# Ultra low emission zone - grrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!



## kh904 (Dec 18, 2006)

I've owned my 406 coupe (2l petrol) for 14 years, and spent loads maintaining and looking after it, but with Sadiq Khan looking to expand the T-Zone to the North and South Circular (I live just within the south circular) in a few years time, I will have to seriously consider selling the coupe in the next year or 2!

I am so annoyed!
This is a retrospective action which will hit the poorer people the hardest!
I know they have to reduce the pollution etc, but they are going about it the wrong way!

Surely the older cars with naturally be phased out over time and scrapped once they are uneconomical to repair, but what about the old classic cars?
I only drive less than 5K miles a year, so I pump out less emissions than a modern car with a smaller engine doing say 15k miles a year, but I will be punished!

Surely get rid of VED and add say £0.10-£0.20 to a litre of fuel, so the more you drive, the more your pay? Or is that too simple?

Plus the problem is the population increasing, increasing the density on urban areas is not helping on the infrastructure/roads!

They'll likely increase the zone to the M25 and will introduce it in other cities!

Another stupid government policy with unintended consequences where the politicians don't have to pay the price!

Sorry I'm just need to rant!


----------



## Sam6er (Apr 3, 2016)

Bit harsh to describe poorer people as the pooper people :lol:
(i know its a spelling mistake but it still got me giggling)


----------



## kh904 (Dec 18, 2006)

Sam6er said:


> Bit harsh to describe poorer people as the pooper people :lol:
> (i know its a spelling mistake but it still got me giggling)


Corrected!


----------



## Derekh929 (Aug 28, 2011)

Sam6er said:


> Bit harsh to describe poorer people as the pooper people :lol:
> (i know its a spelling mistake but it still got me giggling)


You know what he meant they are in the S***:thumb:

Don't start on low emission zones i'm likely to explode


----------



## kh904 (Dec 18, 2006)

Even owners of the relatively modern classics of significant value will be forced to scrap their cars, as who will buy them once the ULEZ comes into effect?


----------



## Andy from Sandy (May 6, 2011)

> Another stupid government policy with unintended consequences where the politicians don't have to pay the price!


No it is solely down Khan this time!

Apparently it would be far better to ban wood burning stoves. And probably all open fires in houses.

Isn't these zones where you just pay more to drive? That is the usual thing a politician does - add a tax to make people stop doing something knowing that people will just pay.



> Surely get rid of VED and add say £0.10-£0.20 to a litre of fuel, so the more you drive, the more your pay? Or is that too simple?


Yes but if you don't drive they don't get any tax from you. You may have noticed that VED is now £140 for most cars even where they used to only be £10 or £20.


----------



## Rayaan (Jun 1, 2014)

Andy from Sandy said:


> No it is solely down Khan this time!
> 
> Apparently it would be far better to ban wood burning stoves. And probably all open fires in houses.
> 
> ...


Eh? Wood burning is regarded as carbon neutral - the tree takes in carbon dioxide when it grows and you release it when burning.


----------



## Andy from Sandy (May 6, 2011)

I tend not to make stuff up:-
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...diq-khan-calls-for-ban-on-wood-burning-stoves


----------



## GleemSpray (Jan 26, 2014)

I guess if they are serious about reducing emissions, they will also ban airliners older than 20 years from flying over the capital and make the shops on Oxford street change their window displays over to energy saving light bulbs too..... or maybe not.... 



Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk


----------



## fatdazza (Dec 29, 2010)

Rayaan said:


> Eh? Wood burning is regarded as carbon neutral - the tree takes in carbon dioxide when it grows and you release it when burning.


It is the particulates from wood burning stoves that is the problem. :thumb:


----------



## should_do_more (Apr 30, 2008)

Annoys me too. 

Loads of offices with lights on all over night. Must have a bigger impact. 

I reckon better organised deliveries and getting rid of the old taxis is the best approach. Where my wife works they no longer accept personal deliveries, she has to click and collect from the co op. It’s things like that rather than blanket bans that would imo have a bigger impact. 

Check your car on their site though. I was surprised that my 2005 Boxster is ok because they have data for it after 2006 as the same car.

It is down to particulates and yes he has to draw the line somewhere but it would be useful to be able to retrospectively get the emissions tested rather than just saying no because of an arbitrary date cut off.


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

should_do_more said:


> Loads of offices with lights on all over night. Must have a bigger impact.


