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

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

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.

I think the councils are withholding permission to put them up at all, in fairness.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

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.

You think it's actually possible that he operated a fleet of vehicles and claimed in 2020 not to know that the ULEZ signs meant there could be charges? Haha.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

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.

I think the councils are withholding permission to put them up at all, in fairness.

Yeah, so the tory controlled councils are responsible for the inadequate signage so are the stupid ones as its could cost them millions.

Jezyboy

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

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.

You think it's actually possible that he operated a fleet of vehicles and claimed in 2020 not to know that the ULEZ signs meant there could be charges? Haha.

Given how good some "professional" drivers are at driving, I think it's entirely plausible they'd be shocking at running businesses too

Stevo_666

pblakeney said:

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.

No - the tory councils have stopped tfl from putting ULEZ warning signage on their land.

The LEZ is a different scheme that has been around for a dew years and applies only to hgvs, buses etc over a certain weight.

No smartarse points for you today

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

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.

I think the councils are withholding permission to put them up at all, in fairness.

Yeah, so the tory controlled councils are responsible for the inadequate signage so are the stupid ones as its could cost them millions.

No, I think the issue is with the information content of the signs that are actually there. Bit like signs on the entry to car parks, I assume this means they will noe all grow a long Annex with the T&Cs on there.

pblakeney

Stevo_666 said:

pblakeney said:

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.

No - the tory councils have stopped tfl from putting ULEZ warning signage on their land.

The LEZ is a different scheme that has been around for a dew years and applies only to hgvs, buses etc over a certain weight.

No smartarse points for you today

The same principles for LEZ signage will apply to ULEZ signage from today.
I am looking forwards, not backwards.

Pross

It will come down to whether the signs are prescribed in the TSRGD (or have revived approval). If they have it will all be covered by the Regulations and it is up to drivers to understand the implications.

I can sort of understand the argument but at the same time drivers aren’t told on a sign that they can be fined for parking on a double yellow line, exceeding the speed limit or other breaches of sign traffic orders so it all comes down to whether the sign ties up with a Regulation. I suspect the preliminary ruling will get overturned as the people who deal with road signs and TROs are real nerds.

kingstongraham

Pross said:

It will come down to whether the signs are prescribed in the TSRGD (or have revived approval). If they have it will all be covered by the Regulations and it is up to drivers to understand the implications.

I can sort of understand the argument but at the same time drivers aren’t told on a sign that they can be fined for parking on a double yellow line, exceeding the speed limit or other breaches of sign traffic orders so it all comes down to whether the sign ties up with a Regulation. I suspect the preliminary ruling will get overturned as the people who deal with road signs and TROs are real nerds.

Would it be something like this?

https://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-5054.pdf

Pross

Yep, just found authorisations dated 2022 and 2020 so they are definitely authorised signs. It will need more reading to see how the approval links to a Regulation allowing drivers to be fined but I’d be amazed if it isn’t there. In that case the tribunal judgement would appear to be purely that you have to tell a driver entering the zone requires payment. I would think it comes under the category of ignorance being no defence but I guess we’ll see.

kingstongraham

Pross said:

Yep, just found authorisations dated 2022 and 2020 so they are definitely authorised signs. It will need more reading to see how the approval links to a Regulation allowing drivers to be fined but I’d be amazed if it isn’t there. In that case the tribunal judgement would appear to be purely that you have to tell a driver entering the zone requires payment. I would think it comes under the category of ignorance being no defence but I guess we’ll see.

The Telegraph article quotes TFL as saying "the low emission zone signs were deemed lawful by the Department of Transport in 2008. “We are investigating why the correct evidence was not submitted,” it added. "

Could well just be bad prep for the tribunal - I wouldn't be hanging any hope on it, anyway.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Yep, just found authorisations dated 2022 and 2020 so they are definitely authorised signs. It will need more reading to see how the approval links to a Regulation allowing drivers to be fined but I’d be amazed if it isn’t there. In that case the tribunal judgement would appear to be purely that you have to tell a driver entering the zone requires payment. I would think it comes under the category of ignorance being no defence but I guess we’ll see.

