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

kingstongraham

So the position is that you aren't in London, don't own a non-compliant vehicle, but are obsessed with it because you don't want the poorest people to have to pay to drive there.

But you do want some of those people to not pay their £12.50, for them to get fined £180, and to then appeal against their fines, so you can find out if a charge that won't affect you is valid for other people driving into London.

Fair play to you, everyone needs a hobby.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

So the position is that you aren't in London, don't own a non-compliant vehicle, but are obsessed with it because you don't want the poorest people to have to pay to drive there.

But you do want some of those people to not pay their £12.50, for them to get fined £180, and to then appeal against their fines, so you can find out if a charge that won't affect you is valid for other people driving into London.

Fair play to you, everyone needs a hobby.

If everyone only commented on stuff that directly affected them, Cake Stop would be a pretty quiet place. Fortunately there is no shortage of posters who think they know better than those who are directly affected.

super_davo

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?

I don't think he'd be able to because his car, along with 90% of other cars on the road, is compliant...

My car isn't, as a pre-2015 diesel, and I also live bordering London so I'm sure I'll get hit by it (needed to pay central London ULEZ twice last year). But on the flip side, the VED is £30 per year, so I could pay it ten times annually and I'm still paying less tax than most. But if I needed to get around London regularly I'd either buy a compliant car (which you can for under £1000) or far more likely cycle (as it's quicker, cheaper, and last time I looked, this was supposed to be a forum for cyclists...).

Pross

kingstongraham said:

So the position is that you aren't in London, don't own a non-compliant vehicle, but are obsessed with it because you don't want the poorest people to have to pay to drive there.

But you do want some of those people to not pay their £12.50, for them to get fined £180, and to then appeal against their fines, so you can find out if a charge that won't affect you is valid for other people driving into London.

Fair play to you, everyone needs a hobby.

But strangely thinks it is unacceptable for landlords to be forced to upgrade their properties to meet (very low) energy standards that would help those very same 'poorest in society' save money heating their home.

rick_chasey

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

So the position is that you aren't in London, don't own a non-compliant vehicle, but are obsessed with it because you don't want the poorest people to have to pay to drive there.

But you do want some of those people to not pay their £12.50, for them to get fined £180, and to then appeal against their fines, so you can find out if a charge that won't affect you is valid for other people driving into London.

Fair play to you, everyone needs a hobby.

But strangely thinks it is unacceptable for landlords to be forced to upgrade their properties to meet (very low) energy standards that would help those very same 'poorest in society' save money heating their home.

It's the definition of reactionary right wing.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

So the position is that you aren't in London, don't own a non-compliant vehicle, but are obsessed with it because you don't want the poorest people to have to pay to drive there.

But you do want some of those people to not pay their £12.50, for them to get fined £180, and to then appeal against their fines, so you can find out if a charge that won't affect you is valid for other people driving into London.

Fair play to you, everyone needs a hobby.

But strangely thinks it is unacceptable for landlords to be forced to upgrade their properties to meet (very low) energy standards that would help those very same 'poorest in society' save money heating their home.

Can you point me to where I said that?

Stevo_666

super_davo said:

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?

I don't think he'd be able to because his car, along with 90% of other cars on the road, is compliant...

My car isn't, as a pre-2015 diesel, and I also live bordering London so I'm sure I'll get hit by it (needed to pay central London ULEZ twice last year). But on the flip side, the VED is £30 per year, so I could pay it ten times annually and I'm still paying less tax than most. But if I needed to get around London regularly I'd either buy a compliant car (which you can for under £1000) or far more likely cycle (as it's quicker, cheaper, and last time I looked, this was supposed to be a forum for cyclists...).

Given the current demand for ULEZ compliant cars, anything you can pick up for a grand is probably going to be a bit of a s**t heap. And therein lies the problem for many people who cannot afford that price premium. Particularly when they come to sell their current car, as the price on non-compliant cars is going the other way

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

So the position is that you aren't in London, don't own a non-compliant vehicle, but are obsessed with it because you don't want the poorest people to have to pay to drive there.

But you do want some of those people to not pay their £12.50, for them to get fined £180, and to then appeal against their fines, so you can find out if a charge that won't affect you is valid for other people driving into London.

Fair play to you, everyone needs a hobby.

But strangely thinks it is unacceptable for landlords to be forced to upgrade their properties to meet (very low) energy standards that would help those very same 'poorest in society' save money heating their home.

It's the definition of reactionary right wing.

Who said it?

