Don't scare the Horses!

[Sinewave]

No it's not, it's about money. If it was about air quality, they wouldn't say the same cars can come in but pay for it - you'd not be allowed to drive in. Plus air travels - see the Saharan sand storm dust which we get in the UK....

[Kalee20]

ULEZ is about local air quality so less people have chronic diseases or die. It's not about an overall life-cycle environmental impact.

No it's not, it's about money. If it was about air quality, they wouldn't say the same cars can come in but pay for it - you'd not be allowed to drive in. Plus air travels - see the Saharan sand storm dust which we get in the UK....

Well... ULEZ is about improving air quality. The occasional polluting car, traction engine, motor bike, will not make much difference. But 100,000 of them will.

So, the idea is to control pollution by putting in a strong deterrant, the ULEZ charge, to reduce the numbers of the pollutors.

If that doesn't work, then yes I guess there could be bans introduced. But so far the charge is working

[Cobaltblue]

No it's not, it's about money. If it was about air quality, they wouldn't say the same cars can come in but pay for it - you'd not be allowed to drive in. 

That's not really the case is it.
As you have to pay a fine for go within ULEZ with a non compliant car it reduces the number of such journeys.
It would be unfair to totally ban someone with a Non compliant car from traveling within ULEZ once a month say.
Its the daily users that the fines are there to dissuade. 
If there were no fine then there would be no incentive to get a compliant car.
My eldest son had to replace his car to be ULEZ compliant (Lived in Mitcham) he sold his car privately to someone who didn't need a ULEZ compliant car and bought the same make and Model but a little newer.
The difference in value of the two cars was around 6 Months worth of ULEZ fees so it worked out for him.

Cheers

Mike T

[Sinewave]

My next door neighbour just bought a used BMW 435D XDRIVE M SPORT AUTO.

Power 308 bhp
Top Speed 155 mph
0-60 mph 4.5 secs
Torque 630 Nm, 465 ft-lb
CO2 Emissions 146 g/km
Euro Emissions Standard 6
Miles Per Tank 627 miles

Just looking at the specs it's remarkably economical for such a fast car managing 40 to 50 mpg. It's even ULEZ compliant!

Peter

ULEZ is about local air quality so less people have chronic diseases or die. It's not about an overall life-cycle environmental impact.

No it's not, it's about money. If it was about air quality, they wouldn't say the same cars can come in but pay for it - you'd not be allowed to drive in. Plus air travels - see the Saharan sand storm dust which we get in the UK....

Well... ULEZ is about improving air quality. The occasional polluting car, traction engine, motor bike, will not make much difference. But 100,000 of them will.

So, the idea is to control pollution by putting in a strong deterrant, the ULEZ charge, to reduce the numbers of the pollutors.

If that doesn't work, then yes I guess there could be bans introduced. But so far the charge is working

It's a tax on the poor - you can still carry on doing it, but pay to.

Also there is little to no evidence to support it. TFL has been found to have misled the people and lied to the London Assembly then asked scientists to lie in a report after their report couldn't find any evidence to support its effectiveness. Currently there is still an ongoing investigation over the misinformation TFL has made to push this tax through to plug their financial black hole.

I want Thames Water to stop throwing raw sewage into the sea - I want them to stop, I don't want them to pay me to carry on doing it, because it shouldn't happen in the first place.

[Sinewave]

No it's not, it's about money. If it was about air quality, they wouldn't say the same cars can come in but pay for it - you'd not be allowed to drive in. 

That's not really the case is it.
As you have to pay a fine for go within ULEZ with a non compliant car it reduces the number of such journeys.
It would be unfair to totally ban someone with a Non compliant car from traveling within ULEZ once a month say.
Its the daily users that the fines are there to dissuade. 
If there were no fine then there would be no incentive to get a compliant car.
My eldest son had to replace his car to be ULEZ compliant (Lived in Mitcham) he sold his car privately to someone who didn't need a ULEZ compliant car and bought the same make and Model but a little newer.
The difference in value of the two cars was around 6 Months worth of ULEZ fees so it worked out for him.

Cheers

Mike T

If you live or work in London, there is no choice and it'll disproportionally will hit the poorest the hardest. Taking the kids to school, going grocery shopping etc.

