The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

...
Fwiw mileage based road pricing as a replacement for fuel duty and VED seems sensible to me. But more likely VED will be rebanded to capture EVs.

As much as I agree with your point, given current and past government behaviours mileage based road pricing will be in addition to fuel duty and VED.
VED will be rebanded to capture EVs during the transition to mileage based road pricing to cover some of the current/future loss of revenue. #waronmotorists

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

...
Fwiw mileage based road pricing as a replacement for fuel duty and VED seems sensible to me. But more likely VED will be rebanded to capture EVs.

As much as I agree with your point, given current and past government behaviours mileage based road pricing will be in addition to fuel duty and VED.
VED will be rebanded to capture EVs during the transition to mileage based road pricing to cover current loss of revenue. #waronmotorists

That's what I meant. Either that, or there will be more tax on electricity (to capture the home charging), and at the commercial chargers. Or all of the above, most likely.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

TheBigBean said:

super_davo said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.

So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?

I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.

Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?

The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?

Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.

More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.

But I want my freedom! To sit in a traffic jam going nowhere choking on fumes!

If ever there was a textbook example of the concept of "market failure" i.e. where the best outcome for the individual leads to the worst outcome for the whole, it's use of private vehicles. I find it maddening that "champions of free markets" don't see it.

I don't think you can argue about free markets when the state owns and provides the roads. If it was a free market, you would pay more to drive on roads at peak time and new private roads would be built wherever there was potential profit.

The irony is that is probably the exact solution we need. We all know that if the only way to move around is by car, and everyone wants to do it at the same time, net result is gridlock.

And rather than "pricing poorer drivers off the road" we should incentivise other forms of transport without the associated costs of driving.

But that is exactly what is happening - and your post is quite timely given that the rather controversial expanded London ULEZ comes into force tomorrow.

Weird how you've gone all socialist on this issue. You'll be arguing for state benefits for low earning motorists next.

Well if you're OK with taxing the poor and giving the better off a free pass on motorists taxes, let's extend that to income tax.

This is the issue really. Or issues, plural.

Firstly the magnitude of the health justification is far from clear. Second, the solution is regressive, if you see it as a taxation.

Interview from professor at birmingham uni on R4 yesterday covered these points, basically saying it is a cost benefit analysis where the benefit is probably very small or it would be easier to quantify, and the cost is born disporoprtionately by lower income households.

Seemed to me they cut him a bit short because it wasn't what they'd expected him to say.

Why are you discounting the cost of buying a newer vehicle?

More wealthy people are likely to already have one. Leaving less wealthy people to pay the charge or get a new vehicle.

Buying a newer vehicle is also, proportionately, more difficult at lower income levels.

So whichever way you look at it, ULEZ is a new and regressive tax.

So when a wealthier person upgrades their car that's just a free pass and when a poorer person upgrades their car that's a regressive tax. Got it.

Embarrassing.

? That's literally the situation if it is occasioned by a tax policy, yes.

It's not a tax policy. It's the cost of operating a vehicle. Not everyone can afford it and that is fine.

If it isn't a tax, what is it?

Transport/air quality policy.

If it was a purely money-raising exercise there would be no scrappage scheme or offer of a couple of grand towards a new compliant vehicle.

Oh, right, if its air quality what evidence are they using?

Honestly I don't know whether or not there are data to support the policy, but the continuation of a trend that was happening for other reasons anyway isn't convincing. At least one academic who advised on this seems to hold the same, and presumably far more informed, view.

So it is on shaky ground from a public health standpoint.

If it is just a transport policy, why?

So we're agreed it's not a tax. Good.
We disagree on your interpretation of the available information.
Fewer sh*t cars on the road is good enough for me.
Now just to remove all the hobbyist exemptions.

No, it's a tax. In a few years, the type of cars it captures will shift, and bump up the tax take.

By definition, at that stage, the already potentially immeasurably small benefits in some areas will be even smaller.

Fwiw mileage based road pricing as a replacement for fuel duty and VED seems sensible to me. But more likely VED will be rebanded to capture EVs.

If it's a tax why is there a grant available to avoid it?

kingstongraham

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

TheBigBean said:

super_davo said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.

