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

pblakeney

kingstongraham said:

Daily Mail have found another way to "dodge" the hated charge.

I'm curious. Are the writers that stupid, or are they assuming that their readers are?

kingstongraham

The only genuine one of these I've seen is that Hampton Court's on site car park entrance is outside the zone, but the exit is inside the zone.

briantrumpet

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

Daily Mail have found another way to "dodge" the hated charge.

I'm curious. Are the writers that stupid, or are they assuming that their readers are?

It's not necessarily an either/or, but on balance these rags know what their readers will lap up. It's what got us into the car crash that is Brexit and people still thinking that Johnson could save the Tories from electoral oblivion.

pblakeney

briantrumpet said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

Daily Mail have found another way to "dodge" the hated charge.

I'm curious. Are the writers that stupid, or are they assuming that their readers are?

It's not necessarily an either/or, but on balance these rags know what their readers will lap up. It's what got us into the car crash that is Brexit and people still thinking that Johnson could save the Tories from electoral oblivion.

Ah, the readers then.
At least.

Pross

kingstongraham said:

Daily Mail have found another way to "dodge" the hated charge.

Khan will be fuming when people follow this ‘hack’ and do exactly what he is trying to achieve.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

A bit better than here, but with the high pressure this week it's going to be worse for a few days. (I know you don't live in Sevenoaks but assuming it's fairly near there). We're both forecast to hit 64 on Wednesday.

Probably depends which way the wind is blowing - pollution doesn't stop at ULEZ borders. In the end you can argue that you are just pushing the 'problem' elsewhere, in which case what's the point? Other than raising money.

Also not sure what a score of 64 means. Could it show that your air quality is as good as out of town so you don't need a ULEZ to make some very marginal improvements?

This assumes nobody changes to a compliant car, or cycles, or takes a bus, or takes a train, or skips a trip, or carshares, or.... you get the point.

And yet somewhere approaching 95% of cars in outer London are already compliant without having ULEZ to 'force' the change - if you really want to improve air quality then ban cars as even the compliant ones emit stuff. Or if you are convinced that non-compliant cars are the biggest issue we face, ban them entirely rather than charging a fee to drive them. That would also show that it is not mainly about revenue.

As it is, ULEZ is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and as FA rightly says above, the money and effort could easily yield better results on the health front if spent elsewhere.

Would certainly simplify things if they just extended the congestion charge and probably much more effective. Would be happy with that.

After the reaction to the ULEZ expansion, I doubt any politician would be stupid enough to try something that applies to all cars. I was talking about other initiatives altogether such as those FA mentioned upthread.

The reaction is mostly from people unaffected by it. A waste of time court case and a few hi-viz loons outnumbered by an ASLEF march. Meanwhile actually inside the ULEZ Zone the vast majority are just carrying on as normal. There was a lot of fuss about the congestion charge and now nobody bats an eyelid at it. Same will happen to this.

First.Aspect

The thing about this is that the people most affected by it are those least likely to have a voice.

I make no secret of having no skin in the game, but I fundamentally don't think the approach is based on science, nor is it fair from a taxation perspective.

I do think other cities will mimic it, based on expected revenues.

pangolin

How do they not have a voice?

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

The thing about this is that the people most affected by it are those least likely to have a voice.

I make no secret of having no skin in the game, but I fundamentally don't think the approach is based on science, nor is it fair from a taxation perspective.

I do think other cities will mimic it, based on expected revenues.

It's a fact that other cities already have low emission zones and other mayors have expressed interest. Expected revenue for the London ULEZ in a few years time is zero. You may choose not to believe that of course, but let's say TfL does make an ongoing income from this. That would mean that there is less pressure to put up ticket prices for all TfL services. Given that part of the negotiation with central government over the introduction of the ULEZ was to fill the funding gap from reduced passenger numbers, that doesn't sound like an altogether bad thing. The C-charge was also increased for similar reasons. I don't see you arguing against this flat-rate, regressive tax.

I can read what that paper says as well as you, which suggests that you have decided it's unfair - based on your own assumptions of who drives the non-compliant vehicles - and then interpreted the paper to suit that position.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

The thing about this is that the people most affected by it are those least likely to have a voice.

I make no secret of having no skin in the game, but I fundamentally don't think the approach is based on science, nor is it fair from a taxation perspective.