The Telegraph article quotes TFL as saying "the low emission zone signs were deemed lawful by the Department of Transport in 2008. “We are investigating why the correct evidence was not submitted,” it added. "

Could well just be bad prep for the tribunal - I wouldn't be hanging any hope on it, anyway.

It's also the Telegraph, so likely to be complete bollox.

briantrumpet

Stevo_666 said:

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.

At the end of the article it says that the DfT approved the signage as being in accordance with requirements. It'll be interesting to see this one played out.

Pross

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Yep, just found authorisations dated 2022 and 2020 so they are definitely authorised signs. It will need more reading to see how the approval links to a Regulation allowing drivers to be fined but I’d be amazed if it isn’t there. In that case the tribunal judgement would appear to be purely that you have to tell a driver entering the zone requires payment. I would think it comes under the category of ignorance being no defence but I guess we’ll see.

The Telegraph article quotes TFL as saying "the low emission zone signs were deemed lawful by the Department of Transport in 2008. “We are investigating why the correct evidence was not submitted,” it added. "

Could well just be bad prep for the tribunal - I wouldn't be hanging any hope on it, anyway.

Yep and it is very much an individual decision to a specific challenge. The way the right wing press are headlining it gives the impression it is a silver bullet to kills the ULEZs.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Yep, just found authorisations dated 2022 and 2020 so they are definitely authorised signs. It will need more reading to see how the approval links to a Regulation allowing drivers to be fined but I’d be amazed if it isn’t there. In that case the tribunal judgement would appear to be purely that you have to tell a driver entering the zone requires payment. I would think it comes under the category of ignorance being no defence but I guess we’ll see.

The Telegraph article quotes TFL as saying "the low emission zone signs were deemed lawful by the Department of Transport in 2008. “We are investigating why the correct evidence was not submitted,” it added. "

Could well just be bad prep for the tribunal - I wouldn't be hanging any hope on it, anyway.

Yep and it is very much an individual decision to a specific challenge. The way the right wing press are headlining it gives the impression it is a silver bullet to kills the ULEZs.

There is a slight difference between the LEZ and expanded ULEZ situation: in the case of the LEZ, that argument was theat the signage was inadequate in that it did not warn about the need to potentially pay a charge. The problem for Citizen Khan is that all but one of the counry councils bordering London have not allowed tfl to put up any form of ULEZ warning signage. So it's a bit tricky to see how a complete absence of signage will be compliant?

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Yep, just found authorisations dated 2022 and 2020 so they are definitely authorised signs. It will need more reading to see how the approval links to a Regulation allowing drivers to be fined but I’d be amazed if it isn’t there. In that case the tribunal judgement would appear to be purely that you have to tell a driver entering the zone requires payment. I would think it comes under the category of ignorance being no defence but I guess we’ll see.

The Telegraph article quotes TFL as saying "the low emission zone signs were deemed lawful by the Department of Transport in 2008. “We are investigating why the correct evidence was not submitted,” it added. "

Could well just be bad prep for the tribunal - I wouldn't be hanging any hope on it, anyway.

Yep and it is very much an individual decision to a specific challenge. The way the right wing press are headlining it gives the impression it is a silver bullet to kills the ULEZs.

There is a slight difference between the LEZ and expanded ULEZ situation: in the case of the LEZ, that argument was theat the signage was inadequate in that it did not warn about the need to potentially pay a charge. The problem for Citizen Khan is that all but one of the counry councils bordering London have not allowed tfl to put up any form of ULEZ warning signage. So it's a bit tricky to see how a complete absence of signage will be compliant?

