Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
ULEZ Checker
Comments
-
Yes. Or there could be an algorithm, rather than a straight cap.RickAddick said:
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.0 -
Whilst I’m sympathetic to the logic of this we have pay per mile today with fuel duty.JamesSeed said:
Yes. Or there could be an algorithm, rather than a straight cap.RickAddick said:
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.Im not sure therefore a cap is necessarily needed / equitable.A few years yet before any national scheme emerges but will be interesting to see what ultimately comes.0 -
It was revealed a few days ago that it was staffers from Tory HQ that set up most of the anti ULEZ Facebook groups, and a lot of the anti ULEZ accounts on X are very suspect indeed. You also find that many accounts attacking ULEZ aren’t based in London.Smithy said:A stronger candidate would have made it a much closer race, but I think this election shows just how much of an echo chamber the internet is. For there to be zero swing in the Conservative’s favour in Bromley and Bexley when ULEZ seems to be all anyone cares about on twitter, is very surprising to me.Sorry for the multiple posts btw, just catching up on this thread6 -
It is great not to live in Bexley or Bromley.
One Republic under the Catford Cat.
1 -
Did you not read my reply? I guess notJamesSeed said:
Do you genuinely think Khan is personally profiting from ULEZ? That’s quite a claim.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
Some people take some things to literally
2 -
I think that those who promote downright lies and disinformation on the internet want others to take what they say literally.
Sadly it works.6 -
But you prefer mechanics to have the money and not TFL/Khan?cafc999 said:
Did you not read my reply? I guess notJamesSeed said:
Do you genuinely think Khan is personally profiting from ULEZ? That’s quite a claim.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
Some people take some things to literally1 -
WowFriend Or Defoe said:
But you prefer mechanics to have the money and not TFL/Khan?cafc999 said:
Did you not read my reply? I guess notJamesSeed said:
Do you genuinely think Khan is personally profiting from ULEZ? That’s quite a claim.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
Some people take some things to literally
Do you not think before typing out?
Ps
How would mechanics get the money when car manufacturers would have to make cars compliant?0 -
Still sore from that remark? 😃
So you prefer TFL/Khan to have the money than the mechanics.1 - Sponsored links:
-
Not sore at all.Friend Or Defoe said:Still sore from that remark? 😃
So you prefer TFL/Khan to have the money than the mechanics.
Just went back through my comments to see where I said that I preferred mechanics to get the money and guess what? I didn't say that at all.
Keep digging lad0 -
P. S. Car made now are compliant and don't need MOTs.0
-
How would a mechanic get the money from my claim?Friend Or Defoe said:P. S. Car made now are compliant and don't need MOTs.
Don't need MOT'S? Hmmm0 -
Maybe one of the reasons ULEZ is having less of an impact in terms of elections may be that London's air quality is improving.4
-
Anti ULEZ people would be pretty motivated to vote. But there may not be as many of them as you’d think.MuttleyCAFC said:Maybe one of the reasons ULEZ is having less of an impact in terms of elections may be that London's air quality is improving.1 -
I think that's it really. There aren't as many of them as people would think. I'm not necessarily buying into some Guardian conspiracy that it's all Tories/bots/Vladimir Putin when he's bored etc but Hall literally said she would overturn ULEZ, as far as I'm concerned people have had their chances to vote against it now and didn't, Khan romped home with 16% of the vote.JamesSeed said:
Anti ULEZ people would be pretty motivated to vote. But there may not be as many of them as you’d think.MuttleyCAFC said:Maybe one of the reasons ULEZ is having less of an impact in terms of elections may be that London's air quality is improving.
If I had bothered to vote it would have been Green, I don't think Khan did a good job of implementing ULEZ, plus I don't particularly like him as he is a divisive character (or because I'm a massive racist if your ego is too fragile to handle that people have legitimately different views to you) but there's absolutely no way I would want it overturned. It would have been a huge step back.
2 -
It was only ever the outer London extension that was to be reversed. Clean air in practice would not have been lost.Huskaris said:
I think that's it really. There aren't as many of them as people would think. I'm not necessarily buying into some Guardian conspiracy that it's all Tories/bots/Vladimir Putin when he's bored etc but Hall literally said she would overturn ULEZ, as far as I'm concerned people have had their chances to vote against it now and didn't, Khan romped home with 16% of the vote.JamesSeed said:
Anti ULEZ people would be pretty motivated to vote. But there may not be as many of them as you’d think.MuttleyCAFC said:Maybe one of the reasons ULEZ is having less of an impact in terms of elections may be that London's air quality is improving.
