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

Stevo_666

monkimark said:

If you gave me £170k and sent me off to find a car that didn't incur a ULEZ charge, I'd be pretty unlikely to come back with a 1971 range rover.

If that's how they want to spend their riches, I don't much care. Just seems very unlikely that anyone would doing that to avoid ULEZ.

Most old cars are pretty cheap.

But the irony here is that Sadiqs grand plan is pushing some people into using more polluting cars.

First.Aspect

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

If you gave me £170k and sent me off to find a car that didn't incur a ULEZ charge, I'd be pretty unlikely to come back with a 1971 range rover.

If that's how they want to spend their riches, I don't much care. Just seems very unlikely that anyone would doing that to avoid ULEZ.

Most old cars are pretty cheap.

But the irony here is that Sadiqs grand plan is pushing some people into using more polluting cars.

Is it really about pollution?

briantrumpet

.

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

If you gave me £170k and sent me off to find a car that didn't incur a ULEZ charge, I'd be pretty unlikely to come back with a 1971 range rover.

If that's how they want to spend their riches, I don't much care. Just seems very unlikely that anyone would doing that to avoid ULEZ.

Most old cars are pretty cheap.

But the irony here is that Sadiqs grand plan is pushing some people into using more polluting cars.

They'll hardly pollute at all, as most of the time they'll be in the garage being repaired.

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

If you gave me £170k and sent me off to find a car that didn't incur a ULEZ charge, I'd be pretty unlikely to come back with a 1971 range rover.

If that's how they want to spend their riches, I don't much care. Just seems very unlikely that anyone would doing that to avoid ULEZ.

Most old cars are pretty cheap.

But the irony here is that Sadiqs grand plan is pushing some people into using more polluting cars.

Is it really about pollution?

That's what Sadiq and TFL claim it's about. I'm sure their financial problems have nothing to do with it.

First.Aspect

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

If you gave me £170k and sent me off to find a car that didn't incur a ULEZ charge, I'd be pretty unlikely to come back with a 1971 range rover.

If that's how they want to spend their riches, I don't much care. Just seems very unlikely that anyone would doing that to avoid ULEZ.

Most old cars are pretty cheap.

But the irony here is that Sadiqs grand plan is pushing some people into using more polluting cars.

Is it really about pollution?

That's what Sadiq and TFL claim it's about. I'm sure their financial problems have nothing to do with it.

How come they let diesel busses and HGVs in? The worst air quality in the cities I have knowledge of is along bus routes.

monkimark

Maybe it is forcing some people to buy 50 year old shitters for a few hundred quid ( i very much doubt it), but that story is about people well off enough to buy a modern car who want a classic car instead.

I'm sure you could get a ULEZ compliant car that would be a lot more practical than the Saab and certainly than the landrover.

I doubt I'll be seeing loads more classic cars on the roads as a result of ULEZ. Although, I do question the logic of the exemption.

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Pfft, it's shifted a bit, but to go all Chasey, look at the difference between London or Bristol (or Lyon, come to that) and Amsterdam, and see how far the dial could be shifted, if the will was there. But cars

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

If you gave me £170k and sent me off to find a car that didn't incur a ULEZ charge, I'd be pretty unlikely to come back with a 1971 range rover.

If that's how they want to spend their riches, I don't much care. Just seems very unlikely that anyone would doing that to avoid ULEZ.

Most old cars are pretty cheap.

But the irony here is that Sadiqs grand plan is pushing some people into using more polluting cars.

carbonclem

Stevo_666 said:

carbonclem said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

The law of unintended consequences applied to ULEZ
https://telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/drivers-using-classic-cars-beat-sadiq-khans-ulez-charges/

You mean maintaining a classic car as a money saving device?

Anyone who owns an old motor and has driven it in heavy traffic in all weathers will know it’s the worst idea ever.

Paying £12.50 every time you move your car isn't that best an idea either tbh.