There is signage inside the zone. It's of a piece with wasting your money on a doomed legal challenge for your Conservative council to have so little concern for their constituents that they wouldn't allow them to be warned about potentially being charged, but you get what you vote for, I guess.

Pross

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Yep, just found authorisations dated 2022 and 2020 so they are definitely authorised signs. It will need more reading to see how the approval links to a Regulation allowing drivers to be fined but I’d be amazed if it isn’t there. In that case the tribunal judgement would appear to be purely that you have to tell a driver entering the zone requires payment. I would think it comes under the category of ignorance being no defence but I guess we’ll see.

The Telegraph article quotes TFL as saying "the low emission zone signs were deemed lawful by the Department of Transport in 2008. “We are investigating why the correct evidence was not submitted,” it added. "

Could well just be bad prep for the tribunal - I wouldn't be hanging any hope on it, anyway.

Yep and it is very much an individual decision to a specific challenge. The way the right wing press are headlining it gives the impression it is a silver bullet to kills the ULEZs.

There is a slight difference between the LEZ and expanded ULEZ situation: in the case of the LEZ, that argument was theat the signage was inadequate in that it did not warn about the need to potentially pay a charge. The problem for Citizen Khan is that all but one of the counry councils bordering London have not allowed tfl to put up any form of ULEZ warning signage. So it's a bit tricky to see how a complete absence of signage will be compliant?

That depends on whether the advanced signage is mandatory or just to give drivers additional warning.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Yep, just found authorisations dated 2022 and 2020 so they are definitely authorised signs. It will need more reading to see how the approval links to a Regulation allowing drivers to be fined but I’d be amazed if it isn’t there. In that case the tribunal judgement would appear to be purely that you have to tell a driver entering the zone requires payment. I would think it comes under the category of ignorance being no defence but I guess we’ll see.

The Telegraph article quotes TFL as saying "the low emission zone signs were deemed lawful by the Department of Transport in 2008. “We are investigating why the correct evidence was not submitted,” it added. "

Could well just be bad prep for the tribunal - I wouldn't be hanging any hope on it, anyway.

Yep and it is very much an individual decision to a specific challenge. The way the right wing press are headlining it gives the impression it is a silver bullet to kills the ULEZs.

There is a slight difference between the LEZ and expanded ULEZ situation: in the case of the LEZ, that argument was theat the signage was inadequate in that it did not warn about the need to potentially pay a charge. The problem for Citizen Khan is that all but one of the counry councils bordering London have not allowed tfl to put up any form of ULEZ warning signage. So it's a bit tricky to see how a complete absence of signage will be compliant?

There is signage inside the zone. It's of a piece with wasting your money on a doomed legal challenge for your Conservative council to have so little concern for their constituents that they wouldn't allow them to be warned about potentially being charged, but you get what you vote for, I guess.

Bit late once you're already in. And very likely can be successfully contested.

rick_chasey

It's quite easy to draw a line between health of Londoners and car pollution.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Yep, just found authorisations dated 2022 and 2020 so they are definitely authorised signs. It will need more reading to see how the approval links to a Regulation allowing drivers to be fined but I’d be amazed if it isn’t there. In that case the tribunal judgement would appear to be purely that you have to tell a driver entering the zone requires payment. I would think it comes under the category of ignorance being no defence but I guess we’ll see.

The Telegraph article quotes TFL as saying "the low emission zone signs were deemed lawful by the Department of Transport in 2008. “We are investigating why the correct evidence was not submitted,” it added. "

Could well just be bad prep for the tribunal - I wouldn't be hanging any hope on it, anyway.

Yep and it is very much an individual decision to a specific challenge. The way the right wing press are headlining it gives the impression it is a silver bullet to kills the ULEZs.

There is a slight difference between the LEZ and expanded ULEZ situation: in the case of the LEZ, that argument was theat the signage was inadequate in that it did not warn about the need to potentially pay a charge. The problem for Citizen Khan is that all but one of the counry councils bordering London have not allowed tfl to put up any form of ULEZ warning signage. So it's a bit tricky to see how a complete absence of signage will be compliant?

