Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
ULEZ Checker
Comments
-
Stop people voting?valleynick66 said:
Not sure what laws are broken though?JamesSeed said:
The police need to get involved.seth plum said:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/27/tory-staff-running-network-of-anti-ulez-facebook-groups-riddled-with-racism-and-abuseThis is a story from the Guardian about the grass roots ordinary humble people's resistance to the ULEZ expansion.Social media generally is full of unpleasant comments on all sides and all topics.Social media and use of AI will feature/influence all voting globally in future and not sure there is an obvious way to best control it.0 -
And tend to use public transport more than drive?JohnnyH2 said:
Isn't that going to affect the poorest in society more. Those who cannot do jobs from their homes and have to drive to work to do their actual and in lot of cases lowly paid workJamesSeed said:
Pay by the mile sounds ok to me. Much fairer than charging everyone the same, when some people hardly use their cars at all. It’s just common sense isn’t it?valleynick66 said:valleynick66 said:
I think we may be at crossed purposes I thought Khan had confirmed he did have a feasibility study under way?Bournemouth Addick said:
I think when you repeat the same lie over and over and over again you're getting into semantics suggesting it's not a pattern of dishonesty tbh. If your political opponent take the (highly unusual) step of reporting the matter for investigation I suspect that any justification for the claim having any proper basis in fact is thin. To say the least.valleynick66 said:
To be clear I’m not a fan of her or her campaign. Indeed I think all the candidates are poor.Bournemouth Addick said:
Her whole campaign is built around it, as I'm sure you know. But the constant repeating by her and her campaign of the (non-existent) plans from Khan to introduce pay-per-mile charging eventually resulted in a complaint to the CPS. So there's that.valleynick66 said:
What has she claimed about ULEZ which is untrue out of interest?Bournemouth Addick said:Not sure I buy into this thing about Susan Hall being a political outlier tbh. On the subject of ULEZ she's been very happy to overtly perpetuate a pack of lies she knows to be untrue, whilst who knows what's been circulating away from any sort of public scrutiny via these astroturf accounts.
On top of other elements of her character she seems very 'on brand' for her party.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyxe8vr580no.ampBUT to your point I think you are saying the only lie in ULEZ is about pay per mile ?
Further though I thought several posters on here with inside knowledge of TFL have advised there was and is feasibility studies underway so not sure what the lie actually is?
But, despite Khan's unequivocal and frequent denial of the lie, it clearly cuts through with some of the electorate. So it's job done for her campaign I suppose but we'll have to agree to disagree on whether it's even a lie.
Perhaps its precise wording we are debating in that he might say it’s not a pre determined outcome ?
in any event isn’t the ‘complaint’ in that article about the style of the leaflet as required by electoral law and not the messages/ points being made?
You’d have to have guarantees about maximum charge limits though.3 -
The Facebook groups will stop people voting?AddicksAddict said:
Stop people voting?valleynick66 said:
Not sure what laws are broken though?JamesSeed said:
The police need to get involved.seth plum said:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/27/tory-staff-running-network-of-anti-ulez-facebook-groups-riddled-with-racism-and-abuseThis is a story from the Guardian about the grass roots ordinary humble people's resistance to the ULEZ expansion.Social media generally is full of unpleasant comments on all sides and all topics.Social media and use of AI will feature/influence all voting globally in future and not sure there is an obvious way to best control it.
But what law is broken was my question. It’s not great behaviour if the groups were created and maintained as part of their electioneering and hidden but I don’t know it’s illegal is the point.
0 -
I hope a lot of people make the effort today.