So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?

I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.

Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?

The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?

Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.

More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.

But I want my freedom! To sit in a traffic jam going nowhere choking on fumes!

If ever there was a textbook example of the concept of "market failure" i.e. where the best outcome for the individual leads to the worst outcome for the whole, it's use of private vehicles. I find it maddening that "champions of free markets" don't see it.

I don't think you can argue about free markets when the state owns and provides the roads. If it was a free market, you would pay more to drive on roads at peak time and new private roads would be built wherever there was potential profit.

The irony is that is probably the exact solution we need. We all know that if the only way to move around is by car, and everyone wants to do it at the same time, net result is gridlock.

And rather than "pricing poorer drivers off the road" we should incentivise other forms of transport without the associated costs of driving.

But that is exactly what is happening - and your post is quite timely given that the rather controversial expanded London ULEZ comes into force tomorrow.

Weird how you've gone all socialist on this issue. You'll be arguing for state benefits for low earning motorists next.

Well if you're OK with taxing the poor and giving the better off a free pass on motorists taxes, let's extend that to income tax.

This is the issue really. Or issues, plural.

Firstly the magnitude of the health justification is far from clear. Second, the solution is regressive, if you see it as a taxation.

Interview from professor at birmingham uni on R4 yesterday covered these points, basically saying it is a cost benefit analysis where the benefit is probably very small or it would be easier to quantify, and the cost is born disporoprtionately by lower income households.

Seemed to me they cut him a bit short because it wasn't what they'd expected him to say.

Why are you discounting the cost of buying a newer vehicle?

More wealthy people are likely to already have one. Leaving less wealthy people to pay the charge or get a new vehicle.

Buying a newer vehicle is also, proportionately, more difficult at lower income levels.

So whichever way you look at it, ULEZ is a new and regressive tax.

So when a wealthier person upgrades their car that's just a free pass and when a poorer person upgrades their car that's a regressive tax. Got it.

Embarrassing.

? That's literally the situation if it is occasioned by a tax policy, yes.

It's not a tax policy. It's the cost of operating a vehicle. Not everyone can afford it and that is fine.

If it isn't a tax, what is it?

Transport/air quality policy.

If it was a purely money-raising exercise there would be no scrappage scheme or offer of a couple of grand towards a new compliant vehicle.

Oh, right, if its air quality what evidence are they using?

Honestly I don't know whether or not there are data to support the policy, but the continuation of a trend that was happening for other reasons anyway isn't convincing. At least one academic who advised on this seems to hold the same, and presumably far more informed, view.

So it is on shaky ground from a public health standpoint.

If it is just a transport policy, why?

So we're agreed it's not a tax. Good.
We disagree on your interpretation of the available information.
Fewer sh*t cars on the road is good enough for me.
Now just to remove all the hobbyist exemptions.

No, it's a tax. In a few years, the type of cars it captures will shift, and bump up the tax take.

By definition, at that stage, the already potentially immeasurably small benefits in some areas will be even smaller.

Fwiw mileage based road pricing as a replacement for fuel duty and VED seems sensible to me. But more likely VED will be rebanded to capture EVs.

If it's a tax why is there a grant available to avoid it?

It's a tax.

Your argument is the same as saying tobacco tax isn't a tax because you can get patches on prescription.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

TheBigBean said:

super_davo said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.

So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?

I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.

Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?

The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?

Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.

More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.

But I want my freedom! To sit in a traffic jam going nowhere choking on fumes!

If ever there was a textbook example of the concept of "market failure" i.e. where the best outcome for the individual leads to the worst outcome for the whole, it's use of private vehicles. I find it maddening that "champions of free markets" don't see it.

I don't think you can argue about free markets when the state owns and provides the roads. If it was a free market, you would pay more to drive on roads at peak time and new private roads would be built wherever there was potential profit.

The irony is that is probably the exact solution we need. We all know that if the only way to move around is by car, and everyone wants to do it at the same time, net result is gridlock.

And rather than "pricing poorer drivers off the road" we should incentivise other forms of transport without the associated costs of driving.

But that is exactly what is happening - and your post is quite timely given that the rather controversial expanded London ULEZ comes into force tomorrow.