It's about local air quality, not power usage. Unfortunately diesels aren't great locally.


----------



## Richf (Apr 26, 2008)

kh904 said:


> Even owners of the relatively modern classics of significant value will be forced to scrap their cars, as who will buy them once the ULEZ comes into effect?


Those that dont live in London??

I haven't driven into London for more than 20 years.


----------



## kh904 (Dec 18, 2006)

Richf said:


> Those that dont live in London??
> 
> I haven't driven into London for more than 20 years.


It won't just be London though!
They are starting with London but they are looking to implement it to other cities around the country


----------



## Caledoniandream (Oct 9, 2009)

While I think it’s a rough deal for people with older cars, I can’t complete disagree.
We need to do something to reduce pollution, but taxing is not the solution, the solution is subsiding cleaner vehicles, free parking for electric cars, free power in the cities to charge your electric car.
Only new taxi licenses in the cities for full electric taxis, and taxi license revoked for anything lower than Euro 6. 
But a Governement Grand for taxi drivers to buy new equipment, or to do a conversion on their cars. 

I must say, every time I work in London, I try to avoid going by car, I prefer the train and public transport.
I have said many time, if I lived in a city I wouldn’t own a car at all, I would just hire a nice one, if and when needed. 
We changed one of our Diesels for a hybrid, I am a massive diesel fan, but if you don’t do the mileage, you shouldn’t run one.
In Holland they have extreme high road tax on Diesels, so it’s only interesting if you do high mileage, why can we not have a system like that here?

But the problem with environment, everybody (including Governements) thinks something should be done about it, but it shouldn’t cost any money.


----------



## Andy from Sandy (May 6, 2011)

> ...something should be done about it, but it shouldn't cost any money.


Or votes.



> ...but if you don't do the mileage, you shouldn't run one.


I bought my car when I was doing the kind of mileage that makes a diesel cost effective. Now that I don't drive my car daily I am damned if I am going to sell it. I pay £20 road tax and if I change the car that will immediately rise to £140 or £130 for a PHEV.


----------



## wish wash (Aug 25, 2011)

Makes no difference in years to come if we're all running electric cars, they will still come up with something else to shaft the motorist.


----------



## Andy from Sandy (May 6, 2011)

wish wash said:


> Makes no difference in years to come if we're all running electric cars, they will still come up with something else to shaft the motorist.


I think that is why they put a flat £140 on all low emission vehicles up from the £10 to £30 there was before April 2017.


----------



## wish wash (Aug 25, 2011)

Andy from Sandy said:


> I think that is why they put a flat £140 on all low emission vehicles up from the £10 to £30 there was before April 2017.


There not as stupid as they make out, were worker ants for them. It's a shame a lot of the big 6 energy company's aren't uk owned. I'd rather the money went back in our purse instead of the French or a Saudi oil baron


----------



## kh904 (Dec 18, 2006)

Caledoniandream said:


> While I think it's a rough deal for people with older cars, I can't complete disagree.
> We need to do something to reduce pollution, but taxing is not the solution, the solution is subsiding cleaner vehicles, free parking for electric cars, free power in the cities to charge your electric car.
> Only new taxi licenses in the cities for full electric taxis, and taxi license revoked for anything lower than Euro 6.
> But a Governement Grand for taxi drivers to buy new equipment, or to do a conversion on their cars.
> ...


Pretty much agree, but when I say I live and drive in London, i'm not talking about central london, this zone will be from the north and south circular and will likely expand to the M25!
I tend to walk to and from work (40min each way), take public transport to central london if i need to, but there are times I just have to use the car!


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

Andy from Sandy said:


> I think that is why they put a flat £140 on all low emission vehicles up from the £10 to £30 there was before April 2017.


It's because they realised that making petrols pay a premium for CO2 emissions, whilst they had next to no NOx, whilst giving diesels a tax break for having low CO2, but high NOx wasn't fair....

As VED is technically a pollution tax, it's probably fairer to include all emissions, not just CO2.

Also, EV's with zero emissions are still £0 VED.


----------



## kh904 (Dec 18, 2006)

I just thought, with new car sales potentially falling off a cliff, is this new scheme cleverly designed to help prop up new car sales?


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

kh904 said:


> I just thought, with new car sales potentially falling off a cliff, is this new scheme cleverly designed to help prop up new car sales?