People made huge sacrifices for the right to vote, it isn’t yet 100 years that there has been proper gender equality of voting rights in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.8 -
Just done my vote plum-meister 👍1
-
10 -
It's almost a shame that Laurence Fox was too stupid to fill out his form correctly as I wonder if Count Binface might have actually beaten him this time.4
-
I meant, if you want to stop people being unduly influenced when they vote, just stop them voting.valleynick66 said:
The Facebook groups will stop people voting?AddicksAddict said:
Stop people voting?valleynick66 said:
Not sure what laws are broken though?JamesSeed said:
The police need to get involved.seth plum said:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/27/tory-staff-running-network-of-anti-ulez-facebook-groups-riddled-with-racism-and-abuseThis is a story from the Guardian about the grass roots ordinary humble people's resistance to the ULEZ expansion.Social media generally is full of unpleasant comments on all sides and all topics.Social media and use of AI will feature/influence all voting globally in future and not sure there is an obvious way to best control it.
But what law is broken was my question. It’s not great behaviour if the groups were created and maintained as part of their electioneering and hidden but I don’t know it’s illegal is the point.
I read a story many years ago where market research had become so accurate, they asked one person their opinion and that was the result.1 -
I think, having failed miserably to put himself forward for Mayor, he might have wangled a shot at the Assembly instead. I seem to recall reading something about that.Jints said:
He was on my ballot paper...Rizzo said:It's almost a shame that Laurence Fox was too stupid to fill out his form correctly as I wonder if Count Binface might have actually beaten him this time.0 - Sponsored links:
-
Ah, that must be it.Rizzo said:
I think, having failed miserably to put himself forward for Mayor, he might have wangled a shot at the Assembly instead. I seem to recall reading something about that.Jints said:
He was on my ballot paper...Rizzo said:It's almost a shame that Laurence Fox was too stupid to fill out his form correctly as I wonder if Count Binface might have actually beaten him this time.0 -
Boris forgot his ID.1
-
After the Uxbridge by-election they broadened the qualification for the scrappage scheme which paid two grand.valleynick66 said:
I suspect pay per mile is inevitable to replace lost revenue at the pump in due course in some fashion.Friend Or Defoe said:
I did think that was the case. Pay for a mile seems to be a way to legitimise their anger.cantersaddick said:
Valley Nick being one of themFriend Or Defoe said:
Of course this only applies to the 10% of cars that aren't complaint and the subset of that whose owners don't drive as far as the South circular.valleynick66 said:
It wasn't a years notice. Speculation is very different from confirmation.cantersaddick said:
You keep saying this even though its not really true. A year exactly from announcement of the final confirmation that it was happening to it being it place (plus 1 week where you got a notification but no charge). Before that there was widespread coverage of it from discussions in city hall, press coverage, public consultations etc. for a further 18 months. So between 2 and 2.5 years notice for anyone not living under a rock. How much warning do you think should have been given?valleynick66 said:
The evidence is that he has spent on feasibility studies / recruited staff for this purpose. Posters on here with knowledge of TFL have also confirmed this. khan has not said that no money has been spent on it.seth plum said:
Well as I said above, if there is evidence about road pricing could you provide a link? Including the spending on stuff for road pricing directed by Sadiq Khan. He has made a statement, if you think it was forced out of him that is an opinion certainly, whether it is fact is open to debate.valleynick66 said:
It is wrong to say the latest expansion was introduced with a lot of warning. It was not. Even more so amidst a cost of living crisis.seth plum said:The introduction might have had ways to improve it, but @cantersaddick has explained quite often the scheme was introduced with a lot of warning, and a scrappage scheme. What other things might have been done?
If we want an environment with cleaner air one way or another is it will cost us all financially and a change in lifestyles.
As for Sadiq Khan and road pricing he has said the GLA always keep road pricing ‘under review’, is there anything wrong with that? He has also said that whilst he is Mayor he would not introduce road pricing.
It is up to each person to decide if Khan can be believed on that.