Weird how you've gone all socialist on this issue. You'll be arguing for state benefits for low earning motorists next.

Well if you're OK with taxing the poor and giving the better off a free pass on motorists taxes, let's extend that to income tax.

This is the issue really. Or issues, plural.

Firstly the magnitude of the health justification is far from clear. Second, the solution is regressive, if you see it as a taxation.

Interview from professor at birmingham uni on R4 yesterday covered these points, basically saying it is a cost benefit analysis where the benefit is probably very small or it would be easier to quantify, and the cost is born disporoprtionately by lower income households.

Seemed to me they cut him a bit short because it wasn't what they'd expected him to say.

Why are you discounting the cost of buying a newer vehicle?

More wealthy people are likely to already have one. Leaving less wealthy people to pay the charge or get a new vehicle.

Buying a newer vehicle is also, proportionately, more difficult at lower income levels.

So whichever way you look at it, ULEZ is a new and regressive tax.

So when a wealthier person upgrades their car that's just a free pass and when a poorer person upgrades their car that's a regressive tax. Got it.

Embarrassing.

? That's literally the situation if it is occasioned by a tax policy, yes.

It's not a tax policy. It's the cost of operating a vehicle. Not everyone can afford it and that is fine.

If it isn't a tax, what is it?

Transport/air quality policy.

If it was a purely money-raising exercise there would be no scrappage scheme or offer of a couple of grand towards a new compliant vehicle.

Oh, right, if its air quality what evidence are they using?

Honestly I don't know whether or not there are data to support the policy, but the continuation of a trend that was happening for other reasons anyway isn't convincing. At least one academic who advised on this seems to hold the same, and presumably far more informed, view.

So it is on shaky ground from a public health standpoint.

If it is just a transport policy, why?

So we're agreed it's not a tax. Good.
We disagree on your interpretation of the available information.
Fewer sh*t cars on the road is good enough for me.
Now just to remove all the hobbyist exemptions.

No, it's a tax. In a few years, the type of cars it captures will shift, and bump up the tax take.

By definition, at that stage, the already potentially immeasurably small benefits in some areas will be even smaller.

Fwiw mileage based road pricing as a replacement for fuel duty and VED seems sensible to me. But more likely VED will be rebanded to capture EVs.

Why are you getting het up on the taxonomy (pun intended)?

Does it matter?

Unless someone comes up with a more effective alternative to discouraging short car journeys in London/urban areas and getting rid of very pollutant cars, then this is your best option.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

TheBigBean said:

super_davo said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.

So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?

I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.

Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?

The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?

Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.

More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.

But I want my freedom! To sit in a traffic jam going nowhere choking on fumes!

If ever there was a textbook example of the concept of "market failure" i.e. where the best outcome for the individual leads to the worst outcome for the whole, it's use of private vehicles. I find it maddening that "champions of free markets" don't see it.

I don't think you can argue about free markets when the state owns and provides the roads. If it was a free market, you would pay more to drive on roads at peak time and new private roads would be built wherever there was potential profit.

The irony is that is probably the exact solution we need. We all know that if the only way to move around is by car, and everyone wants to do it at the same time, net result is gridlock.

And rather than "pricing poorer drivers off the road" we should incentivise other forms of transport without the associated costs of driving.

But that is exactly what is happening - and your post is quite timely given that the rather controversial expanded London ULEZ comes into force tomorrow.

Weird how you've gone all socialist on this issue. You'll be arguing for state benefits for low earning motorists next.

Well if you're OK with taxing the poor and giving the better off a free pass on motorists taxes, let's extend that to income tax.

This is the issue really. Or issues, plural.

Firstly the magnitude of the health justification is far from clear. Second, the solution is regressive, if you see it as a taxation.

Interview from professor at birmingham uni on R4 yesterday covered these points, basically saying it is a cost benefit analysis where the benefit is probably very small or it would be easier to quantify, and the cost is born disporoprtionately by lower income households.

Seemed to me they cut him a bit short because it wasn't what they'd expected him to say.

Why are you discounting the cost of buying a newer vehicle?

More wealthy people are likely to already have one. Leaving less wealthy people to pay the charge or get a new vehicle.