I genuinely believe there is the right intent here. The air quality is poor in many cities and they need to do something. The warnings about phasing out diesels has been on the cards for years.

It's only diesel car sales that are in serious decline. Petrol only had a small decline, but electric vehicles and hybrids have seen large growth.

With the comments made by the bank of England the other day it sounds as if they are trying to stop people getting into so much debt. Maybe the finance side of things will start to squeeze new car sales a bit harder.

Nobody is really forced to buy a new car. New cars are all subject to the new road tax rules. A year old car with free road tax might be more tempting to many.


----------



## kh904 (Dec 18, 2006)

Kerr said:


> I genuinely believe there is the right intent here. The air quality is poor in many cities and they need to do something. The warnings about phasing out diesels has been on the cards for years.
> 
> It's only diesel car sales that are in serious decline. Petrol only had a small decline, but electric vehicles and hybrids have seen large growth.
> 
> ...


Well if your car is pre-2006, then you are forced to sell or be penalised £10+ a day to drive within the north and south circular.

Again, I stress I understand the need to improve air quality and have no problem tackling emissions, but to do it retrospectively in way the Mayor of London is doing is not right.

Maybe set much tougher emission levels for petrol cars and ban NEW diesel car sales going forward, don't punish current owners (especially when the government encouraged people to buy diesel motors).
The older cars will naturally die out and be scrapped over time.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

kh904 said:


> Well if your car is pre-2006, then you are forced to sell or be penalised £10+ a day to drive within the north and south circular.
> 
> Again, I stress I understand the need to improve air quality and have no problem tackling emissions, but to do it retrospectively in way the Mayor of London is doing is not right.
> 
> ...


There was much tighter limits set for cars moving forward years ago. As we have found out all the diesel manufacturers were cheating their tests and not getting anywhere near their figures in the real world. There is massive doubt they can even improve much from where they are.

Personally I think our government was too lenient with manufacturers as they would be ruined if there was a proper clampdown. It would also hit the finance sector very hard if all the diesel cars on PCP deals(86% of new cars sold on PCP) were suddenly seriously devalued.

The government never really encouraged people to buy diesels. The only statement people quote where the government said to buy diesel was in 2001. There has been active discouragement not to buy diesels for a long time now.

It is really harsh on people. I agree that it's hard on people that own older cars as classics, or people that can't afford a more modern car. There will never be a fair way to start the process.


----------



## kh904 (Dec 18, 2006)

I agree that the government were too lenient on manufacturers who cheated the emission figures.

Also we are not talking about VED, the ULEZ is an extra charge on top of VED for pre-2006 cars to drive with in the n/s circular.

If government declared to manufacturers that they are going to ban the sale of NEW diesels cars then that would be a good start, this way those buyer who purchased cars before the new requirements are not penalised - much fairer imo

The ULEZ they are planning to expand is for diesel AND petrol cars.

I wonder what the classic car community are saying!

Edit:

Just looking into it a bit further and cars with historic classic car status are exempt!!!
So again typical government policy!


----------



## kh904 (Dec 18, 2006)

Hi all,

I've started a petition on Change.org opposing the expansion of the ULEZ to the North and South Circular:

https://www.change.org/p/sadiq-khan...source=share_for_starters&utm_medium=copyLink

Please sign if you agree.
I think it's important to oppose this even if you don't live in inner-London or not affected as they are planning to expand it further to the M25 for light vehicles and in other cities around the country in the future!


----------



## TRN Ent (Nov 16, 2008)

Someone could quite easily organise a "Dirty Protest" against this new 'tax' couldn't they?

How would Khan like it if there were a mass of "Exempt" vehicles kicking out allsorts of smog into the air and clogging up the streets, think he'd soon change his mind?

If the change came into force, we could all legally drive around the city in old barges filling the air with soot and not pay any extra 'tax'.

I watch with interest, Thanks,
Tom.


----------



## petemattw (Nov 3, 2008)

TRN Ent said:


> Someone could quite easily organise a "Dirty Protest" against this new 'tax' couldn't they?
> 
> How would Khan like it if there were a mass of "Exempt" vehicles kicking out allsorts of smog into the air and clogging up the streets, think he'd soon change his mind?
> 
> ...


Surely all this would serve to do is to reinforce the need and reasoning behind the plans in the first place and thus be counterproductive as a means of making a point of protest?


----------