If I had bothered to vote it would have been Green, I don't think Khan did a good job of implementing ULEZ, plus I don't particularly like him as he is a divisive character (or because I'm a massive racist if your ego is too fragile to handle that people have legitimately different views to you) but there's absolutely no way I would want it overturned. It would have been a huge step back.1 -
It will have a benefit to those areas though won't it?valleynick66 said:
It was only ever the outer London extension that was to be reversed. Clean air in practice would not have been lost.Huskaris said:
I think that's it really. There aren't as many of them as people would think. I'm not necessarily buying into some Guardian conspiracy that it's all Tories/bots/Vladimir Putin when he's bored etc but Hall literally said she would overturn ULEZ, as far as I'm concerned people have had their chances to vote against it now and didn't, Khan romped home with 16% of the vote.JamesSeed said:
Anti ULEZ people would be pretty motivated to vote. But there may not be as many of them as you’d think.MuttleyCAFC said:Maybe one of the reasons ULEZ is having less of an impact in terms of elections may be that London's air quality is improving.
If I had bothered to vote it would have been Green, I don't think Khan did a good job of implementing ULEZ, plus I don't particularly like him as he is a divisive character (or because I'm a massive racist if your ego is too fragile to handle that people have legitimately different views to you) but there's absolutely no way I would want it overturned. It would have been a huge step back.
I do agree though about seeing the management information as I doubt it will have had as big an impact as was claimed, but it will surely have had an impact.
I'd like to see a hierarchy of what contributes to the poor air in London and I would vote for a Mayor who commits to go after the next thing, I am guessing that these cars off the road are a very very small proportion of what is causing issues.
Not wanting clean air (and I'm not aiming this at you) is absolute insanity. Somehow it has become a part of the culture wars on both sides.0 -
I don’t think there’s anyone not wanting clean air. I think it’s more a case of faceless so called journalists polluting public opinion with climate conspiracy nonsense. That’s inevitably lead to “it don’t help pollution anyway!”Huskaris said:
It will have a benefit to those areas though won't it?valleynick66 said:
It was only ever the outer London extension that was to be reversed. Clean air in practice would not have been lost.Huskaris said:
I think that's it really. There aren't as many of them as people would think. I'm not necessarily buying into some Guardian conspiracy that it's all Tories/bots/Vladimir Putin when he's bored etc but Hall literally said she would overturn ULEZ, as far as I'm concerned people have had their chances to vote against it now and didn't, Khan romped home with 16% of the vote.JamesSeed said:
Anti ULEZ people would be pretty motivated to vote. But there may not be as many of them as you’d think.MuttleyCAFC said:Maybe one of the reasons ULEZ is having less of an impact in terms of elections may be that London's air quality is improving.
If I had bothered to vote it would have been Green, I don't think Khan did a good job of implementing ULEZ, plus I don't particularly like him as he is a divisive character (or because I'm a massive racist if your ego is too fragile to handle that people have legitimately different views to you) but there's absolutely no way I would want it overturned. It would have been a huge step back.
I do agree though about seeing the management information as I doubt it will have had as big an impact as was claimed, but it will surely have had an impact.
I'd like to see a hierarchy of what contributes to the poor air in London and I would vote for a Mayor who commits to go after the next thing, I am guessing that these cars off the road are a very very small proportion of what is causing issues.
Not wanting clean air (and I'm not aiming this at you) is absolute insanity. Somehow it has become a part of the culture wars on both sides.1 -
Susan Hall made this a ULEZ election and lost, meaning London approves the expansion. In my mind the debate is over baring any adjustments to it.
Her only other policy was about lowering crime, which was pretty rich for reasons we aren't allowed to get in to on this forum!
We will probably never know, how much of an effect having such a week candidate had on the election. I personally was motivated to vote for Khan because of her, having voted for Binface (Khan second) in the last election. She achieved less than Bailey, who i can barely remember and was before ULEZ. She also pushed the pay for a mile conspiracy but said she wouldn't take down the cameras.
There must be an element who see traffic lights being cut down and an explosive being used in Sidcup and think, fuck these people. Having been worried about their cut then finding out it was compliant.
Also quite a few of us who are getting a bit older in the teeth have Asthma due to the poor air quality during our childhood and support further improvements to it.
All of the above goes against social media where Khan is the Antichrist. Maybe the lies and logical gymnastics motivated people to vote for him.7 - Sponsored links:
-
The truth is , MuttleyMuttleyCAFC said:Maybe one of the reasons ULEZ is having less of an impact in terms of elections may be that London's air quality is improving.
Most of those that were affected by Ulez are getting on with life.
Yes they have a life to lead.
My car was crushed in September, would my car magically reappear if someone else had won as mayor?
Even if I'd of still had the car now, would a different mayor now get rid of ulez?
I'm sorry for a few posters on this thread , but the truth is most of those affected have moved on.
3 -
Exactly about moving on.
I didn’t even vote as I couldn’t find my ID but would not have voted Khan or Hall.