Buying a newer vehicle is also, proportionately, more difficult at lower income levels.

So whichever way you look at it, ULEZ is a new and regressive tax.

So when a wealthier person upgrades their car that's just a free pass and when a poorer person upgrades their car that's a regressive tax. Got it.

Embarrassing.

? That's literally the situation if it is occasioned by a tax policy, yes.

It's not a tax policy. It's the cost of operating a vehicle. Not everyone can afford it and that is fine.

If it isn't a tax, what is it?

Transport/air quality policy.

If it was a purely money-raising exercise there would be no scrappage scheme or offer of a couple of grand towards a new compliant vehicle.

Oh, right, if its air quality what evidence are they using?

Honestly I don't know whether or not there are data to support the policy, but the continuation of a trend that was happening for other reasons anyway isn't convincing. At least one academic who advised on this seems to hold the same, and presumably far more informed, view.

So it is on shaky ground from a public health standpoint.

If it is just a transport policy, why?

So we're agreed it's not a tax. Good.
We disagree on your interpretation of the available information.
Fewer sh*t cars on the road is good enough for me.
Now just to remove all the hobbyist exemptions.

No, it's a tax. In a few years, the type of cars it captures will shift, and bump up the tax take.

By definition, at that stage, the already potentially immeasurably small benefits in some areas will be even smaller.

Fwiw mileage based road pricing as a replacement for fuel duty and VED seems sensible to me. But more likely VED will be rebanded to capture EVs.

If it's a tax why is there a grant available to avoid it?

It's a tax.

Your argument is the same as saying tobacco tax isn't a tax because you can get patches on prescription.

Taxes are a means for an authority to raise money. This is planned to have negligible income within 4 years.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

TheBigBean said:

super_davo said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Speed makes accidents more dangerous and all accidents are in some way speed related.

So by implication we'd better not travel anywhere if we want to be safe?

I mean the extreme at both ends of the spectrum are stupid.

Why don’t you just let all the roads be a race track and have everyone race as fast as possible all the time?

The point here is that changes in speed limits are almost always downwards. When did you last see a speed limit going up on a section of road?

Now we’re getting back the original point of the thread.

More people, more traffic, more congestion, more urbanised living; makes for lower average speeds and less time efficient car driving.

But I want my freedom! To sit in a traffic jam going nowhere choking on fumes!

If ever there was a textbook example of the concept of "market failure" i.e. where the best outcome for the individual leads to the worst outcome for the whole, it's use of private vehicles. I find it maddening that "champions of free markets" don't see it.

I don't think you can argue about free markets when the state owns and provides the roads. If it was a free market, you would pay more to drive on roads at peak time and new private roads would be built wherever there was potential profit.

The irony is that is probably the exact solution we need. We all know that if the only way to move around is by car, and everyone wants to do it at the same time, net result is gridlock.

And rather than "pricing poorer drivers off the road" we should incentivise other forms of transport without the associated costs of driving.

But that is exactly what is happening - and your post is quite timely given that the rather controversial expanded London ULEZ comes into force tomorrow.

Weird how you've gone all socialist on this issue. You'll be arguing for state benefits for low earning motorists next.

Well if you're OK with taxing the poor and giving the better off a free pass on motorists taxes, let's extend that to income tax.

This is the issue really. Or issues, plural.

Firstly the magnitude of the health justification is far from clear. Second, the solution is regressive, if you see it as a taxation.

Interview from professor at birmingham uni on R4 yesterday covered these points, basically saying it is a cost benefit analysis where the benefit is probably very small or it would be easier to quantify, and the cost is born disporoprtionately by lower income households.

Seemed to me they cut him a bit short because it wasn't what they'd expected him to say.

Why are you discounting the cost of buying a newer vehicle?

More wealthy people are likely to already have one. Leaving less wealthy people to pay the charge or get a new vehicle.

Buying a newer vehicle is also, proportionately, more difficult at lower income levels.

So whichever way you look at it, ULEZ is a new and regressive tax.

So when a wealthier person upgrades their car that's just a free pass and when a poorer person upgrades their car that's a regressive tax. Got it.

Embarrassing.

