FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Ulez... For or agin?
Ulez... For or agin?
Jump to: Newest in thread
I'm against ULEZ because while I drive a car that's compliant, it's scheme isn't designed for its purpose. People with non compliant cars get charged £12.50 to pollute areas. Makes no sense. I'm against LTNs because it creates more traffic on main roads which leads to more pollution also it blocks of vital access for emergency vehicles to reach people in need |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *ean counterMan
over a year ago
Market Harborough / Kettering |
It's all too much too soon! The nurse who drives an 8 year old diesel car won't be able to afford to get in to work yet the millionaire driving his £1.5 million hybrid Ferrari (which will be excempt) can pop in to central London for his £500 lunch no problem at all ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Whilst I get what it’s trying to do. London also has a significant issues with AC units in office / residential complexes also throwing out a lot of pollution.
This just comes across as sticking a plaster on a gaping wound. Also, wasn’t the Congestion Charge supposed to stop congestion? Riding through London on a weekly basis would suggest it hasn’t…  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ean counterMan
over a year ago
Market Harborough / Kettering |
If they were serious about polution they'd simply ban all private vehicles from central London just leaving public transport and taxis but that will never happen as they will loose a massive source of income ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Against. It's a cash grab against those that cannot avoid/afford paying it. i.e. those who cannot afford compliant cars who need them for work, shopping etc. 2k for scrappage is no where near enough. Some pensioners/disabled for example, it's been reported, avoid the charge by not going out as much as they did. Not all can walk far. The powers that be should hang their heads in shame. London air has never been cleaner. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's all too much too soon! The nurse who drives an 8 year old diesel car won't be able to afford to get in to work yet the millionaire driving his £1.5 million hybrid Ferrari (which will be excempt) can pop in to central London for his £500 lunch no problem at all ! "
But the poor nurse is causing much more pollution which is the point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *enk15Man
over a year ago
Evesham |
I think it disproportionately affects lower income households and small business.
Should they not be helping these households purchase a lower emission car, rather than adding another expense onto their plate? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Against. It's a cash grab against those that cannot avoid/afford paying it. i.e. those who cannot afford compliant cars who need them for work, shopping etc. 2k for scrappage is no where near enough. Some pensioners/disabled for example, it's been reported, avoid the charge by not going out as much as they did. Not all can walk far. The powers that be should hang their heads in shame. London air has never been cleaner."
The disabled are exempt until 2027. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Against!!
I have a friend that lives outside ulez and works outside ulez but crosses through it to get to work in her car. She’s got two choices.
1) drive 6 miles to work and pay £12.50 ulez charge.
2) drive 18 miles to work and pay £15 more in fuel week.
Option 2 saves £47 a week and is an extra 120 miles a week. Produces a lot more pollution too.
That’s what she has done and a lot of other people she knows.
I have another friend that works in Recuritment and said that people that live outside of ulez and work inside it are leaving jobs.
Also the companies inside the ulez zones are getting quiet.
A car repair garage she recruits for (doesn’t any more because of ulez) would be booked up with work for 3 weeks in advance, now they have run out of work by 1pm. Customers are using garages outside of the ulez zone as it’s cheaper.
She said it’s the same with hair dressers and many other businesses.
The cameras are costing a serious amount of money and they are getting ripped down. All of this is being paid for by the tax payer.
It seems to me it’s punishing the poor and average working class. The people that are struggling to make ends meet already usually have a car that’s 20-8 years old and these are mostly not compliant with ulez.
They also do not have the money to buy a newer one.
To me it’s ridiculous, you will drive people out of London and cities if this continues |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What's the alternative? Continue poisoning ourselves?"
The ULEZ system doesn't stop at pollution at all. You can have the most polluting vehicle and poison all the streets in London but you have to pay £12.50 a day to do so. It's not about clean air for Londoners. It's about control by SK and trying to balance his spending. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ean counterMan
over a year ago
Market Harborough / Kettering |
"It's all too much too soon! The nurse who drives an 8 year old diesel car won't be able to afford to get in to work yet the millionaire driving his £1.5 million hybrid Ferrari (which will be excempt) can pop in to central London for his £500 lunch no problem at all !
But the poor nurse is causing much more pollution which is the point. "
Maybe but the point is that it will hit the poor a lot more than it will hit the rich. And anyone who thinks a car that will do 0 to 60 in 3 seconds and go over 200 mph is "green" needs their head looking at. Yes around town whilst running on electric they are clean but that lasts about 30 miles. Once on the open road they will produce a lot more emissions than the 8 year old diesel. It's simple physics, to get a big bang you need to burn a lot of fuel ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
To stop less pollution in London is always a good thing however that said, if they had banned these cars that allegedly so bad for the environment altogether going into the city that would have been better (unsure how they could enforce it given the distance), said cars can still chuff into London but paying a damn lot of money in the process and where is that money going? What use it the money? That's not given us clear air is it? Just money lining someone's pockets.