That always brings me back to Ella’s mother Rosamund Kissi Debrah and her ongoing campaign to keep the health issue up there with the car issue.
https://www.ellaroberta.org/about-us/our-people/This should not be glossed over. Further the scrappage scheme had to be improved from the initial offering.So the point on pay per mile remains. it is the case he has spent significant sums to date on it and now been forced to state it wont yet be introduced. The evidence you queried is effectively there as a lesser study would surely have sufficed if the plans were not more advanced.Any observations on why we still await any detailed analysis on compliance / fines issued?The warnings about the introduction of both ULEZ schemes and whether there was enough of it is down to opinion too. I personally believe it was dragged on too long before introduction, increasing the suffering of those affected by dirty air.
In terms of compliance and fines I don’t have any link to data on that. Nor do I have a link to how much cleaner the air has become.
Khan has been excellent during all this, because the car lobby is more vociferous and powerful than the concerned parent lobby, but he has walked a tricky path between the two opposing forces very well.
There is no evidence that previously Shaun Bailey, and currently Susan Hall give a damn about the pollution or the death of little Ella, or the suffering of others.There was not warning that ULEZ would be extended to its latest boundary.
25th November for introduction on 29th August. No one knew with certainty of any grace period either.
The point being ignored is that this was done in the midst of a cost of living 'crisis' and hence the period is too short - that is my point.
Poor timing and an immediate fee level which he (Khan) could have softened but chose not to.
18 months notice is my answer to your question on what is better / should have been given.
Question for you @cantersaddick any thoughts on the lack of MI and why its taking this long? I really think it would be interesting to see and positively show how its influenced road users. I repeat I support the objective just not the timing of the implementation.
Some posters complained that the fine is too light and there should be an outright ban on all non-compliant cars.I don’t think we necessarily need a London specific ‘tax’ however once ULEZ has addressed pollution levels.To repeat once more my ‘anger’ is not the spirit if ULEZ just how implemented for outer London. Ways and means is the point.
Various local garages offered me roughly a grand for a nine year old Citroën Picasso. And that £2K covered half the deposit on a tasty replacement.
There was no option to test actual emissions and repair so as to make a car compliant but that's a minor detail. End of the day many either have no car or they trade in every three years. Some of us buy three year old cars and get rid at 80,000 miles as reliability drops.
Overall ULEZ will probably make a positive contribution to air quality which is important, especially for kids. The data will be interesting for some for sure. Equally Facebook hate groups and criminal damage to traffic lights are also part of the picture.
Not a picture many of us envisaged 10 years ago. In fact back then some were predicting driverless cars delivering the majority of urban milage by 2027. Just searched and that date has slipped to 2035.
Realistically all of the technology discussed can contribute to a pricing model for that future. For driverless cars could be owned and hired out by the like of Uber with self insurance. One could expand but the point is to be open minded about urban landscapes.0 -
Why not make lower emissions part of the MOT. That way everyone complies, the air gets 'cleaner' and nobody gets to line Khan's pocket1
-
Do you seriously think before you post? Or are you literally of the opinion that the mayor of London is pocketing cash himself, personally - as a result of the ULEZ?cafc999 said:Why not make lower emissions part of the MOT. That way everyone complies, the air gets 'cleaner' and nobody gets to line Khan's pocket
Jesus christ.8 -
So you reckon all the treasury managers, finance directors, credit controllers, clerks, budget holders, advisors in between the ULEZ payer and Khan are all in on it and funnelling the £12.50s straight to Khan yeah? Sounds totally reasonable.cafc999 said:Why not make lower emissions part of the MOT. That way everyone complies, the air gets 'cleaner' and nobody gets to line Khan's pocket4 -
It' was a figure of speechLeroy Ambrose said:
Do you seriously think before you post? Or are you literally of the opinion that the mayor of London is pocketing cash himself, personally - as a result of the ULEZ?cafc999 said:Why not make lower emissions part of the MOT. That way everyone complies, the air gets 'cleaner' and nobody gets to line Khan's pocket
Jesus christ.