? That's literally the situation if it is occasioned by a tax policy, yes.

It's not a tax policy. It's the cost of operating a vehicle. Not everyone can afford it and that is fine.

If it isn't a tax, what is it?

Transport/air quality policy.

If it was a purely money-raising exercise there would be no scrappage scheme or offer of a couple of grand towards a new compliant vehicle.

Oh, right, if its air quality what evidence are they using?

Honestly I don't know whether or not there are data to support the policy, but the continuation of a trend that was happening for other reasons anyway isn't convincing. At least one academic who advised on this seems to hold the same, and presumably far more informed, view.

So it is on shaky ground from a public health standpoint.

If it is just a transport policy, why?

So we're agreed it's not a tax. Good.
We disagree on your interpretation of the available information.
Fewer sh*t cars on the road is good enough for me.
Now just to remove all the hobbyist exemptions.

No, it's a tax. In a few years, the type of cars it captures will shift, and bump up the tax take.

By definition, at that stage, the already potentially immeasurably small benefits in some areas will be even smaller.

Fwiw mileage based road pricing as a replacement for fuel duty and VED seems sensible to me. But more likely VED will be rebanded to capture EVs.

Why are you getting het up on the taxonomy (pun intended)?

Does it matter?

Unless someone comes up with a more effective alternative to discouraging short journeys in London/urban areas, then this is your best option.

Well I'm not going to be affected either way, so no it doesn't matter.

As a tax, it is terribly unfair and about as unprogressive as it is possible for a tax to be.

And the efforts to sell it as a public health measure by sheer weight of anecdote is irritating.

Reminds me an awful lot of the cycle helmet and high vis clothing discussions. It has to help, it stands to reason, how can it not help? I am an A&E doctor and I see some terrible injuries, therefore cycle helmets and luminous clothing *would* have helped.

It is a bad way to make policy. But let's face it they decided ULEZ was going to happen well before they started work on the reasons for it.

rick_chasey

I mean, given TFL are running a big deficit because not enough people are using their trains anymore, charging £12.50 a day to drive your car in seems eminently sensible, as it lets you have it both ways; either it forces people onto public transport and reduces car traffic in the city with all the associated benefits, or it raises money.

It could just deter people from coming into London at all, but then a) I think that's unlikely and b) London is busy enough as it is.

rick_chasey

In less high profile ULEZ, the one they're thinking of in Cambridge is in the process of being watered down.

Currently suggestion is going from £5er a day for any car travel anywhere in the city limits, to now only at peak times (the peak is unusually strong because of the size of the hopsital and the number of private schools versus size of the place), with your first 50 days travel free.

Which would mean I would end up paying virtually zero, which I feel rather defeats the point.

kingstongraham

ULEZ is probably affecting some areas it doesn't need to, it's probably introduced at a rate too high for the outermost boroughs in one go, and it probably should not be a single zone for one price. And obviously doesn't affect real polluting old bangers (aka classic cars). Otherwise, perfect.

I'd be surprised if there isn't an introductory period where they send letters rather than fines, but obviously they can't say that.

rick_chasey

Smack 'em with the fines, sharpens them up much more quickly.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

I mean, given TFL are running a big deficit because not enough people are using their trains anymore, charging £12.50 a day to drive your car in seems eminently sensible, as it lets you have it both ways; either it forces people onto public transport and reduces car traffic in the city with all the associated benefits, or it raises money.

It could just deter people from coming into London at all, but then a) I think that's unlikely and b) London is busy enough as it is.

Sorry, what? There's been a drop in demand for public transport because of home working, and that's the reason for ULEZ?

Or is it for public health?

Or is it a congestion charge, levvied on the poor only?

No one can seem to agree.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Definitely would be ok with paying for road use. Can charge you according to how popular the road is and how fast it is.

Sounds like monitoring and enforcement might be a small challenge, given that there are over 260,000 miles of paved Road in the UK. I think we are talking Chinese levels of surveillance and then some.

I think you’d be surprised how much your car is tracked anyway tbh.

Yep, well aware of camera surveillance - mostly in cities and major roads. You need to take a look at the minor roads and lanes like those near me - and work out how you're going to deal with all of those.

If they don’t have much traffic no bother.