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

So the position is that you aren't in London, don't own a non-compliant vehicle, but are obsessed with it because you don't want the poorest people to have to pay to drive there.

But you do want some of those people to not pay their £12.50, for them to get fined £180, and to then appeal against their fines, so you can find out if a charge that won't affect you is valid for other people driving into London.

Fair play to you, everyone needs a hobby.

If everyone only commented on stuff that directly affected them, Cake Stop would be a pretty quiet place. Fortunately there is no shortage of posters who think they know better than those who are directly affected.

Unbelievable after all my posts that you think I'm commenting as someone unaffected by this. Have previously been referred for a chest x-ray due to symptoms brought on by breathing exhaust fumes every day. Have also bothered to invest in a compliant vehicle ahead of the implementation as it was blindingly obvious to anyone that this was the way regs were headed. But apparently some people need to be let off.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

So the position is that you aren't in London, don't own a non-compliant vehicle, but are obsessed with it because you don't want the poorest people to have to pay to drive there.

But you do want some of those people to not pay their £12.50, for them to get fined £180, and to then appeal against their fines, so you can find out if a charge that won't affect you is valid for other people driving into London.

Fair play to you, everyone needs a hobby.

If everyone only commented on stuff that directly affected them, Cake Stop would be a pretty quiet place. Fortunately there is no shortage of posters who think they know better than those who are directly affected.

Unbelievable after all my posts that you think I'm commenting as someone unaffected by this. Have previously been referred for a chest x-ray due to symptoms brought on by breathing exhaust fumes every day. Have also bothered to invest in a compliant vehicle ahead of the implementation as it was blindingly obvious to anyone that this was the way regs were headed. But apparently some people need to be let off.

Did I refer directly to you?

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

So the position is that you aren't in London, don't own a non-compliant vehicle, but are obsessed with it because you don't want the poorest people to have to pay to drive there.

But you do want some of those people to not pay their £12.50, for them to get fined £180, and to then appeal against their fines, so you can find out if a charge that won't affect you is valid for other people driving into London.

Fair play to you, everyone needs a hobby.

If everyone only commented on stuff that directly affected them, Cake Stop would be a pretty quiet place. Fortunately there is no shortage of posters who think they know better than those who are directly affected.

You - and to be fair, your council - are happy for other people from outside London to give it a go and risk £180 per day they probably can't afford on challenging the PCNs. Maybe you should start a fighting fund to help them in case The Telegraph is wrong (can it be possible) and then you can have your fun without them taking all the risk.

super_davo

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

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?

I don't think he'd be able to because his car, along with 90% of other cars on the road, is compliant...

My car isn't, as a pre-2015 diesel, and I also live bordering London so I'm sure I'll get hit by it (needed to pay central London ULEZ twice last year). But on the flip side, the VED is £30 per year, so I could pay it ten times annually and I'm still paying less tax than most. But if I needed to get around London regularly I'd either buy a compliant car (which you can for under £1000) or far more likely cycle (as it's quicker, cheaper, and last time I looked, this was supposed to be a forum for cyclists...).

Given the current demand for ULEZ compliant cars, anything you can pick up for a grand is probably going to be a bit of a s**t heap. And therein lies the problem for many people who cannot afford that price premium. Particularly when they come to sell their current car, as the price on non-compliant cars is going the other way

Any car you pick up for less than a grand will be a **** heap, full stop. But if its petrol 99.5% chance it will be ULEZ compliant.

rjsterry

Who else's arguing in favour? KG is directly affected as well. Seems to be a chorus of non-Londoners poking their noses in to things that don't concern them.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

So the position is that you aren't in London, don't own a non-compliant vehicle, but are obsessed with it because you don't want the poorest people to have to pay to drive there.

But you do want some of those people to not pay their £12.50, for them to get fined £180, and to then appeal against their fines, so you can find out if a charge that won't affect you is valid for other people driving into London.

Fair play to you, everyone needs a hobby.

If everyone only commented on stuff that directly affected them, Cake Stop would be a pretty quiet place. Fortunately there is no shortage of posters who think they know better than those who are directly affected.

You - and to be fair, your council - are happy for other people from outside London to give it a go and risk £180 per day they probably can't afford on challenging the PCNs. Maybe you should start a fighting fund to help them in case The Telegraph is wrong (can it be possible) and then you can have your fun without them taking all the risk.

I think my Council and the other 7 (?) who are opposing the scheme are taking the stance because they do not want to endorse a policy that damages the interests of many of their constituents. Quite right too.

