Luckilly the meistermobile is exempt but I know of a couple of people that are going to be hit by this. https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ulez-expansion-2023 Hillingdon amongst others have launched a legal challenge against the plan. Cameras have already been installed at the traffic lights (TFL property) Ruislip Manor and Eastcote. https://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/article/10648/Our-response-to-the-ULEZ-expansion It turns out the Mayor of London had ordred the cameras before the public consultation, when the results of the consulatation were overly negative, ignored them and ploughed on ahead anyway. It now turns out that the official reason - air quality is unlikely to be much improved. So those least able to afford it will be taxed more under his plan. with little to no benefit other than money to prop up his overspend. https://www.mylondon.news/news/local-news/sadiq-khans-team-ordered-ulez-26460587 Anyone affected? You can check here: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/check-your-vehicle/ Personally I'm all for air quality measures in the centre of town, where it's most problematic and public transport is adequate but in the suburbs where public transport is not so hot and air quality is on the whole good I think we need to look at improving traffic flow not slowing it down with calming measures and bonkers street design making it more difficult and ultimately longer (and hence more polluting) to get to where you're going.
It’s interesting when you see the headline figures of those affected are largely outside of London. IMO those travelling in to London are reasonably subject to restrictions. It’s a little harder with regard to those living inside the zone, but there is no doubt Diesels are a menace. It must have been hard to create a smokeless zone in London all those years ago, but it needed to be done. It would probably be better if the scrappage and time to comply were extended for London residents, but at some point a change has to be made. It’s become a big issue in no small part as a way to attack the Mayor. Conservatives have little regard for the environment when it suits their politics.
I'm all for it. If your diesel doesn't pass sell it outside of London. My neighbour is selling his 13 plate Audi estate in Devon, it's worth as much as it always was. He's pleased it's prompted him into getting something cleaner. As for 'cant afford to replace it' - ********. The 07 plate beetle convertible that I bought for the kids to learn in is ULEZ compliant, has 75k miles on it and is worth about 2 grand.
Errr... the trouble is a maintained modern diesel engine is nowhere near as bad as people think - even looking at targetted PM10,but not the really nasty PM 2.5 pollution levels. People won't maintain the heaps of junk they drive (I see that my, well-maintained 57 plate heap o'shyte is still exempt).. The really, really big political grenade that Khan isn't dropping yet is a city-wide ban on all burning solid fuels - that means bye-bye log burners, barbecues, chimeras and wood burning pizza ovens... Why Khan has to do so much is the complete lack of any action by de Pfeffel over his two terms. Alternatively, this could be interpreted by a slash in central funding to TFL - that'll teach Londoners to not vote in a Tory.
I would cry with joy if domestic wood burning was consigned to history. Mad individualism. May as well have a section in the swimming pool where it’s ok to have a p!ss.
It is not so long ago that people were persuaded to get diesels because govt. thought they were better. Now relatively new ones are being taxed to the hilt. But besides that, the major problem with the plan is that calculations show very little if any affects on air quality. There are other measures that could be put into place which would have similar if not better results, but they don't generate cash. I reckon if you consider the emmisions created by scrapping otherwise perfectly good cars and manufacturing extra new ones, the actual total emisions may even be worse. It's a cash generation project and it's targetting the less well off. Not very Labour.
Who can afford an extra £2K in the current climate? I certainly couldn't. Carers couldn't, nurses who say they need to visit food banks couldn't.
The really big grenade is that with the infrastructure they can introduce road charging. restrict people to number of trips and ramp up the costs at busy times. https://www.itv.com/news/2023-02-20/what-is-a-15-minute-city-and-why-is-the-idea-so-controversial Log burners should be banned. People using non seasoneed wood and worse still wood with preservatives cause all sorts of crap to be released into the air.
£2k less what you get for selling your current car. Which is probably more than £2,000. Put the rest towards your gas bill. I thought you were in finance?
Still extra expenditure and that asumes you can get anything for a non-compliant car. More likely £200 or less scrap.
I'm back. Autotrader. Non ULEZ A6 Estate 60k miles 13 plate, Rickmansworth. £13,500. 57 plate Toyota Corolla Verso diesel, 74k miles Chalfont. £4,500. So, you are wrong. Sorry. Let's see what you could get for £13,500. Oh look a 15 plate ULEZ compliant A6 Estate. £12,750.
Exhibit A M'Lud: Suella Braverman accused of delaying attempts to clean up Met police Sadiq Khan has written to home secretary urging her to push ahead with powers to allow the dismissal of rogue officers
All for the ulez expedition in general. Diesels are great and it's a serious problem that people are moving away to petrol with buffet co2 emissions. But if you live in London you shouldn't have a diesel. The inclusion of Heathrow is ridiculous though. If you drive down the motorway, pop into T5 drop off and back in 5 minutes you still have to pay for a euro 5 diesel, meanwhile there 50 jet engines sat on the runway idling with no catalysts to power the in seat entertainment.
So, let’s take a look at what the article is actually saying… “Khan, who ousted Rowley’s predecessor, Cressida D1ck, for failing to purge the Met of rogue officers” So Khan clearly believed it was within the power of D1ck to ‘purge the Met of rogue officers’, but is now accusing Braverman of being to blame for the the London Mayor (Khan) failing to ‘purge the Met of rogue officers’. Looks like he either sacked the wrong person; can’t sack enough people to cover himself; is simply trying to score some cheap political points, or; everything. Your evidence is dismissed as confused and unconvincing.