They don't. So happy to keep your road charging to the big cities?

What replaces fuel tax?

Road charging in the big cities?

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

I mean, given TFL are running a big deficit because not enough people are using their trains anymore, charging £12.50 a day to drive your car in seems eminently sensible, as it lets you have it both ways; either it forces people onto public transport and reduces car traffic in the city with all the associated benefits, or it raises money.

It could just deter people from coming into London at all, but then a) I think that's unlikely and b) London is busy enough as it is.

Sorry, what? There's been a drop in demand for public transport because of home working, and that's the reason for ULEZ?

Or is it for public health?

Or is it a congestion charge, levvied on the poor only?

No one can seem to agree.

HTH - it's for public health. Revenue is projected to drop to 51m in year 2026/27, giving negative net proceeds after costs are deducted for that year.

All revenue is mandated to go to walking & cycling or public transport, including making buses zero emissions.

First.Aspect

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Definitely would be ok with paying for road use. Can charge you according to how popular the road is and how fast it is.

Sounds like monitoring and enforcement might be a small challenge, given that there are over 260,000 miles of paved Road in the UK. I think we are talking Chinese levels of surveillance and then some.

I think you’d be surprised how much your car is tracked anyway tbh.

Yep, well aware of camera surveillance - mostly in cities and major roads. You need to take a look at the minor roads and lanes like those near me - and work out how you're going to deal with all of those.

If they don’t have much traffic no bother.

They don't. So happy to keep your road charging to the big cities?

What replaces fuel tax?

Road charging in the big cities?

Er.

Stevo_666

Anyway, on the first day of the new expanded ULEZ, a mate of mine who is up at Silverstone for his 'Porshe experience' day sent me a pic of a fully ULEZ compliant car


Hope this helps if anyone needs to avoid the charge.

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Definitely would be ok with paying for road use. Can charge you according to how popular the road is and how fast it is.

Sounds like monitoring and enforcement might be a small challenge, given that there are over 260,000 miles of paved Road in the UK. I think we are talking Chinese levels of surveillance and then some.

I think you’d be surprised how much your car is tracked anyway tbh.

Yep, well aware of camera surveillance - mostly in cities and major roads. You need to take a look at the minor roads and lanes like those near me - and work out how you're going to deal with all of those.

If they don’t have much traffic no bother.

They don't. So happy to keep your road charging to the big cities?

What replaces fuel tax?

Road charging in the big cities?

Er.

The perfect tax is one that someone else pays.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

I mean, given TFL are running a big deficit because not enough people are using their trains anymore, charging £12.50 a day to drive your car in seems eminently sensible, as it lets you have it both ways; either it forces people onto public transport and reduces car traffic in the city with all the associated benefits, or it raises money.

It could just deter people from coming into London at all, but then a) I think that's unlikely and b) London is busy enough as it is.

Sorry, what? There's been a drop in demand for public transport because of home working, and that's the reason for ULEZ?

Or is it for public health?

Or is it a congestion charge, levvied on the poor only?

No one can seem to agree.

Who cares. It's about the outcomes, not the whys.

If it it reduces congestion/ pollution, that's a win.

if it raises money from travel into London, that's a win, especially when raising money from TFL travel has fallen.

I don't see why you're so het up on the why.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Definitely would be ok with paying for road use. Can charge you according to how popular the road is and how fast it is.

Sounds like monitoring and enforcement might be a small challenge, given that there are over 260,000 miles of paved Road in the UK. I think we are talking Chinese levels of surveillance and then some.

I think you’d be surprised how much your car is tracked anyway tbh.

Yep, well aware of camera surveillance - mostly in cities and major roads. You need to take a look at the minor roads and lanes like those near me - and work out how you're going to deal with all of those.

If they don’t have much traffic no bother.

They don't. So happy to keep your road charging to the big cities?

What replaces fuel tax?

Road charging in the big cities?

Er.

The perfect tax is one that someone else pays.

It's a key principle of lefties. More tax = good, as long as they're not paying.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Definitely would be ok with paying for road use. Can charge you according to how popular the road is and how fast it is.