They probably also want to give the leftie London mayor a proverbial bloody nose, but that's just a little bit of fun on the side

Stevo_666

super_davo said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

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?

I don't think he'd be able to because his car, along with 90% of other cars on the road, is compliant...

My car isn't, as a pre-2015 diesel, and I also live bordering London so I'm sure I'll get hit by it (needed to pay central London ULEZ twice last year). But on the flip side, the VED is £30 per year, so I could pay it ten times annually and I'm still paying less tax than most. But if I needed to get around London regularly I'd either buy a compliant car (which you can for under £1000) or far more likely cycle (as it's quicker, cheaper, and last time I looked, this was supposed to be a forum for cyclists...).

Given the current demand for ULEZ compliant cars, anything you can pick up for a grand is probably going to be a bit of a s**t heap. And therein lies the problem for many people who cannot afford that price premium. Particularly when they come to sell their current car, as the price on non-compliant cars is going the other way

Any car you pick up for less than a grand will be a **** heap, full stop. But if its petrol 99.5% chance it will be ULEZ compliant.

S**t heaps tend to go wrong more often and that costs money - and so we come full circle....

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Who else's arguing in favour? KG is directly affected as well. Seems to be a chorus of non-Londoners poking their noses in to things that don't concern them.

Tough, eh?

If Khan wants to put his advance warning signage up he could easily do it on 'his' land and move the actual boundary further in. But they've already refused to do that because they think they know better.

focuszing723

The shift to promoting diesel vehicles under the last Labour government can be seen as a textbook example of the law of unintended consequences.

In 2001, the then Chancellor Gordon Brown introduced a new system of car tax aimed at protecting the environment. In actual reality it fostered a popular move towards highly polluting diesel cars - a trend which according to some experts has been associated with thousands of premature deaths a year.

New light is shed on how this happened by records received by the BBC, after a two-year freedom of information battle with the Treasury. Some of these papers show that civil servants objected to a stronger policy to deter diesel usage on presentational grounds, because they did not want the government to be seen as "penalising" diesel drivers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41985715
Another thing I find disgraceful about Ulez is diesel cars were pimped and backed by governments for their fuel efficiency to the public. Then scientists p1$$ed on their chips saying they were high polluters. Car manufacturers especially French ones pushed massive R&D into diesels hence turbos seemed common on ordinary cars.

You can’t then go and kick people in the b0ll0cks by being sold a lie! It's akin to PPI schemes whereby people received compensation for being missled.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

So the position is that you aren't in London, don't own a non-compliant vehicle, but are obsessed with it because you don't want the poorest people to have to pay to drive there.

But you do want some of those people to not pay their £12.50, for them to get fined £180, and to then appeal against their fines, so you can find out if a charge that won't affect you is valid for other people driving into London.

Fair play to you, everyone needs a hobby.

If everyone only commented on stuff that directly affected them, Cake Stop would be a pretty quiet place. Fortunately there is no shortage of posters who think they know better than those who are directly affected.

You - and to be fair, your council - are happy for other people from outside London to give it a go and risk £180 per day they probably can't afford on challenging the PCNs. Maybe you should start a fighting fund to help them in case The Telegraph is wrong (can it be possible) and then you can have your fun without them taking all the risk.

I think my Council and the other 7 (?) who are opposing the scheme are taking the stance because they do not want to endorse a policy that damages the interests of many of their constituents. Quite right too.

They probably also want to give the leftie London mayor a proverbial bloody nose, but that's just a little bit of fun on the side

If the appeals fail, will you be campaigning for the council to pay the PCNs for their constituents that are affected?

Jezyboy

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

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?

I don't think he'd be able to because his car, along with 90% of other cars on the road, is compliant...

My car isn't, as a pre-2015 diesel, and I also live bordering London so I'm sure I'll get hit by it (needed to pay central London ULEZ twice last year). But on the flip side, the VED is £30 per year, so I could pay it ten times annually and I'm still paying less tax than most. But if I needed to get around London regularly I'd either buy a compliant car (which you can for under £1000) or far more likely cycle (as it's quicker, cheaper, and last time I looked, this was supposed to be a forum for cyclists...).

Given the current demand for ULEZ compliant cars, anything you can pick up for a grand is probably going to be a bit of a s**t heap. And therein lies the problem for many people who cannot afford that price premium. Particularly when they come to sell their current car, as the price on non-compliant cars is going the other way

Any car you pick up for less than a grand will be a **** heap, full stop. But if its petrol 99.5% chance it will be ULEZ compliant.