That depends on whether the advanced signage is mandatory or just to give drivers additional warning.

According to tfl 's own website there should be advance signage - the tiny flaw in the planning that there aren't (except for the Slough boundary which is tiny).
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ulez-road-signs
Why else was Citizen Khan pleading with the home counties councils to let him install them?

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Yep, just found authorisations dated 2022 and 2020 so they are definitely authorised signs. It will need more reading to see how the approval links to a Regulation allowing drivers to be fined but I’d be amazed if it isn’t there. In that case the tribunal judgement would appear to be purely that you have to tell a driver entering the zone requires payment. I would think it comes under the category of ignorance being no defence but I guess we’ll see.

The Telegraph article quotes TFL as saying "the low emission zone signs were deemed lawful by the Department of Transport in 2008. “We are investigating why the correct evidence was not submitted,” it added. "

Could well just be bad prep for the tribunal - I wouldn't be hanging any hope on it, anyway.

Yep and it is very much an individual decision to a specific challenge. The way the right wing press are headlining it gives the impression it is a silver bullet to kills the ULEZs.

There is a slight difference between the LEZ and expanded ULEZ situation: in the case of the LEZ, that argument was theat the signage was inadequate in that it did not warn about the need to potentially pay a charge. The problem for Citizen Khan is that all but one of the counry councils bordering London have not allowed tfl to put up any form of ULEZ warning signage. So it's a bit tricky to see how a complete absence of signage will be compliant?

There is signage inside the zone. It's of a piece with wasting your money on a doomed legal challenge for your Conservative council to have so little concern for their constituents that they wouldn't allow them to be warned about potentially being charged, but you get what you vote for, I guess.

Bit late once you're already in. And very likely can be successfully contested.

Depends where the signs are and where you are caught, really.

Like I say, I'm sure we'll find out when someone radicalised by The Telegraph loses their appeal.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

It's quite easy to draw a line between health of Londoners and car pollution.

Can we see your evidence? Hopefully it is independent evidence, unlike that used by Sadiq Khan to justify the expansion.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Yep, just found authorisations dated 2022 and 2020 so they are definitely authorised signs. It will need more reading to see how the approval links to a Regulation allowing drivers to be fined but I’d be amazed if it isn’t there. In that case the tribunal judgement would appear to be purely that you have to tell a driver entering the zone requires payment. I would think it comes under the category of ignorance being no defence but I guess we’ll see.

The Telegraph article quotes TFL as saying "the low emission zone signs were deemed lawful by the Department of Transport in 2008. “We are investigating why the correct evidence was not submitted,” it added. "

Could well just be bad prep for the tribunal - I wouldn't be hanging any hope on it, anyway.

Yep and it is very much an individual decision to a specific challenge. The way the right wing press are headlining it gives the impression it is a silver bullet to kills the ULEZs.

There is a slight difference between the LEZ and expanded ULEZ situation: in the case of the LEZ, that argument was theat the signage was inadequate in that it did not warn about the need to potentially pay a charge. The problem for Citizen Khan is that all but one of the counry councils bordering London have not allowed tfl to put up any form of ULEZ warning signage. So it's a bit tricky to see how a complete absence of signage will be compliant?

There is signage inside the zone. It's of a piece with wasting your money on a doomed legal challenge for your Conservative council to have so little concern for their constituents that they wouldn't allow them to be warned about potentially being charged, but you get what you vote for, I guess.

Bit late once you're already in. And very likely can be successfully contested.

Depends where the signs are and where you are caught, really.

Like I say, I'm sure we'll find out when someone radicalised by The Telegraph loses their appeal.