Sounds like monitoring and enforcement might be a small challenge, given that there are over 260,000 miles of paved Road in the UK. I think we are talking Chinese levels of surveillance and then some.

I think you’d be surprised how much your car is tracked anyway tbh.

Yep, well aware of camera surveillance - mostly in cities and major roads. You need to take a look at the minor roads and lanes like those near me - and work out how you're going to deal with all of those.

If they don’t have much traffic no bother.

They don't. So happy to keep your road charging to the big cities?

What replaces fuel tax?

Road charging in the big cities?

Er.

The perfect tax is one that someone else pays.

It's a key principle of lefties. More tax = good, as long as they're not paying.

Is this your way of coming out?

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

I mean, given TFL are running a big deficit because not enough people are using their trains anymore, charging £12.50 a day to drive your car in seems eminently sensible, as it lets you have it both ways; either it forces people onto public transport and reduces car traffic in the city with all the associated benefits, or it raises money.

It could just deter people from coming into London at all, but then a) I think that's unlikely and b) London is busy enough as it is.

Sorry, what? There's been a drop in demand for public transport because of home working, and that's the reason for ULEZ?

Or is it for public health?

Or is it a congestion charge, levvied on the poor only?

No one can seem to agree.

Who cares. It's about the outcomes, not the whys.

If it it reduces congestion/ pollution, that's a win.

if it raises money from travel into London, that's a win, especially when raising money from TFL travel has fallen.

I don't see why you're so het up on the why.

Probably because I am a leftie.

The outcomes are unfair and, given the size of the zone now, it will penalise car usage where there is no real alternative, i.e. anything not directly into or out of the centre.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Definitely would be ok with paying for road use. Can charge you according to how popular the road is and how fast it is.

Sounds like monitoring and enforcement might be a small challenge, given that there are over 260,000 miles of paved Road in the UK. I think we are talking Chinese levels of surveillance and then some.

I think you’d be surprised how much your car is tracked anyway tbh.

Yep, well aware of camera surveillance - mostly in cities and major roads. You need to take a look at the minor roads and lanes like those near me - and work out how you're going to deal with all of those.

If they don’t have much traffic no bother.

They don't. So happy to keep your road charging to the big cities?

What replaces fuel tax?

Road charging in the big cities?

Er.

The perfect tax is one that someone else pays.

It's a key principle of lefties. More tax = good, as long as they're not paying.

Is this your way of coming out?

Nope.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

The outcomes are unfair and, given the size of the zone now, it will penalise car usage where there is no real alternative, i.e. anything not directly into or out of the centre.

Yeah nothing's perfect, but that's probably OK in the grand scheme of things.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

Anyway, on the first day of the new expanded ULEZ, a mate of mine who is up at Silverstone for his 'Porshe experience' day sent me a pic of a fully ULEZ compliant car


Hope this helps if anyone needs to avoid the charge.

I'm no expert, but would that be any fun to drive at about 15mph?

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

I mean, given TFL are running a big deficit because not enough people are using their trains anymore, charging £12.50 a day to drive your car in seems eminently sensible, as it lets you have it both ways; either it forces people onto public transport and reduces car traffic in the city with all the associated benefits, or it raises money.

It could just deter people from coming into London at all, but then a) I think that's unlikely and b) London is busy enough as it is.

Sorry, what? There's been a drop in demand for public transport because of home working, and that's the reason for ULEZ?

Or is it for public health?

Or is it a congestion charge, levvied on the poor only?

No one can seem to agree.

Who cares. It's about the outcomes, not the whys.

If it it reduces congestion/ pollution, that's a win.

if it raises money from travel into London, that's a win, especially when raising money from TFL travel has fallen.

I don't see why you're so het up on the why.

Probably because I am a leftie.

The outcomes are unfair and, given the size of the zone now, it will penalise car usage where there is no real alternative, i.e. anything not directly into or out of the centre.

At present it looks like the lack of advance warning signs for the new ULEZ means that any fines can probably be sufcessfully contested. Good old tory controlled home counties councils
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/28/ulez-signs-could-be-unlawful-tribunal-ruling-london/

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

I mean, given TFL are running a big deficit because not enough people are using their trains anymore, charging £12.50 a day to drive your car in seems eminently sensible, as it lets you have it both ways; either it forces people onto public transport and reduces car traffic in the city with all the associated benefits, or it raises money.