True. I’d walk, cycle or use public transport.

I don’t think an article featuring a couple of odd bods is gonna be a trend, tbf.

orraloon

monkimark said:

If you gave me £170k and sent me off to find a car that didn't incur a ULEZ charge, I'd be pretty unlikely to come back.

FTFY, or me. 😉

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

If you gave me £170k and sent me off to find a car that didn't incur a ULEZ charge, I'd be pretty unlikely to come back with a 1971 range rover.

If that's how they want to spend their riches, I don't much care. Just seems very unlikely that anyone would doing that to avoid ULEZ.

Most old cars are pretty cheap.

But the irony here is that Sadiqs grand plan is pushing some people into using more polluting cars.

Is it really about pollution?

That's what Sadiq and TFL claim it's about. I'm sure their financial problems have nothing to do with it.

How come they let diesel busses and HGVs in? The worst air quality in the cities I have knowledge of is along bus routes.

Good point.

Stevo_666

monkimark said:

Maybe it is forcing some people to buy 50 year old shitters for a few hundred quid ( i very much doubt it), but that story is about people well off enough to buy a modern car who want a classic car instead.

I'm sure you could get a ULEZ compliant car that would be a lot more practical than the Saab and certainly than the landrover.

I doubt I'll be seeing loads more classic cars on the roads as a result of ULEZ. Although, I do question the logic of the exemption.

Tbh you can get ULEZ compliant petrol cars that are around 17yo so they should be pretty cheap as well.

Stevo_666

orraloon said:

monkimark said:

If you gave me £170k and sent me off to find a car that didn't incur a ULEZ charge, I'd be pretty unlikely to come back.

FTFY, or me. 😉

You must have got at least that when you sold your house and moved to Scotland. Win-win

briantrumpet

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Maybe it is forcing some people to buy 50 year old shitters for a few hundred quid ( i very much doubt it), but that story is about people well off enough to buy a modern car who want a classic car instead.

I'm sure you could get a ULEZ compliant car that would be a lot more practical than the Saab and certainly than the landrover.

I doubt I'll be seeing loads more classic cars on the roads as a result of ULEZ. Although, I do question the logic of the exemption.

Tbh you can get ULEZ compliant petrol cars that are around 17yo so they should be pretty cheap as well.

Marvellous - my 20yo Almera is ULEZ-compliant. It's a classic too.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Maybe it is forcing some people to buy 50 year old shitters for a few hundred quid ( i very much doubt it), but that story is about people well off enough to buy a modern car who want a classic car instead.

I'm sure you could get a ULEZ compliant car that would be a lot more practical than the Saab and certainly than the landrover.

I doubt I'll be seeing loads more classic cars on the roads as a result of ULEZ. Although, I do question the logic of the exemption.

Tbh you can get ULEZ compliant petrol cars that are around 17yo so they should be pretty cheap as well.

Marvellous - my 20yo Almera is ULEZ-compliant. It's a classic too.

Sorry Brian - petrol cars registered pre 2005 get stung. You must be heartbroken.

briantrumpet

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Maybe it is forcing some people to buy 50 year old shitters for a few hundred quid ( i very much doubt it), but that story is about people well off enough to buy a modern car who want a classic car instead.

I'm sure you could get a ULEZ compliant car that would be a lot more practical than the Saab and certainly than the landrover.

I doubt I'll be seeing loads more classic cars on the roads as a result of ULEZ. Although, I do question the logic of the exemption.

Tbh you can get ULEZ compliant petrol cars that are around 17yo so they should be pretty cheap as well.

Marvellous - my 20yo Almera is ULEZ-compliant. It's a classic too.

Sorry Brian - petrol cars registered pre 2005 get stung. You must be heartbroken.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

carbonclem said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

The law of unintended consequences applied to ULEZ
https://telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/drivers-using-classic-cars-beat-sadiq-khans-ulez-charges/

You mean maintaining a classic car as a money saving device?