No radicals, just some poor sods whom are getting ripped off by tfl. The legal view seems to be that unless there is clear warning that you will be entering the zone, appeals will be successful.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/24/challenge-ulez-fines-no-signs-loophole/

It'll be fun finding out

Pross

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Yep, just found authorisations dated 2022 and 2020 so they are definitely authorised signs. It will need more reading to see how the approval links to a Regulation allowing drivers to be fined but I’d be amazed if it isn’t there. In that case the tribunal judgement would appear to be purely that you have to tell a driver entering the zone requires payment. I would think it comes under the category of ignorance being no defence but I guess we’ll see.

The Telegraph article quotes TFL as saying "the low emission zone signs were deemed lawful by the Department of Transport in 2008. “We are investigating why the correct evidence was not submitted,” it added. "

Could well just be bad prep for the tribunal - I wouldn't be hanging any hope on it, anyway.

Yep and it is very much an individual decision to a specific challenge. The way the right wing press are headlining it gives the impression it is a silver bullet to kills the ULEZs.

There is a slight difference between the LEZ and expanded ULEZ situation: in the case of the LEZ, that argument was theat the signage was inadequate in that it did not warn about the need to potentially pay a charge. The problem for Citizen Khan is that all but one of the counry councils bordering London have not allowed tfl to put up any form of ULEZ warning signage. So it's a bit tricky to see how a complete absence of signage will be compliant?

There is signage inside the zone. It's of a piece with wasting your money on a doomed legal challenge for your Conservative council to have so little concern for their constituents that they wouldn't allow them to be warned about potentially being charged, but you get what you vote for, I guess.

Bit late once you're already in. And very likely can be successfully contested.

Depends where the signs are and where you are caught, really.

Like I say, I'm sure we'll find out when someone radicalised by The Telegraph loses their appeal.

No radicals, just some poor sods whom are getting ripped off by tfl. The legal view seems to be that unless there is clear warning that you will be entering the zone, appeals will be successful.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/24/challenge-ulez-fines-no-signs-loophole/

It'll be fun finding out

Are you going to put yourself forward for a test case or rely on others?

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Yep, just found authorisations dated 2022 and 2020 so they are definitely authorised signs. It will need more reading to see how the approval links to a Regulation allowing drivers to be fined but I’d be amazed if it isn’t there. In that case the tribunal judgement would appear to be purely that you have to tell a driver entering the zone requires payment. I would think it comes under the category of ignorance being no defence but I guess we’ll see.

The Telegraph article quotes TFL as saying "the low emission zone signs were deemed lawful by the Department of Transport in 2008. “We are investigating why the correct evidence was not submitted,” it added. "

Could well just be bad prep for the tribunal - I wouldn't be hanging any hope on it, anyway.

Yep and it is very much an individual decision to a specific challenge. The way the right wing press are headlining it gives the impression it is a silver bullet to kills the ULEZs.

There is a slight difference between the LEZ and expanded ULEZ situation: in the case of the LEZ, that argument was theat the signage was inadequate in that it did not warn about the need to potentially pay a charge. The problem for Citizen Khan is that all but one of the counry councils bordering London have not allowed tfl to put up any form of ULEZ warning signage. So it's a bit tricky to see how a complete absence of signage will be compliant?

There is signage inside the zone. It's of a piece with wasting your money on a doomed legal challenge for your Conservative council to have so little concern for their constituents that they wouldn't allow them to be warned about potentially being charged, but you get what you vote for, I guess.

Bit late once you're already in. And very likely can be successfully contested.

Depends where the signs are and where you are caught, really.

Like I say, I'm sure we'll find out when someone radicalised by The Telegraph loses their appeal.

