ULEZ Checker

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. 

O-Randy-Hunt said:

Dansk_Red said:

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 

Lordflashheart said:

seth plum said:

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 

On the contrary - your suggestion of an outright ban is nonsense.

See my previous post below explaining how this is actually a far more efficient and effective route to achieving a set reduction in terms of air quality.

The economics and behavioural science on this show that it works. Not only does it work but it's the most cost effective and economically effective way of doing it. 

It's based on the polluter pays principle (essentially pay for the pollution you create) what has been used around the world for decades in factories/manufacturing, air freight, shipping and more recently in driving in cities around the world. A target level of air quality is agreed upon and the scheme is designed to meet that. The key element to making it efficient is the choice part. You can choose to scrap your car and upgrade, you can choose to switch modes to avoid the charge, you can choose to continue driving and pay the charge but likely drive into the zone less. This is what makes it efficient whilst also meeting a targeted reduction in pollution. Its much fairer and less costly than a blunt instrument ban.

The only flaw with this is that we aren't getting significant improvements and expansions in public transport to go with it. Which should be a requirement of the plan. In fact should just be a given across the country. Cheaper and better public transport required.

cantersaddick said:

Lordflashheart said:

seth plum said:

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 

On the contrary - your suggestion of an outright ban is nonsense.

See my previous post below explaining how this is actually a far more efficient and effective route to achieving a set reduction in terms of air quality.

The economics and behavioural science on this show that it works. Not only does it work but it's the most cost effective and economically effective way of doing it. 

It's based on the polluter pays principle (essentially pay for the pollution you create) what has been used around the world for decades in factories/manufacturing, air freight, shipping and more recently in driving in cities around the world. A target level of air quality is agreed upon and the scheme is designed to meet that. The key element to making it efficient is the choice part. You can choose to scrap your car and upgrade, you can choose to switch modes to avoid the charge, you can choose to continue driving and pay the charge but likely drive into the zone less. This is what makes it efficient whilst also meeting a targeted reduction in pollution. Its much fairer and less costly than a blunt instrument ban.

The only flaw with this is that we aren't getting significant improvements and expansions in public transport to go with it. Which should be a requirement of the plan. In fact should just be a given across the country. Cheaper and better public transport required.

Apologies for keeping on, but you have stated on this thread before that a non-smoking resident of London is 1,000 times more likely to get non-smoking related lung cancer than someone living outside of London. Is there yet any back up for the statement you made?

Big_Bad_World said:

Lordflashheart said:

seth plum said:

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 who supported ULEZ, in a conversation about ULEZ. 

cafc999 said:

kentaddick said:

Lordflashheart said:

seth plum said:

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.

It has taken roughly a decade to bring ULEZ in so yes, they could have banned these vehicles and it would not have been overnight

There would have been endless legal battles over ‘banning cars’. And you actually can’t just ban vehicles. What’s to stop a banned vehicle from driving into the zone? Nothing. But then you fine them for driving into the zone. Which is what they do now. So it’s like a ban. 

kentaddick said:

Lordflashheart said:

ForeverAddickted said:

kentaddick said:

Lordflashheart said:

seth plum said:

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. 

a) I didn’t make the working class quote

b) I don’t live in South London

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

d) I have a compliant vehicle, so if I do have to go any further into London e.g. drive to The Valley, I use that (and before you make one of your usual sarky comments, no it is not a vehicle I can get 2 medium sized dogs in)

You ok with all that dear ?

Over and out 

JamesSeed said:

cafc999 said:

kentaddick said:

Lordflashheart said:

seth plum said:

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.

It has taken roughly a decade to bring ULEZ in so yes, they could have banned these vehicles and it would not have been overnight

There would have been endless legal battles over ‘banning cars’. And you actually can’t just ban vehicles. What’s to stop a banned vehicle from driving into the zone? Nothing. But then you fine them for driving into the zone. Which is what they do now. So it’s like a ban. 

Charging people £60 for the 1st time, £120 for the 2nd time and £240 for the 3rd time is as good as banning them isn't it?

Charging them £12.50 every single time is hardly a ban.

Friend Or Defoe said:

O-Randy-Hunt said:

Dansk_Red said:

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.

A cash grab by charging less? 

London has received recent improvements in public transport BTW.

What would you be more likely to do? Drive in 3 times paying £420 or drive in 3 times paying £37.50.

One of those would certainly stop someone driving in again where as the other certainly wouldn't put you off driving in again.

O-Randy-Hunt said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

O-Randy-Hunt said:

Dansk_Red said:

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.

A cash grab by charging less? 

London has received recent improvements in public transport BTW.

What would you be more likely to do? Drive in 3 times paying £420 or drive in 3 times paying £37.50.

One of those would certainly stop someone driving in again where as the other certainly wouldn't put you off driving in again.

If £12.50 isn't an issue, why the 36 page thread?

So the same people who were describing this as an attack on the poor are also suggesting it would be better if we charged hundreds rather than £12.50. Gotcha.

O-Randy-Hunt said:

Deary me. It isn't that hard to understand 🤦‍♂️

Indeed, whatever Khan does he would be criticised via all sorts of mental gymnastics. Meanwhile free school meals at Primary schools goes unnoticed. 

Big_Bad_World said:

JamesSeed said:

Big_Bad_World said:

Lordflashheart said:

seth plum said:

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 ULEZ (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. 

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.