It would be fair to ban someone with a non-ulez compliant car, if air quality was the issue, but it's not, it's extorting people which is the issue.

[Jez]

Hence my anger at tax cameras doing you for speeding on a straight road, with no houses near them, at 5am when there is no one but you within a mile and in good weather and visibility.

The thing is though, speed limits apply at all times of day, so they need to be enforced at all times of the day.

It's not just for times when you're the only person on the road... having a limit to speed gives you more chance to avoid wildlife. I've hit 3 deer in my time that have jumped out in front of my car, and avoided lots... it's not a very nice feeling to be thinking that if I'd stayed within the limit, that young fawn would still be alive (to say nothing of damage to the car).

I couldn't disagree more strongly. I do not recognise such so called laws.

[Jez]

No it's not, it's about money. If it was about air quality, they wouldn't say the same cars can come in but pay for it - you'd not be allowed to drive in. 

That's not really the case is it.
As you have to pay a fine for go within ULEZ with a non compliant car it reduces the number of such journeys.
It would be unfair to totally ban someone with a Non compliant car from traveling within ULEZ once a month say.
Its the daily users that the fines are there to dissuade. 
If there were no fine then there would be no incentive to get a compliant car.
My eldest son had to replace his car to be ULEZ compliant (Lived in Mitcham) he sold his car privately to someone who didn't need a ULEZ compliant car and bought the same make and Model but a little newer.
The difference in value of the two cars was around 6 Months worth of ULEZ fees so it worked out for him.

Cheers

Mike T

If you live or work in London, there is no choice and it'll disproportionally will hit the poorest the hardest. Taking the kids to school, going grocery shopping etc.

It would be fair to ban someone with a non-ulez compliant car, if air quality was the issue, but it's not, it's extorting people which is the issue.

Precisely! It's just more taxes on the poor. All such "sin taxes" boil my blood and I'd ban the lot. "Wealthy enough? then keep on polluting but pay us to do so" NO!! The planet deserves better.

I'd ban SUV's outright for a start. The pollution is bad enough along with the taking up 1.5 parking spaces, traffic congestion, and them obscuring visibility with their size for other road users but the worst thing is the selfish antisocial smug reasons people buy them for.

[Cobaltblue]

No it's not, it's about money. If it was about air quality, they wouldn't say the same cars can come in but pay for it - you'd not be allowed to drive in. 

That's not really the case is it.
As you have to pay a fine for go within ULEZ with a non compliant car it reduces the number of such journeys.
It would be unfair to totally ban someone with a Non compliant car from traveling within ULEZ once a month say.
Its the daily users that the fines are there to dissuade. 
If there were no fine then there would be no incentive to get a compliant car.
My eldest son had to replace his car to be ULEZ compliant (Lived in Mitcham) he sold his car privately to someone who didn't need a ULEZ compliant car and bought the same make and Model but a little newer.
The difference in value of the two cars was around 6 Months worth of ULEZ fees so it worked out for him.

Cheers

Mike T

If you live or work in London, there is no choice and it'll disproportionally will hit the poorest the hardest. Taking the kids to school, going grocery shopping etc.

It would be fair to ban someone with a non-ulez compliant car, if air quality was the issue, but it's not, it's extorting people which is the issue.

I would point out that London has a very comprehensive public transport infrastructure unlike my home city.
When I'm in London I use it a lot.
You seem to be arguing both cases only the very wealthy could afford to daily use a non complaint ULEZ car (at almost 4K a year) and they are the most able to afford to replace their car.  

I'm afraid your not going to change my view and I know I cannot change yours.
Personally as a non-London resident it would affect me very little but these ULEZ zones are spreading across the Country so its as well to have a plan A for when they reach you.
We are in sort of a Golden age I remember in the 70's and 80's cars were rust buckets by the time they were 10 years old now there are huge numbers of 20+ year old vehicles on the road. Its good that people especially in rural areas have access to cheap transport as they are the ones that really need personal transport to carry out their daily lives.

Cheers

Mike T

[Kalee20]

No it's not, it's about money. If it was about air quality, they wouldn't say the same cars can come in but pay for it - you'd not be allowed to drive in. 

That's not really the case is it.
As you have to pay a fine for go within ULEZ with a non compliant car it reduces the number of such journeys.

And it's not even a fine! (Which would imply wrongdoing). It's a day's permit to drive a non-compliant car in.