A bit like when people say Khan pays for free school meals
Jesus Christ.1 -
Daily cap, like the Oyster system for public transport, perhaps?JamesSeed said:
Pay by the mile sounds ok to me. Much fairer than charging everyone the same, when some people hardly use their cars at all. It’s just common sense isn’t it?valleynick66 said:valleynick66 said:
I think we may be at crossed purposes I thought Khan had confirmed he did have a feasibility study under way?Bournemouth Addick said:
I think when you repeat the same lie over and over and over again you're getting into semantics suggesting it's not a pattern of dishonesty tbh. If your political opponent take the (highly unusual) step of reporting the matter for investigation I suspect that any justification for the claim having any proper basis in fact is thin. To say the least.valleynick66 said:
To be clear I’m not a fan of her or her campaign. Indeed I think all the candidates are poor.Bournemouth Addick said:
Her whole campaign is built around it, as I'm sure you know. But the constant repeating by her and her campaign of the (non-existent) plans from Khan to introduce pay-per-mile charging eventually resulted in a complaint to the CPS. So there's that.valleynick66 said:
What has she claimed about ULEZ which is untrue out of interest?Bournemouth Addick said:Not sure I buy into this thing about Susan Hall being a political outlier tbh. On the subject of ULEZ she's been very happy to overtly perpetuate a pack of lies she knows to be untrue, whilst who knows what's been circulating away from any sort of public scrutiny via these astroturf accounts.
On top of other elements of her character she seems very 'on brand' for her party.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyxe8vr580no.ampBUT to your point I think you are saying the only lie in ULEZ is about pay per mile ?
Further though I thought several posters on here with inside knowledge of TFL have advised there was and is feasibility studies underway so not sure what the lie actually is?
But, despite Khan's unequivocal and frequent denial of the lie, it clearly cuts through with some of the electorate. So it's job done for her campaign I suppose but we'll have to agree to disagree on whether it's even a lie.
Perhaps its precise wording we are debating in that he might say it’s not a pre determined outcome ?
in any event isn’t the ‘complaint’ in that article about the style of the leaflet as required by electoral law and not the messages/ points being made?
You’d have to have guarantees about maximum charge limits though.1 -
Spot on, the more money in an honest car mechanics pocket the better.cafc999 said:Why not make lower emissions part of the MOT. That way everyone complies, the air gets 'cleaner' and nobody gets to line Khan's pocket
Although i did see on STOP ULEZ NOW KHAN IS KILLING LONDON Facebook group from a bloke in Preston that car mechanics have to give all of their profits to Khan.2 -
Honest car mechanics? Could you point me in their direction please?1
- Sponsored links:
-
2
-
Not long to go until the London result.
Whilst voting yesterday I sang ‘Maybe It’s Because I’m A Londoner’.
I voted for Khan as Mayor because the battleground chosen by Hall was essentially the environment, my other two votes were for Green, in order to encourage them a little bit to keep on keeping on.5 -
Annoying the results won't be out until Saturday. I make Khan right when he states she is the most dangerous candidate he's had to face.2
-
I feel that Susan Hall will have gained some votes by the lies she has put out to the gullible.
There may also be another agenda she is playing too, but I dare not type out loud what I think that other agenda she and her voters have.3 -
I cannot see Khan losing tbf0
-
the expectation management bollocks from both parties is silly today1
-
Labour lost 2 seats in local council by-elections to the Tories in Sutton and Wandsworth, which the one Labour candidate blamed ULEZ for the lose.0
-
On bbc London news last night, some parties were worried because the turn out in the outer suburbs were high think from memory they said 43% (Bexley was highlighted) compared to only 31% in the inner suburbs, this was put down to a direct result of ULEZ, be interesting to see what effect these different turn outs have,0
-
Those turnout figures are shocking. A lot of people don't vote because they think politicians are bull shitters. There is a big hole in politics at moment.CharltonKerry said:On bbc London news last night, some parties were worried because the turn out in the outer suburbs were high think from memory they said 43% (Bexley was highlighted) compared to only 31% in the inner suburbs, this was put down to a direct result of ULEZ, be interesting to see what effect these different turn outs have,0 -
Local election figures are always low compared to general election0