I do think other cities will mimic it, based on expected revenues.

It's a fact that other cities already have low emission zones and other mayors have expressed interest. Expected revenue for the London ULEZ in a few years time is zero. You may choose not to believe that of course, but let's say TfL does make an ongoing income from this. That would mean that there is less pressure to put up ticket prices for all TfL services. Given that part of the negotiation with central government over the introduction of the ULEZ was to fill the funding gap from reduced passenger numbers, that doesn't sound like an altogether bad thing. The C-charge was also increased for similar reasons.

I can read what that paper says as well as you, which suggests that you have decided it's unfair - based on your own assumptions of who drives the non-compliant vehicles - and then interpreted the paper to suit that position.

Its unfair based on the demographic that owns the affected vehicles, and the fact it makes no measurable difference to air quality.

I am surprised at the naivety. The requirements for petrol engined cars will climb from Euro 4 sooner or later. And there's a Euro7 on the horizon that includes, inter alia, brake dust and tyre particulate emissions standards.

As you say, lifestyle choices like wood burners are already more significant contributors, but it will be far easier to just charge motorists and change the ULEZ requirements.

It's a tax and it isn't going away.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

A bit better than here, but with the high pressure this week it's going to be worse for a few days. (I know you don't live in Sevenoaks but assuming it's fairly near there). We're both forecast to hit 64 on Wednesday.

Probably depends which way the wind is blowing - pollution doesn't stop at ULEZ borders. In the end you can argue that you are just pushing the 'problem' elsewhere, in which case what's the point? Other than raising money.

Also not sure what a score of 64 means. Could it show that your air quality is as good as out of town so you don't need a ULEZ to make some very marginal improvements?

This assumes nobody changes to a compliant car, or cycles, or takes a bus, or takes a train, or skips a trip, or carshares, or.... you get the point.

And yet somewhere approaching 95% of cars in outer London are already compliant without having ULEZ to 'force' the change - if you really want to improve air quality then ban cars as even the compliant ones emit stuff. Or if you are convinced that non-compliant cars are the biggest issue we face, ban them entirely rather than charging a fee to drive them. That would also show that it is not mainly about revenue.

As it is, ULEZ is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and as FA rightly says above, the money and effort could easily yield better results on the health front if spent elsewhere.

Would certainly simplify things if they just extended the congestion charge and probably much more effective. Would be happy with that.

After the reaction to the ULEZ expansion, I doubt any politician would be stupid enough to try something that applies to all cars. I was talking about other initiatives altogether such as those FA mentioned upthread.

The reaction is mostly from people unaffected by it. A waste of time court case and a few hi-viz loons outnumbered by an ASLEF march. Meanwhile actually inside the ULEZ Zone the vast majority are just carrying on as normal. There was a lot of fuss about the congestion charge and now nobody bats an eyelid at it. Same will happen to this.

If they tried to expand the congestion charge to the current ULEZ boundary you can be sure there will be a massive reaction.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

A bit better than here, but with the high pressure this week it's going to be worse for a few days. (I know you don't live in Sevenoaks but assuming it's fairly near there). We're both forecast to hit 64 on Wednesday.

Probably depends which way the wind is blowing - pollution doesn't stop at ULEZ borders. In the end you can argue that you are just pushing the 'problem' elsewhere, in which case what's the point? Other than raising money.

Also not sure what a score of 64 means. Could it show that your air quality is as good as out of town so you don't need a ULEZ to make some very marginal improvements?

This assumes nobody changes to a compliant car, or cycles, or takes a bus, or takes a train, or skips a trip, or carshares, or.... you get the point.

And yet somewhere approaching 95% of cars in outer London are already compliant without having ULEZ to 'force' the change - if you really want to improve air quality then ban cars as even the compliant ones emit stuff. Or if you are convinced that non-compliant cars are the biggest issue we face, ban them entirely rather than charging a fee to drive them. That would also show that it is not mainly about revenue.

As it is, ULEZ is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and as FA rightly says above, the money and effort could easily yield better results on the health front if spent elsewhere.

Would certainly simplify things if they just extended the congestion charge and probably much more effective. Would be happy with that.