Ultimately, it won't reduce overall pollution, but it will avoid the high pollution concentration in central London.

Also there is little to no evidence to support it. TFL has been found to have misled the people and lied to the London Assembly then asked scientists to lie in a report after their report couldn't find any evidence to support its effectiveness. C

Now that's a different matter - I hope that's not the case, unfortunately falsifying evidence has occurred in the history of the world... Hopefully if there has been, it will be dealt with very severely.

[Mark Hennessy]

Personally, I welcome initiatives like ULEZ, and look forward to a wider rollout.

Of course it's not about extorting people. It's really disappointing that intelligent people hold such views - you'd expect that from the Sun/Mail-reading pub bores, not engineers who are capable - by dint of actually being an engineer - of original research and critical thinking.

I drive, but I also walk and cycle. Air pollution might not be as visible as it was before I was around, but it's still there, and more insidious as a result. Pollution from traffic isn't the whole story, but it's a significant factor that should be tackled. And when on foot, there's a world of difference between 20 and 30mph. It just feels so much better. I hate walking on main roads around here, and can't wait for a blanket 20mph in this town (not that there's any hope of that at the moment). Similar comments apply to cycling. When you can cycle at 20, idiots will still force their way past, but the majority realise you're not holding them up.

I do have some sympathy with anti-SUV views. Like all things, they might have their place, but most are bought as statement. Or just because people are sheeple. Just imagine how thirsty and how much more polluting these things would be if we hadn't had the developments in technology in recent decades. And just think how much better things would be if the majority drove smaller Focus/Fiesta sized cars. The numbers are easy to compare.

But then, just think how much better things would be if people didn't have unreasonably powerful cars on public roads. Seriously, who needs more than 100 BHP to go about their daily commute? I could display power and torque dials on a car I had recently, and you'd use less than 20BHP when cruising at 70 on the flat. In normal acceleration I'd never use more than about 80BHP (and this was quite a heavy car). If you floored it you'd use the full ~180BHP, but that only saved a couple of seconds. Sorry, but while my time is at a premium, I'm not so arrogant to claim that saving 2 seconds every time I get up to speed is worth the increase in fuel use, CO2 emissions, particulate generation and noise. Driving fast might be a lot of fun for some - on those rare opportunities you might get the chance - but however you look at it, it's anti-social. As a race, we can quite a selfish bunch, but we don't have to be.

As for speeding, some limits might appear to be questionable, but most are for a reason. Stuff happens. We have deer at work, and the site limit is 15mph. It's not always easy to stick to that on the way out (steep downhill), but I'm one of the few that tries. Despite that, I've had near-misses. They jump out of the foliage straight onto the road with no warning at all, and even at 15mph, it can be hard to avoid them. I've seen the damage they can do at even low speeds - I dread to think how bad it would be at A-road speeds.

If you get caught speeding enough times, your insurance premiums are affected. You might be able to afford that, as can I, but where does your money end up? Ultimately, in the pockets of bankers. The same bankers that inflicted so much damage in 2008, etc. I have no interest in paying them any more than I have to. So I don't speed. Part of the joy of driving for me is making the effort to always do the right thing. Part of that is observing all of the rules, even if I might disagree with some of them. Aside from occasionally poorly-signposted roads, sticking to the limit is easy. And for those who don't drive properly, most modern cars have speed limiters that are easy to use. There's really no excuse. Object to the rules as much as you like, but if you choose to break them, you deserve to be sanctioned in some way. A speed awareness course or a fine is not that bad for a mild transgression, but if you're caught doing 100+MPH, that's not a moment of distraction - that's plain irresponsible. Don't complain about getting in trouble for that - everyone knows the rules.

And that leads me to the important point. Recent posts in this thread - this one included - have expressed strong views about driving. And some have strayed into politics. All that creates bad feeling. I'm judging some of you because of what you've said here, and no-doubt I'll also be judged. That's not a nice place to be. And it's totally against the ethos of this forum.

So now, we no long have to wonder why automotive posts are banned on some other forums - just look at this thread.

I'll leave it open for now - it would be an abuse of my position to close it with no right to reply after expressing my views - but if we keep straying into politics, or continue to express strong views in a way that could cause offence, I'll be left with no option other than to close it.