Like a poster said above, a nurse has to pay in her old car but a multi millionaire doesn't in his fancy car, like I said I am all for helping the environment but I also don't think it's fair on those that don't have the means to get a new car or pay the ridiculous charge per day.
Danish x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *cott73Man
over a year ago
brighton |
"To stop less pollution in London is always a good thing however that said, if they had banned these cars that allegedly so bad for the environment altogether going into the city that would have been better (unsure how they could enforce it given the distance), said cars can still chuff into London but paying a damn lot of money in the process and where is that money going? What use it the money? That's not given us clear air is it? Just money lining someone's pockets.
Like a poster said above, a nurse has to pay in her old car but a multi millionaire doesn't in his fancy car, like I said I am all for helping the environment but I also don't think it's fair on those that don't have the means to get a new car or pay the ridiculous charge per day.
Danish x"
Agreed. The policy should be backed up by a thorough and generous scrappage scheme. It's not beyond the wit of man. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago
Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton, |
"What's the alternative? Continue poisoning ourselves?"
If the alleged purpose is to stop pollution then totally ban old vehicles or all vehicles.Its ok to pollute if you pay for it is illogical to the so called arguments presented for it.Not forgetting Nightmayor Khans £800k dodgy dossier to give him the evidence he wants to see.Its a cash grab to fill a financial hole by an incompetent administration lead by a deaf blind zealot. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
For!
While it’s not the only arrow in the quiver of clean air solutions, it’s a start. Taxation is a proven method of changing behaviour, and many people on this and similar threads have stated how it’s changing behaviour… driving less, changing cars, or even quitting cities.
The big downside of course is those on lower incomes or with less disposable income are always the ones who suffer most, be it energy prices, food prices, mortgage costs or anything else.
Despite being a life long car enthusiast I support the whole ULEZ concept. I lived in London for four years and driving in London is the most stupid idea imaginable. I’m not in favour of scrapage schemes as they don’t really solve the problem. I’d rather see the money put into improving the public transport network while reducing its cost to the travelling public. Schemes that take private cars out of cities and help traffic flow faster and more efficiently.
And before people say it’s alright for me I don’t live in London… these schemes will soon be in every metropolitan area in the UK.
Oh, one more thing. Before people attack Sadiq Khan, remember the scheme was introduced by Tory Boris Johnson and the expansion forced on London by the Tory Government for bailing out TfL… you know, the millionaires who “know what it’s like for the working people”. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"For!
While it’s not the only arrow in the quiver of clean air solutions, it’s a start. Taxation is a proven method of changing behaviour, and many people on this and similar threads have stated how it’s changing behaviour… driving less, changing cars, or even quitting cities.
The big downside of course is those on lower incomes or with less disposable income are always the ones who suffer most, be it energy prices, food prices, mortgage costs or anything else.
Despite being a life long car enthusiast I support the whole ULEZ concept. I lived in London for four years and driving in London is the most stupid idea imaginable. I’m not in favour of scrapage schemes as they don’t really solve the problem. I’d rather see the money put into improving the public transport network while reducing its cost to the travelling public. Schemes that take private cars out of cities and help traffic flow faster and more efficiently.
And before people say it’s alright for me I don’t live in London… these schemes will soon be in every metropolitan area in the UK.
Oh, one more thing. Before people attack Sadiq Khan, remember the scheme was introduced by Tory Boris Johnson and the expansion forced on London by the Tory Government for bailing out TfL… you know, the millionaires who “know what it’s like for the working people”."
Very well put! I live central and had a car when I first moved but sold it as it wasn't being used and haven't owned a car since so doesn't effect me. However its all part of the go green by 2030 so not much can do stop it. Khan will lose the next election because of this and some people think that voting for a tory mayor will somehow reverse this ??
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Living in Manchester I'm in a position that's like being in noman's land. I want to get a new (to me) car. A lot of cars that I'm looking at and would suit me, my finances and needs wouldn't be ulez compliant IF the charge ever came to Manchester (it's been in review due to the mayoral election) I'd have to sell the car I'd just bought at a loss, because who would buy a car you can't drive?
Or I can buy a complaint car now, that I either can't afford or doesn't fit my needs.
It's a total money grab in a bid to get people using public transport. But I can drive 20 min to my work or take 90 min on public transport. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Ulez is just a tax on the poo, rich people will buy a new car or pay the fee without batting an eyelid.
The official reports say it will reduce pollution by 3% in 20 years, so it not like ulez will meet its objective just make people suffer . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ulez is just a tax on the poo, rich people will buy a new car or pay the fee without batting an eyelid.
The official reports say it will reduce pollution by 3% in 20 years, so it not like ulez will meet its objective just make people suffer ."