No radicals, just some poor sods whom are getting ripped off by tfl. The legal view seems to be that unless there is clear warning that you will be entering the zone, appeals will be successful.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/24/challenge-ulez-fines-no-signs-loophole/

It'll be fun finding out

Anyone who can afford Nick Freeman to represent them should just pay the fine.

kingstongraham

I don't think you can carry on getting fines in the same car in the same place and keep arguing you didn't know there were fines for driving it there.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Yep, just found authorisations dated 2022 and 2020 so they are definitely authorised signs. It will need more reading to see how the approval links to a Regulation allowing drivers to be fined but I’d be amazed if it isn’t there. In that case the tribunal judgement would appear to be purely that you have to tell a driver entering the zone requires payment. I would think it comes under the category of ignorance being no defence but I guess we’ll see.

The Telegraph article quotes TFL as saying "the low emission zone signs were deemed lawful by the Department of Transport in 2008. “We are investigating why the correct evidence was not submitted,” it added. "

Could well just be bad prep for the tribunal - I wouldn't be hanging any hope on it, anyway.

Yep and it is very much an individual decision to a specific challenge. The way the right wing press are headlining it gives the impression it is a silver bullet to kills the ULEZs.

There is a slight difference between the LEZ and expanded ULEZ situation: in the case of the LEZ, that argument was theat the signage was inadequate in that it did not warn about the need to potentially pay a charge. The problem for Citizen Khan is that all but one of the counry councils bordering London have not allowed tfl to put up any form of ULEZ warning signage. So it's a bit tricky to see how a complete absence of signage will be compliant?

There is signage inside the zone. It's of a piece with wasting your money on a doomed legal challenge for your Conservative council to have so little concern for their constituents that they wouldn't allow them to be warned about potentially being charged, but you get what you vote for, I guess.

Bit late once you're already in. And very likely can be successfully contested.

Depends where the signs are and where you are caught, really.

Like I say, I'm sure we'll find out when someone radicalised by The Telegraph loses their appeal.

No radicals, just some poor sods whom are getting ripped off by tfl. The legal view seems to be that unless there is clear warning that you will be entering the zone, appeals will be successful.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/24/challenge-ulez-fines-no-signs-loophole/

It'll be fun finding out

Are you going to put yourself forward for a test case or rely on others?

Sadly I can't as my cars are all compliant.

It also assumes that there are working ULEZ cameras left to catch people.
https://mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-ulez-cameras-vandalised-red-30808462

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Yep, just found authorisations dated 2022 and 2020 so they are definitely authorised signs. It will need more reading to see how the approval links to a Regulation allowing drivers to be fined but I’d be amazed if it isn’t there. In that case the tribunal judgement would appear to be purely that you have to tell a driver entering the zone requires payment. I would think it comes under the category of ignorance being no defence but I guess we’ll see.

The Telegraph article quotes TFL as saying "the low emission zone signs were deemed lawful by the Department of Transport in 2008. “We are investigating why the correct evidence was not submitted,” it added. "

Could well just be bad prep for the tribunal - I wouldn't be hanging any hope on it, anyway.

Yep and it is very much an individual decision to a specific challenge. The way the right wing press are headlining it gives the impression it is a silver bullet to kills the ULEZs.

There is a slight difference between the LEZ and expanded ULEZ situation: in the case of the LEZ, that argument was theat the signage was inadequate in that it did not warn about the need to potentially pay a charge. The problem for Citizen Khan is that all but one of the counry councils bordering London have not allowed tfl to put up any form of ULEZ warning signage. So it's a bit tricky to see how a complete absence of signage will be compliant?

There is signage inside the zone. It's of a piece with wasting your money on a doomed legal challenge for your Conservative council to have so little concern for their constituents that they wouldn't allow them to be warned about potentially being charged, but you get what you vote for, I guess.

Bit late once you're already in. And very likely can be successfully contested.

Depends where the signs are and where you are caught, really.

Like I say, I'm sure we'll find out when someone radicalised by The Telegraph loses their appeal.

No radicals, just some poor sods whom are getting ripped off by tfl. The legal view seems to be that unless there is clear warning that you will be entering the zone, appeals will be successful.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/24/challenge-ulez-fines-no-signs-loophole/

It'll be fun finding out

Anyone who can afford Nick Freeman to represent them should just pay the fine.