It could just deter people from coming into London at all, but then a) I think that's unlikely and b) London is busy enough as it is.

Sorry, what? There's been a drop in demand for public transport because of home working, and that's the reason for ULEZ?

Or is it for public health?

Or is it a congestion charge, levvied on the poor only?

No one can seem to agree.

Who cares. It's about the outcomes, not the whys.

If it it reduces congestion/ pollution, that's a win.

if it raises money from travel into London, that's a win, especially when raising money from TFL travel has fallen.

I don't see why you're so het up on the why.

Probably because I am a leftie.

The outcomes are unfair and, given the size of the zone now, it will penalise car usage where there is no real alternative, i.e. anything not directly into or out of the centre.

At present it looks like the lack of advance warning signs for the new ULEZ means that any fines can probably be sufcessfully contested. Good old tory controlled home counties councils
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/28/ulez-signs-could-be-unlawful-tribunal-ruling-london/

How can he claim not to have known about the charges after he got the first fine?

Edit - he runs a company with a fleet of HGVs and claims not to have any awareness of what the ULEZ signs might have been.

Also now a Reform party candidate, so it's possible he really could be that stupid.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

I mean, given TFL are running a big deficit because not enough people are using their trains anymore, charging £12.50 a day to drive your car in seems eminently sensible, as it lets you have it both ways; either it forces people onto public transport and reduces car traffic in the city with all the associated benefits, or it raises money.

It could just deter people from coming into London at all, but then a) I think that's unlikely and b) London is busy enough as it is.

Sorry, what? There's been a drop in demand for public transport because of home working, and that's the reason for ULEZ?

Or is it for public health?

Or is it a congestion charge, levvied on the poor only?

No one can seem to agree.

Who cares. It's about the outcomes, not the whys.

If it it reduces congestion/ pollution, that's a win.

if it raises money from travel into London, that's a win, especially when raising money from TFL travel has fallen.

I don't see why you're so het up on the why.

Probably because I am a leftie.

The outcomes are unfair and, given the size of the zone now, it will penalise car usage where there is no real alternative, i.e. anything not directly into or out of the centre.

At present it looks like the lack of advance warning signs for the new ULEZ means that any fines can probably be sufcessfully contested. Good old tory controlled home counties councils
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/28/ulez-signs-could-be-unlawful-tribunal-ruling-london/

How can he claim not to have known about the charges after he got the first fine?

Edit - he runs a company with a fleet of HGVs and claims not to have any awareness of what the ULEZ signs might have been.

Also now a Reform party candidate, so it's possible he really could be that stupid.

Why do you think the tribunal ruled in his favour?

Possibly those who were responsible for the inadequate signage are the stupid ones as its could cost them millions.

pblakeney

Stevo_666 said:

At present it looks like the lack of advance warning signs for the new ULEZ means that any fines can probably be sufcessfully contested. Good old tory controlled home counties councils

Stevo_666 said:

...
Possibly those who were responsible for the inadequate signage are the stupid ones as its could cost them millions.

Quite funny insult to the tories there. 🤣

Stevo_666

pblakeney said:

Stevo_666 said:

At present it looks like the lack of advance warning signs for the new ULEZ means that any fines can probably be sufcessfully contested. Good old tory controlled home counties councils

Stevo_666 said:

...
Possibly those who were responsible for the inadequate signage are the stupid ones as its could cost them millions.

Quite funny insult to the tories there. 🤣

A quick Google tell me tfl are responsible for managing managing the LEZ

pblakeney

Stevo_666 said:

pblakeney said:

Stevo_666 said:

At present it looks like the lack of advance warning signs for the new ULEZ means that any fines can probably be sufcessfully contested. Good old tory controlled home counties councils

Stevo_666 said:

...
Possibly those who were responsible for the inadequate signage are the stupid ones as its could cost them millions.

Quite funny insult to the tories there. 🤣

A quick Google tell me tfl are responsible for managing managing the LEZ

But you said the signage was done by the "Good old tory controlled home counties councils". Can't have it both ways.