After the reaction to the ULEZ expansion, I doubt any politician would be stupid enough to try something that applies to all cars. I was talking about other initiatives altogether such as those FA mentioned upthread.

https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/plurality-of-londoners-support-expanding-londons-ultra-low-emissions-zone-ulez/

Polling finds net support for extending the congestion charge to the whole of inner London. Net in favour among inner London residents is +31%

Inner London residents are least likely to use a car than most other groups of people so you would expect them to show those sort of views. Wonder what it would look like if people who needed to drive in London were included?

In any event, dream on.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

The thing about this is that the people most affected by it are those least likely to have a voice.

I make no secret of having no skin in the game, but I fundamentally don't think the approach is based on science, nor is it fair from a taxation perspective.

I do think other cities will mimic it, based on expected revenues.

It's a fact that other cities already have low emission zones and other mayors have expressed interest. Expected revenue for the London ULEZ in a few years time is zero. You may choose not to believe that of course, but let's say TfL does make an ongoing income from this. That would mean that there is less pressure to put up ticket prices for all TfL services. Given that part of the negotiation with central government over the introduction of the ULEZ was to fill the funding gap from reduced passenger numbers, that doesn't sound like an altogether bad thing. The C-charge was also increased for similar reasons.

I can read what that paper says as well as you, which suggests that you have decided it's unfair - based on your own assumptions of who drives the non-compliant vehicles - and then interpreted the paper to suit that position.

Its unfair based on the demographic that owns the affected vehicles, and the fact it makes no measurable difference to air quality.

I am surprised at the naivety. The requirements for petrol engined cars will climb from Euro 4 sooner or later. And there's a Euro7 on the horizon that includes, inter alia, brake dust and tyre particulate emissions standards.

As you say, lifestyle choices like wood burners are already more significant contributors, but it will be far easier to just charge motorists and change the ULEZ requirements.

It's a tax and it isn't going away.

You've just repeated what I wrote 😀. I assume you don't have any data on the demographics of owners of non-compliant vehicles or you would surely have posted it by now.

For starters: car ownership doesn't get above 34% for pre-tax household incomes under £25k and is just 13% for under 30s in that income bracket. Most people in that income bracket use public transport and so actually benefit from the money raised by the ULEZ.
All income from the ULEZ is aggregated with the Congestion charge income and TfL is required to reinvest that all in the services it provides.

If the ULEZ scope is widened then that's a good thing, too. Fewer discretionary car journeys; more income for TfL; and you don't have to worry about the charging being unfair.

No argument that road traffic is not the only source of air pollution of all types, but that's not a reason to ignore it either.

pinno

focuszing723 said:

I still find it amusing that if a car is forty or more years old "classic" you pay no road tax and don't have to get an MOT.

Future transport bliss is to find a cool classic of this age and get it up to scratch.

It would make a good thread.

Alas, I still have 6 years to go before my classic is tax and MOT exempt.

pinno

kingstongraham said:

That classic car exemption is fine as long as it is only ever driven at 10mph. Otherwise it's mad.

Most classic cars of the qualifying age are well kept and very roadworthy.

focuszing723

pinno said:

focuszing723 said:

I still find it amusing that if a car is forty or more years old "classic" you pay no road tax and don't have to get an MOT.

Future transport bliss is to find a cool classic of this age and get it up to scratch.

It would make a good thread.

Alas, I still have 6 years to go before my classic is tax and MOT exempt.

Classic exempt 911, vehicle bliss.

We know it's an easy tax with an easy excuse so earlier cars will keep getting hammered.

It's just a shame our climate entails a lot of salt. Lifting the car and protecting the underside is required really. I'm sure you're on top of that though:

2cv
Mini
Fiat 500
911
Beatle
Golf
205gti
Cars will character which are an occasion to drive.

The Festival of the Unexceptional vehicles, just buy a 40 year old car with nostalgia and maintain it.

I still think you can't get more eco than a maintenance mentality.

super_davo

Am I the only one that thinks its refreshing to have a politician that has made a policy based on the circumstances and evidence (what ever you think of that evidence) and sticks to their guns about it?

As opposed to come up with an idea, backlash in the papers, U-turn. Since Johnson I often think we might as well put the Daily Mail journos in charge of the country and cut out the middleman.

I suppose it helps that his competition for mayor next year is so weak he can take the knock, but it does make you pine for some actual leadership for the country.

kingstongraham

pinno said:

kingstongraham said:

That classic car exemption is fine as long as it is only ever driven at 10mph. Otherwise it's mad.

