glasgow scheme also has a ton of central government funding behind it
When Boris Johnson instigated the ULEZ scheme, and the Tories instructed Sadiq Khan to implement it, they assumed cameras would assist in recording transgressors. They didn’t have a similar camera scheme to detect those carrying knives.
For some it is a financial issue, for others it is a timing issue, for others it is an issue about science, for others it is an issue about who the Mayor is and what his politics are.
What's also frustrating is that the 'do-nothing' approach would probably be just as effective as ULEZ. Old cars are slowly removed from the road all the time as people upgrade them.
When Boris Johnson instigated the ULEZ scheme, and the Tories instructed Sadiq Khan to implement it, they assumed cameras would assist in recording transgressors. They didn’t have a similar camera scheme to detect those carrying knives.
If ULEZ is a cash grab, at what point does it cross the boundary of some £160 to £170 million that it is costing to set up and start to make a profit? I assume ULEZ is a step towards making the air cleaner for everybody.
If ULEZ was solely about cleaner air, then those with non compliant vehicles (myself included) should not be able to pay to enter the zone whatsoever - my vehicle should be banned outright - but I am welcome to (in TFL’s eyes) pollute London’s air if I pay them to do it
It’s utter nonsense
you really think they're going to ban a certain type of vehicle overnight? The backlash would've been even bigger.
If you think it's a cash grab, then get a compliant vehicle and avoid the cash grab. Simple.
Is that not what Glasgow have done though? - I've just checked my Car on their Low Emission Zone website, and I'll pay a penalty if I drive my car in there, I wont have to pay to drive, I'm just not allowed.
I'd also have less issue if the London ULEZ straight up banned my car, because then I'd agree that they're trying to tackle pollution properly, instead of cashing in on it.
Am sure if it isn't a cash grab, we wont see the rules changed in the future either.
Just checked my Land Rover on their website, and I am completely banned - not allowed in at all
"I can't believe khan would bring in this which is a cash grab and disproportionately affects working class people like me, brb gonna buy a land rover to drive around south london"
Satire is dead.
c) The only time my Land Rover ever goes into London is to go barely 200 yards across the border to walk my dogs at Hall Place
Sooner or later you are likely to be caught by one of the camera vans that will be patrolling the roads without fixed cameras.
What's also frustrating is that the 'do-nothing' approach would probably be just as effective as ULEZ. Old cars are slowly removed from the road all the time as people upgrade them.
But no the Mayor has to go after the poors.
If the mayor didn't offer scrappage schemes the poor would change their cars regardless?
Despite living in Hillingdon, I am currently just outside the Ulez zone, the cynic in me thinks it’s because the main road nearby is access to a large HS2 site.
Comments
I find it very difficult to debate fairly with those that aren't willing to change their own habits without legislation forcing them to do so...primarily because they don't care enough to do it off of their own back, yet will preach to others about how they should change their habits and care more.
Maybe it's just me, I don't know.
Calling people who support ULEZ ‘child killers’ is just silly, especially when many saying it would be against ULEZ, so basically happy to see the current levels of pollution maintained.
I know you’re calling me out as someone who isn’t willing to change my own habits and ‘doesn’t care enough’, but I actually changed my habits some time ago, I just didn’t want to be seen as a virtue signaller soft target tosser lol.
Sadly, the fight against climate change won’t be won through the voluntary actions of individuals, but by governments. I do a tiny bit, that’s all, less than you by the sounds of it. I was originally pointing out that I take about six flights a year, and I know it would be better if I took fewer. I suspect that a big majority are like me, and encouraging people to fly less through education might well be worthy, but it’s a bit like trying to change the direction of an oil tanker by blowing on it. It just won’t be enough.
But next time I go to to the Netherlands I’ll take the Eurostar, as someone on here suggested. Cheers for that. 👍
My nagging doubt is that the 9/10 pre ULEZ claim was genuine but wont much change and we have spent large sums on the scheme to stay where we already were /are.
That too, could potentially save lives.
They didn’t have a similar camera scheme to detect those carrying knives.
But no the Mayor has to go after the poors.
Yawn
must have been some mix-up in the Mr Potato-head parts packing box that day