More relevant is his view on the legal position. I think he is right.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Yep, just found authorisations dated 2022 and 2020 so they are definitely authorised signs. It will need more reading to see how the approval links to a Regulation allowing drivers to be fined but I’d be amazed if it isn’t there. In that case the tribunal judgement would appear to be purely that you have to tell a driver entering the zone requires payment. I would think it comes under the category of ignorance being no defence but I guess we’ll see.

The Telegraph article quotes TFL as saying "the low emission zone signs were deemed lawful by the Department of Transport in 2008. “We are investigating why the correct evidence was not submitted,” it added. "

Could well just be bad prep for the tribunal - I wouldn't be hanging any hope on it, anyway.

Yep and it is very much an individual decision to a specific challenge. The way the right wing press are headlining it gives the impression it is a silver bullet to kills the ULEZs.

There is a slight difference between the LEZ and expanded ULEZ situation: in the case of the LEZ, that argument was theat the signage was inadequate in that it did not warn about the need to potentially pay a charge. The problem for Citizen Khan is that all but one of the counry councils bordering London have not allowed tfl to put up any form of ULEZ warning signage. So it's a bit tricky to see how a complete absence of signage will be compliant?

There is signage inside the zone. It's of a piece with wasting your money on a doomed legal challenge for your Conservative council to have so little concern for their constituents that they wouldn't allow them to be warned about potentially being charged, but you get what you vote for, I guess.

Bit late once you're already in. And very likely can be successfully contested.

Depends where the signs are and where you are caught, really.

Like I say, I'm sure we'll find out when someone radicalised by The Telegraph loses their appeal.

No radicals, just some poor sods whom are getting ripped off by tfl. The legal view seems to be that unless there is clear warning that you will be entering the zone, appeals will be successful.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/24/challenge-ulez-fines-no-signs-loophole/

It'll be fun finding out

Very much enjoying your transformation to a bleeding heart leftie.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Yep, just found authorisations dated 2022 and 2020 so they are definitely authorised signs. It will need more reading to see how the approval links to a Regulation allowing drivers to be fined but I’d be amazed if it isn’t there. In that case the tribunal judgement would appear to be purely that you have to tell a driver entering the zone requires payment. I would think it comes under the category of ignorance being no defence but I guess we’ll see.

The Telegraph article quotes TFL as saying "the low emission zone signs were deemed lawful by the Department of Transport in 2008. “We are investigating why the correct evidence was not submitted,” it added. "

Could well just be bad prep for the tribunal - I wouldn't be hanging any hope on it, anyway.

Yep and it is very much an individual decision to a specific challenge. The way the right wing press are headlining it gives the impression it is a silver bullet to kills the ULEZs.

There is a slight difference between the LEZ and expanded ULEZ situation: in the case of the LEZ, that argument was theat the signage was inadequate in that it did not warn about the need to potentially pay a charge. The problem for Citizen Khan is that all but one of the counry councils bordering London have not allowed tfl to put up any form of ULEZ warning signage. So it's a bit tricky to see how a complete absence of signage will be compliant?

There is signage inside the zone. It's of a piece with wasting your money on a doomed legal challenge for your Conservative council to have so little concern for their constituents that they wouldn't allow them to be warned about potentially being charged, but you get what you vote for, I guess.

Bit late once you're already in. And very likely can be successfully contested.

Depends where the signs are and where you are caught, really.

Like I say, I'm sure we'll find out when someone radicalised by The Telegraph loses their appeal.

No radicals, just some poor sods whom are getting ripped off by tfl. The legal view seems to be that unless there is clear warning that you will be entering the zone, appeals will be successful.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/24/challenge-ulez-fines-no-signs-loophole/

It'll be fun finding out

Very much enjoying your transformation to a bleeding heart leftie.

Sorry, am I treading on your toes?