Most classic cars of the qualifying age are well kept and very roadworthy.

Should be fine to pass an MOT then.

rick_chasey

Has FA not worked out yet that if you’re really that poor you probably don’t drive much anyway?

So it’s people who are poor enough to be smashed by £12.50 a day, but not so poor they don’t have a car, who happen to be driving a non compliant car but can’t afford to replace AND their regular travel can’t be covered by the extensive public transport system?

It’s about 4 people once you add it up.

focuszing723

super_davo said:

Am I the only one that thinks its refreshing to have a politician that has made a policy based on the circumstances and evidence (what ever you think of that evidence) and sticks to their guns about it?

As opposed to come up with an idea, backlash in the papers, U-turn. Since Johnson I often think we might as well put the Daily Mail journos in charge of the country and cut out the middleman.

I suppose it helps that his competition for mayor next year is so weak he can take the knock, but it does make you pine for some actual leadership for the country.

No, not when the transition is happening naturally anyway, some people just want their name/career attributed to it.

What's the bets the policy makers and their entourage have swanked on a jet or a diesel cruise ship this year? "Ah yes, I was involved in the Ulez clean air scheme...".

Hmmmm

pinno

focuszing723 said:

pinno said:

focuszing723 said:

I still find it amusing that if a car is forty or more years old "classic" you pay no road tax and don't have to get an MOT.

Future transport bliss is to find a cool classic of this age and get it up to scratch.

It would make a good thread.

Alas, I still have 6 years to go before my classic is tax and MOT exempt.

Classic exempt 911, vehicle bliss.

I could have kept you thinking that but no, it's a 944.
My 911 (997) was a daily.

Anyway, from your list how many of those cars would you a) happily give the odd thrashing and b) would keep up with modern traffic?

2cv - too slow, no good on the motorway.
Mini - too slow, no good on the motorway
Fiat 500 - too slow, no good on the motorway
911 - too much money tied up in them to put the foot down
Beatle - too slow, no good on the motorway

That leaves the Golf and the 205gti.

pangolin

rick_chasey said:

Has FA not worked out yet that if you’re really that poor you probably don’t drive much anyway?

So it’s people who are poor enough to be smashed by £12.50 a day, but not so poor they don’t have a car, who happen to be driving a non compliant car but can’t afford to replace AND their regular travel can’t be covered by the extensive public transport system?

It’s about 4 people once you add it up.

To play devils advocate there will be a lot more than 4 people who can pay it but whose lives just get a bit harder as a result.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

Has FA not worked out yet that if you’re really that poor you probably don’t drive much anyway?

So it’s people who are poor enough to be smashed by £12.50 a day, but not so poor they don’t have a car, who happen to be driving a non compliant car but can’t afford to replace AND their regular travel can’t be covered by the extensive public transport system?

It’s about 4 people once you add it up.

?? Have I joined a young Tory Facebook group or something?

Perhaps there are no "poor people" in London or the SE left any more. I don't know. But I was thinking about people who travel around day to day, like cleaners, care workers, shift workers, that kind of thing.

I suppose they are all on above average incomes and employers that give them a car allowance or extra time to get between appointments by public transport.

pblakeney

pinno said:

focuszing723 said:

pinno said:

focuszing723 said:

I still find it amusing that if a car is forty or more years old "classic" you pay no road tax and don't have to get an MOT.

Future transport bliss is to find a cool classic of this age and get it up to scratch.

It would make a good thread.

Alas, I still have 6 years to go before my classic is tax and MOT exempt.

Classic exempt 911, vehicle bliss.

I could have kept you thinking that but no, it's a 944.
My 911 (997) was a daily.

Anyway, from your list how many of those cars would you a) happily give the odd thrashing and b) would keep up with modern traffic?

2cv - too slow, no good on the motorway.
Mini - too slow, no good on the motorway
Fiat 500 - too slow, no good on the motorway
911 - too much money tied up in them to put the foot down
Beatle - too slow, no good on the motorway

That leaves the Golf and the 205gti.

My '70s Mini could *ahem* comfortably go motorway speed.
And that was fully loaded with a roof rack.

If the discussion is about comfort then it is relative. It was as good as we were used to. 🤣

focuszing723

pinno said:

focuszing723 said:

pinno said:

focuszing723 said:

I still find it amusing that if a car is forty or more years old "classic" you pay no road tax and don't have to get an MOT.