S**t heaps tend to go wrong more often and that costs money - and so we come full circle....

What's with the sudden outrage upon finding out that it's expensive to be poor.

super_davo

focuszing723 said:

The shift to promoting diesel vehicles under the last Labour government can be seen as a textbook example of the law of unintended consequences.

In 2001, the then Chancellor Gordon Brown introduced a new system of car tax aimed at protecting the environment. In actual reality it fostered a popular move towards highly polluting diesel cars - a trend which according to some experts has been associated with thousands of premature deaths a year.

New light is shed on how this happened by records received by the BBC, after a two-year freedom of information battle with the Treasury. Some of these papers show that civil servants objected to a stronger policy to deter diesel usage on presentational grounds, because they did not want the government to be seen as "penalising" diesel drivers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41985715
Another thing I find disgraceful about Ulez is diesel cars were pimped and backed by governments for there fuel efficiency to the public. Then scientists p1$$ed on their chips saying they were high polluters. Car manufacturers especially French ones pushed massive R&D into diesels hence turbos seemed common on ordinary cars.

You can’t then go and kick people in the b0ll0cks by being sold a lie! It's akin to PPI schemes whereby people received compensation for being missled.

Well yes exactly, hence my diesel benefits from the previously highly beneficial tax regime. There are similar "have you been mis-sold" diesel claim firms set up. And non compliant diesels haven't been sold for 8 years so are already in the "things can go wrong" stage of their lives.

I do think the best thing for the majority of people to do is cycle, every time I go into London I marvel at how cycling has completely taken over the city, and in most cases it will be much quicker to get from A to B.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

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

It literally isn't possible to conclusively connect ULEZ or even LEZ to it though, as far as I can tell.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

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

It literally isn't possible to conclusively connect ULEZ or even LEZ to it though, as far as I can tell.

No? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66610600

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

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

It literally isn't possible to conclusively connect ULEZ or even LEZ to it though, as far as I can tell.

No? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66610600

No. There's the sitting in traffic measurement, which is basically a tail pipe measurement, and the not next to road part, which even that article says has had a very minor effect - at most 3% for Nox and negligible for pm50. Those are the changes of levels most people will spend the great majority of their time exposed to. Or less, depending on where they live and work.

Once you factor in how long people living in London spend on average actually in traffic vs the time spent where the changes due to ULEZ are very small and the total change in exposure levels may be very small indeed. To the extent that the Univ of Birmingham hasn't been able to quantify it.

The public health effects will scale according to overall change in average exposure, not the wow golly, 30% change if you are trying to breathe from a car tailpipe.

Add to that, it is uncontested that the effect lessens the further from the centre of a conurbation, so the expanded ULEZ zone will be less effective.

Rest of the article is couched in riddles, such as "can be very effective when combined with other measures" . To me that sounds like, not effective unless combined with other measures, or more succinctly not effective on its own.

So back to my analogy of bicycle helmets. A cycle helmet softens the impact if I hit you over the head with some 2x4. It therefore stands to reason that it would improve cycle safety overall if they were compulsory, right?

Well if that's the case why is it so damn hard to measure that at a population level?

Tempting as it can be, you can't extrapolate. Also tempting to say that even a small benefit is worth it. Well sure, ban all combustion engined vehicles in that case. And shut down the underground.

Clearly not proportionate. In which case, you'd agree that a policy has to be proportionate to the benefits. Which you can't determine if you can't measure them.

See my point?

focuszing723

super_davo said:

focuszing723 said:

The shift to promoting diesel vehicles under the last Labour government can be seen as a textbook example of the law of unintended consequences.

In 2001, the then Chancellor Gordon Brown introduced a new system of car tax aimed at protecting the environment. In actual reality it fostered a popular move towards highly polluting diesel cars - a trend which according to some experts has been associated with thousands of premature deaths a year.

New light is shed on how this happened by records received by the BBC, after a two-year freedom of information battle with the Treasury. Some of these papers show that civil servants objected to a stronger policy to deter diesel usage on presentational grounds, because they did not want the government to be seen as "penalising" diesel drivers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41985715
Another thing I find disgraceful about Ulez is diesel cars were pimped and backed by governments for there fuel efficiency to the public. Then scientists p1$$ed on their chips saying they were high polluters. Car manufacturers especially French ones pushed massive R&D into diesels hence turbos seemed common on ordinary cars.