Anyone who owns an old motor and has driven it in heavy traffic in all weathers will know it’s the worst idea ever.

Paying £12.50 every time you move your car isn't that best an idea either tbh.

Don't have a crap car then. Problem solved.

monkimark

2005 is just the cut off for when cars had to be Euro 4 compliant, some manufacturers were early adopters.
You can also have non euro 4 cars tested to see if they meet the emissions requirement and get an exemption that way.

briantrumpet

Well, I was going to avoid the ULEZ charge anyway by not driving in London. I don't even drive it in Exeter if I can possibly help it.

kingstongraham

This whole thing depends on you accepting the word of The Telegraph which seems unwise.

If you are buying a car to avoid the ulez charge, only a total knobhead would choose an old one rather than a newish one. Telegraph readers with more money than sense, I assume.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

If you gave me £170k and sent me off to find a car that didn't incur a ULEZ charge, I'd be pretty unlikely to come back with a 1971 range rover.

If that's how they want to spend their riches, I don't much care. Just seems very unlikely that anyone would doing that to avoid ULEZ.

Most old cars are pretty cheap.

But the irony here is that Sadiqs grand plan is pushing some people into using more polluting cars.

Is it really about pollution?

That's what Sadiq and TFL claim it's about. I'm sure their financial problems have nothing to do with it.

How come they let diesel busses and HGVs in? The worst air quality in the cities I have knowledge of is along bus routes.

There's been a big push on bus and HGV emissions already. Many of the buses are already hybrids or low-emission diesels - you can tell by the heat coming off the back of them. Can't believe anyone is seriously taken in by the idea that people are buying 'classic' cars to avoid a charge. I mean where are they buying them all from?

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

Maybe it is forcing some people to buy 50 year old shitters for a few hundred quid ( i very much doubt it), but that story is about people well off enough to buy a modern car who want a classic car instead.

I'm sure you could get a ULEZ compliant car that would be a lot more practical than the Saab and certainly than the landrover.

I doubt I'll be seeing loads more classic cars on the roads as a result of ULEZ. Although, I do question the logic of the exemption.

Tbh you can get ULEZ compliant petrol cars that are around 17yo so they should be pretty cheap as well.

Marvellous - my 20yo Almera is ULEZ-compliant. It's a classic too.

Sorry Brian - petrol cars registered pre 2005 get stung. You must be heartbroken.

Yours must have been an early adopter of the Euro 4 standards.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

carbonclem said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

The law of unintended consequences applied to ULEZ
https://telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/drivers-using-classic-cars-beat-sadiq-khans-ulez-charges/

You mean maintaining a classic car as a money saving device?

Anyone who owns an old motor and has driven it in heavy traffic in all weathers will know it’s the worst idea ever.

Paying £12.50 every time you move your car isn't that best an idea either tbh.

Don't have a censored car then. Problem solved.

Sound advice for (say) Ferrari 360 owners

monkimark

I imagine that's a pretty poor choice for stop/start London traffic as well.

I used to regularly pass a Lambo when I cycled through Clapham, the guy in it never looked very happy.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

This whole thing depends on you accepting the word of The Telegraph which seems unwise.

If you are buying a car to avoid the ulez charge, only a total knobhead would choose an old one rather than a newish one. Telegraph readers with more money than sense, I assume.

Why? They tend to be smaller and cheaper and at an average speed of 6mph they are safe enough. Some folk like classic car designs, you know, to look at. Cheap to insure too. If you chose a common one like an MG, a Mini or a Rover of some sort, a Ford that isn't a capri etc. they are also cheap to get fixed.

They dissolve in the rain, I accept. And you may have to wind the windows down.

briantrumpet

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

This whole thing depends on you accepting the word of The Telegraph which seems unwise.

If you are buying a car to avoid the ulez charge, only a total knobhead would choose an old one rather than a newish one. Telegraph readers with more money than sense, I assume.