Future transport bliss is to find a cool classic of this age and get it up to scratch.

It would make a good thread.

Alas, I still have 6 years to go before my classic is tax and MOT exempt.

Classic exempt 911, vehicle bliss.

I could have kept you thinking that but no, it's a 944.
My 911 (997) was a daily.

Anyway, from your list how many of those cars would you a) happily give the odd thrashing and b) would keep up with modern traffic?

2cv - too slow, no good on the motorway.
Mini - too slow, no good on the motorway
Fiat 500 - too slow, no good on the motorway
911 - too much money tied up in them to put the foot down
Beatle - too slow, no good on the motorway

That leaves the Golf and the 205gti.

They'd be good as a second pottering car though for trips a walk/ride can't cover.

focuszing723

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

Has FA not worked out yet that if you’re really that poor you probably don’t drive much anyway?

So it’s people who are poor enough to be smashed by £12.50 a day, but not so poor they don’t have a car, who happen to be driving a non compliant car but can’t afford to replace AND their regular travel can’t be covered by the extensive public transport system?

It’s about 4 people once you add it up.

To play devils advocate there will be a lot more than 4 people who can pay it but whose lives just get a bit harder as a result.

They will also already be paying an elevated road to tax as apposed to virtually nothing for a compliant vehicle. They can't let that carry on, it's supposed to be for the maintenance of the roads.

Jezyboy

They likely get public transport yes.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Has FA not worked out yet that if you’re really that poor you probably don’t drive much anyway?

So it’s people who are poor enough to be smashed by £12.50 a day, but not so poor they don’t have a car, who happen to be driving a non compliant car but can’t afford to replace AND their regular travel can’t be covered by the extensive public transport system?

It’s about 4 people once you add it up.

?? Have I joined a young Tory Facebook group or something?

Perhaps there are no "poor people" in London or the SE left any more. I don't know. But I was thinking about people who travel around day to day, like cleaners, care workers, shift workers, that kind of thing.

I suppose they are all on above average incomes and employers that give them a car allowance or extra time to get between appointments by public transport.

With the way the rent crisis is going in London the ULEZ is peanuts.

And public transport is pretty comprehensive in London.

Have you ever been?!

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Has FA not worked out yet that if you’re really that poor you probably don’t drive much anyway?

So it’s people who are poor enough to be smashed by £12.50 a day, but not so poor they don’t have a car, who happen to be driving a non compliant car but can’t afford to replace AND their regular travel can’t be covered by the extensive public transport system?

It’s about 4 people once you add it up.

?? Have I joined a young Tory Facebook group or something?

Perhaps there are no "poor people" in London or the SE left any more. I don't know. But I was thinking about people who travel around day to day, like cleaners, care workers, shift workers, that kind of thing.

I suppose they are all on above average incomes and employers that give them a car allowance or extra time to get between appointments by public transport.

With the way the rent crisis is going in London the ULEZ is peanuts.

And public transport is pretty comprehensive in London.

Have you ever been?!

Yeah I went to London once. Must have been some time in the first 20 years of my life before I lost all ambition and moved away for university and work.

I am finding the reality gap on here depressing. You've basically said firstly there are no poor people in London (or the South East, remember, who might go) and that they aren't poor because rents are so high, and that you think care workers and the like will be allowed time to get around by public transport.

This categorically confirms that you are a spoiled self entitled little person who has not ever had to engage with or acknowledge a whole section of society.

I'm just as privileged as you, but somehow it appears that I'm more observant.

How is this project getting on? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbirail

Might help things a bit.

pblakeney

focuszing723 said:

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

Has FA not worked out yet that if you’re really that poor you probably don’t drive much anyway?

So it’s people who are poor enough to be smashed by £12.50 a day, but not so poor they don’t have a car, who happen to be driving a non compliant car but can’t afford to replace AND their regular travel can’t be covered by the extensive public transport system?

It’s about 4 people once you add it up.

To play devils advocate there will be a lot more than 4 people who can pay it but whose lives just get a bit harder as a result.

They will also already be paying an elevated road to tax as apposed to virtually nothing for a compliant vehicle. They can't let that carry on, it's supposed to be for the maintenance of the roads.

Most cyclists know that there has not been a road tax for decades.
Road maintenance comes from council tax and central government.