And that’s after having to spend £££ on a new car to replace our 12 year old car. The new car is lovely but I didn’t want it and would have bought a three year old one, but used prices were so high. (If someone says I could buy a ULEZ compliant car for 2K to replace our old S-Max I may get banned from this forum).Huskaris hits the nail on the head about Khan.
Bad, swift and unfair implementation and a divisive weasel (but there is no way I’m voting Tory).
ULEZ is here, the air is apparently cleaner (I imagine it definitely is on the South Circ, not so sure in Sidcup) and that’s a good thing…. but I wouldn’t have bought a diesel in 2014 if I had known about this sooner.Plus the scrappage scheme was only useful if you had a car worth 2K or less.
Getting angry again now, shouldn’t have read this thread.1 -
It is interesting that people say Khan is divisive.
He is no more divisive than any politician that takes a stand, but beyond that I read little detail as to why he is divisive. Such epithets are throwaway adjectives with no explanation.
Personally I think he is the most inclusive Mayor of my lifetime in London, acknowledges that London is a multicultural city and is all the better for that. His speech last December at the Divali event in Trafalgar Square was great, it cemented in what I celebrate, that London is a world city that has adapted to newcomers throughout the centuries.
Khan has considered the welfare of children, done loads for public transport, supported cultural diversity, tried to run things in the face of huge central government cuts, is sincere about trying to deal with the housing crisis in London with his hands tied, expended a lot of political capital when trying to promote progressive policies in the face of criticism.
To me his background as a child that had to live with nine others in a council flat, struggling away with limited family finances, and used education to advance himself is one I can relate to.
Certainly relate to more than others who see homeless street sleeping people as exercising a lifestyle choice, and lie about having their purse stolen on the underground as an effort to paint Khan as a friend of criminals.
10 -
Nice to see everyone complying mateAFKABartram said:Not read this thread before but can see the last few pages a number of people have turned it into to a full on politics thread. Please respect we no longer want that here.6 -
ULEX expansion was made a political football, so it's impossible to divorce it from politics. I do find it sad that some want to stop all political debate, when politics governs all our lives.DaveMehmet said:
Nice to see everyone complying mateAFKABartram said:Not read this thread before but can see the last few pages a number of people have turned it into to a full on politics thread. Please respect we no longer want that here.4 -
It certainly governs yoursME14addick said:
ULEX expansion was made a political football, so it's impossible to divorce it from politics. I do find it sad that some want to stop all political debate, when politics governs all our lives.DaveMehmet said:
Nice to see everyone complying mateAFKABartram said:Not read this thread before but can see the last few pages a number of people have turned it into to a full on politics thread. Please respect we no longer want that here.2 -
By ‘some’ you mean the person who owns the website?ME14addick said:
ULEX expansion was made a political football, so it's impossible to divorce it from politics. I do find it sad that some want to stop all political debate, when politics governs all our lives.DaveMehmet said:
Nice to see everyone complying mateAFKABartram said:Not read this thread before but can see the last few pages a number of people have turned it into to a full on politics thread. Please respect we no longer want that here.6 -
it was allowed to remain open when others pointed out that ULEZ had become a political football.Stu_of_Kunming said:
By ‘some’ you mean the person who owns the website?ME14addick said:
ULEX expansion was made a political football, so it's impossible to divorce it from politics. I do find it sad that some want to stop all political debate, when politics governs all our lives.DaveMehmet said:
Nice to see everyone complying mateAFKABartram said:Not read this thread before but can see the last few pages a number of people have turned it into to a full on politics thread. Please respect we no longer want that here.0 -
Seems different rules apply when you post...ME14addick said:
it was allowed to remain open when others pointed out that ULEZ had become a political football.Stu_of_Kunming said:
By ‘some’ you mean the person who owns the website?ME14addick said:
ULEX expansion was made a political football, so it's impossible to divorce it from politics. I do find it sad that some want to stop all political debate, when politics governs all our lives.DaveMehmet said:
Nice to see everyone complying mateAFKABartram said:Not read this thread before but can see the last few pages a number of people have turned it into to a full on politics thread. Please respect we no longer want that here.
3 -
Yes you're rightFriend Or Defoe said:
Seems different rules apply when you post...ME14addick said:
it was allowed to remain open when others pointed out that ULEZ had become a political football.Stu_of_Kunming said:
By ‘some’ you mean the person who owns the website?ME14addick said:
ULEX expansion was made a political football, so it's impossible to divorce it from politics. I do find it sad that some want to stop all political debate, when politics governs all our lives.DaveMehmet said:
Nice to see everyone complying mateAFKABartram said:Not read this thread before but can see the last few pages a number of people have turned it into to a full on politics thread. Please respect we no longer want that here.1