Why? They tend to be smaller and cheaper and at an average speed of 6mph they are safe enough. Some folk like classic car designs, you know, to look at. Cheap to insure too. If you chose a common one like an MG, a Mini or a Rover of some sort, a Ford that isn't a capri etc. they are also cheap to get fixed.

They dissolve in the rain, I accept. And you may have to wind the windows down.

My petrolhead friend used to restore Lancias for a living, and he certainly knew a thing or two about dissolving cars.

rjsterry

...

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

carbonclem said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

The law of unintended consequences applied to ULEZ
https://telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/drivers-using-classic-cars-beat-sadiq-khans-ulez-charges/

You mean maintaining a classic car as a money saving device?

Anyone who owns an old motor and has driven it in heavy traffic in all weathers will know it’s the worst idea ever.

Paying £12.50 every time you move your car isn't that best an idea either tbh.

Don't have a censored car then. Problem solved.

Sound advice for (say) Ferrari 360 owners

Don't imagine £12.50 would trouble the owner of one of those.

First.Aspect

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

This whole thing depends on you accepting the word of The Telegraph which seems unwise.

If you are buying a car to avoid the ulez charge, only a total knobhead would choose an old one rather than a newish one. Telegraph readers with more money than sense, I assume.

Why? They tend to be smaller and cheaper and at an average speed of 6mph they are safe enough. Some folk like classic car designs, you know, to look at. Cheap to insure too. If you chose a common one like an MG, a Mini or a Rover of some sort, a Ford that isn't a capri etc. they are also cheap to get fixed.

They dissolve in the rain, I accept. And you may have to wind the windows down.

My petrolhead friend used to restore Lancias for a living, and he certainly knew a thing or two about dissolving cars.

Doesn't rain in London though. Evaporates before it hits the ground.

Stevo_666

monkimark said:

I imagine that's a pretty poor choice for stop/start London traffic as well.

I used to regularly pass a Lambo when I cycled through Clapham, the guy in it never looked very happy.

The expanded ULEZ will go well beyond the areas where it s mostly slow/stop-start. Well outside of the London postcodes and beyond the M25 in some cases.

Sadiq is clearly has a large hole to fill in his coffers.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

I imagine that's a pretty poor choice for stop/start London traffic as well.

I used to regularly pass a Lambo when I cycled through Clapham, the guy in it never looked very happy.

The expanded ULEZ will go well beyond the areas where it s mostly slow/stop-start. Well outside of the London postcodes and beyond the M25 in some cases.

Sadiq is clearly has a large hole to fill in his coffers.

Not interested in all the illnesses and deaths caused by traffic pollution?

London is pretty bad for that.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

I imagine that's a pretty poor choice for stop/start London traffic as well.

I used to regularly pass a Lambo when I cycled through Clapham, the guy in it never looked very happy.

The expanded ULEZ will go well beyond the areas where it s mostly slow/stop-start. Well outside of the London postcodes and beyond the M25 in some cases.

Sadiq is clearly has a large hole to fill in his coffers.

Not interested in all the illnesses and deaths caused by traffic pollution?

London is pretty bad for that.

Not fully in agreement = against?

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

monkimark said:

I imagine that's a pretty poor choice for stop/start London traffic as well.

I used to regularly pass a Lambo when I cycled through Clapham, the guy in it never looked very happy.

The expanded ULEZ will go well beyond the areas where it s mostly slow/stop-start. Well outside of the London postcodes and beyond the M25 in some cases.

Sadiq is clearly has a large hole to fill in his coffers.

Not interested in all the illnesses and deaths caused by traffic pollution?

London is pretty bad for that.

As mentioned above, that's what Sadiq says its about. Many suspect that its more about money. Also maybe one for the irony thread that a Labour mayor introduces a policy that disproportionately hits the less well off, especially in the outer areas of what will be the expanded ULEZ where more people need cars to get around.