You can’t then go and kick people in the b0ll0cks by being sold a lie! It's akin to PPI schemes whereby people received compensation for being missled.

Well yes exactly, hence my diesel benefits from the previously highly beneficial tax regime. There are similar "have you been mis-sold" diesel claim firms set up. And non compliant diesels haven't been sold for 8 years so are already in the "things can go wrong" stage of their lives.

I do think the best thing for the majority of people to do is cycle, every time I go into London I marvel at how cycling has completely taken over the city, and in most cases it will be much quicker to get from A to B.

They should have let the progression, which is happening, be natural and not kick struggling companies and the less fortunate in the b0ll0cks. What do they want an even greater amount of people on the drip with finance deals to buy what might not be the answer anyway. EVs ain't cheep and the second hand market is getting kicked in the b0llocks at the moment, they are depreciating massively. Get the charging network sorted first!

Why should people yet again be pushed into something which doesn't suit their requirements. Long distance trips (rubbish charging network), current deprecation, no home charging option...

Ford now how backed tracked on going all out EVs (not selling) and are switching to hybrids akin to Toyota.

focuszing723

“You’re going to see a lot more hybrid systems from us,” Ford CEO Jim Farley said Thursday after the company reported second-quarter earnings that revealed widening losses on its electric vehicles unit.

The comments run slightly counter to recent messaging from the Detroit automakers, which have touted the performance and popularity of all-electric favorites as the industry moves to meet EV targets. The hybrid hype, however, falls more closely in line with global hybrid leader Toyota
, which has faced criticism for what some saw as resistance to the EV transition.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/28/ford-embraces-hybrids-as-it-loses-billions-on-evs.html

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

Who else's arguing in favour? KG is directly affected as well. Seems to be a chorus of non-Londoners poking their noses in to things that don't concern them.

What a totally d1ck comment.

Cities across the country are looking for revenue generating opportunities. Once its done in London, others will follow.

If you take that view incidentally, stop opining about house building and nimbys anywhere other than where you live in the SE, eh?

Jezyboy

Would you prefer country bumpkins to non Londoners.

First.Aspect

Jezyboy said:

Would you prefer country bumpkins to non Londoners.

It is a fair characterisation.

Stevo_666

Jezyboy said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

Stevo_666 said:

super_davo said:

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?

I don't think he'd be able to because his car, along with 90% of other cars on the road, is compliant...

My car isn't, as a pre-2015 diesel, and I also live bordering London so I'm sure I'll get hit by it (needed to pay central London ULEZ twice last year). But on the flip side, the VED is £30 per year, so I could pay it ten times annually and I'm still paying less tax than most. But if I needed to get around London regularly I'd either buy a compliant car (which you can for under £1000) or far more likely cycle (as it's quicker, cheaper, and last time I looked, this was supposed to be a forum for cyclists...).

Given the current demand for ULEZ compliant cars, anything you can pick up for a grand is probably going to be a bit of a s**t heap. And therein lies the problem for many people who cannot afford that price premium. Particularly when they come to sell their current car, as the price on non-compliant cars is going the other way

Any car you pick up for less than a grand will be a **** heap, full stop. But if its petrol 99.5% chance it will be ULEZ compliant.

S**t heaps tend to go wrong more often and that costs money - and so we come full circle....

What's with the sudden outrage upon finding out that it's expensive to be poor.

What outrage?

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

So the position is that you aren't in London, don't own a non-compliant vehicle, but are obsessed with it because you don't want the poorest people to have to pay to drive there.

But you do want some of those people to not pay their £12.50, for them to get fined £180, and to then appeal against their fines, so you can find out if a charge that won't affect you is valid for other people driving into London.

Fair play to you, everyone needs a hobby.

If everyone only commented on stuff that directly affected them, Cake Stop would be a pretty quiet place. Fortunately there is no shortage of posters who think they know better than those who are directly affected.

You - and to be fair, your council - are happy for other people from outside London to give it a go and risk £180 per day they probably can't afford on challenging the PCNs. Maybe you should start a fighting fund to help them in case The Telegraph is wrong (can it be possible) and then you can have your fun without them taking all the risk.

I think my Council and the other 7 (?) who are opposing the scheme are taking the stance because they do not want to endorse a policy that damages the interests of many of their constituents. Quite right too.

They probably also want to give the leftie London mayor a proverbial bloody nose, but that's just a little bit of fun on the side

If the appeals fail, will you be campaigning for the council to pay the PCNs for their constituents that are affected?

I don't see how that question is relevant.