In 20 years near enough none of those cars currentlly impacted will still be on the road. The current 'excuse' to install a multi million pound infrastructure to tax non- compliant vehicles doesn't hold water as given time they will take themseves off London's roads. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Don’t care.
This has been coming for years.
I expected it to be a problem with commuting into Sheffield.
So, when I bought my car I bought one with a Euro 6 engine. It’s now nearly 10yrs old.
Lack of planning doesn’t equate a crisis.
What REALLY bugs me is the diesel scrappage charge, which pushed folk from petrol onto diesels. Utterly unsuited for city use.
All these problems with EGR valves and particulate filters are because they are designed for long journeys. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I want to get a new (to me) car. A lot of cars that I'm looking at and would suit me, my finances and needs wouldn't be ulez compliant"
I’m not unsympathetic with the reasons people don’t like the ULEZ scheme. However, if you take a long hard look at what cars are compliant then you will find lots of affordable cars are. Essentially, most petrol cars from 2005 onwards will be compliant (but easily checked) while diesel cars need to be much more recent.
The whole camera infrastructure will of course be used for other things besides policing ULEZ. Road pricing will follow once all vehicles are ULEZ. Really , the concept of driving a private car into a crowded city is a concept that’s going to be extinct pretty soon. (Oxford and Cambridge aren’t far off banning cars completely) However, I do believe more should’ve been done to give people a viable alternative to driving before introducing the scheme. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm against ULEZ because while I drive a car that's compliant, it's scheme isn't designed for its purpose. People with non compliant cars get charged £12.50 to pollute areas. Makes no sense. I'm against LTNs because it creates more traffic on main roads which leads to more pollution also it blocks of vital access for emergency vehicles to reach people in need"
In aggreance with this OP.
Another stealth tax.
Will it ever get rid of emissions, no.
I see folk driving cars and vans with black smoke more than ever.
My car is emission free.
Government can pay for all of us to have the new flying car.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What's the alternative? Continue poisoning ourselves?"
What confuses me is;
My car with two dpf filters and non registered emissions at MOT time is charged.
My 67 year old car with no emissions controls is free.
Go figure |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What REALLY bugs me is the diesel scrappage charge, which pushed folk from petrol onto diesels. Utterly unsuited for city use.
All these problems with EGR valves and particulate filters are because they are designed for long journeys. "
Absolutely correct!
It was a big miss-step by government to allow the rise of the diesel car, through taxation, based on their upper atmosphere emissions (which were faked figures… looking at you VW!) Diesel has always been bad at street level. A diesel engines car is designed for long, open road journeys for drivers doing 20k+ miles per annum. They have no place in cities, or short journeys.
During a period of my life where I sold new cars, I tried to educate customers on this. Some listened, others not so much. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Just a con...pay £12.50 and you can pollute for 24hrs.
Why is Heathrow airport in the ULEZ ...I am sure planes cause more damage during take off and landing than a 1.5 litre diesel driving 5 miles in the same area.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *heelerMan
over a year ago
Northants |
When i travel to london always use the train in london tube or bus so much easier and quicker.For londoners the way i understand it if you drive non compliant vehicles and dont go out of the ULEZ area you dont pay, Correct me if im wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"When i travel to london always use the train in london tube or bus so much easier and quicker.For londoners the way i understand it if you drive non compliant vehicles and dont go out of the ULEZ area you dont pay, Correct me if im wrong."
Wrong..if you drive in the ULEZ area you pay unless you avoid the cameras |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *tephanjMan
over a year ago
Kettering |
I'm against it's just away to make more money. There is no way all the people it that area can afford a electric vehicle. So it will not reduce any poison air, just another way to hit the public when we are all struggling with cost of living |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Against. Permissible pollution on payment of the appropriate fee does not reduce pollution.Also, I have yet to see any local authorities out scrubbing the air clean funded by the payments? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *heelerMan
over a year ago
Northants |
"When i travel to london always use the train in london tube or bus so much easier and quicker.For londoners the way i understand it if you drive non compliant vehicles and dont go out of the ULEZ area you dont pay, Correct me if im wrong.
Wrong..if you drive in the ULEZ area you pay unless you avoid the cameras"
Yes i was wrong it is a daily payment |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *host63Man
over a year ago
Bedfont Feltham |
"With londons ulez now reaching from hillingdon in the west to havering in the east.. Something like 30 miles across now. Who is for or against and perhaps why? "
Against the amount of non compliant cars isn't enough to make a difference. Kts a TFL money making exercise to claw back money lost in the pandemic |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just a con...pay £12.50 and you can pollute for 24hrs.
Why is Heathrow airport in the ULEZ ...I am sure planes cause more damage during take off and landing than a 1.5 litre diesel driving 5 miles in the same area.
"
Yes, this makes no sense whatsoever |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *TG3Man
over a year ago
Dorchester |
"With londons ulez now reaching from hillingdon in the west to havering in the east.. Something like 30 miles across now. Who is for or against and perhaps why? "
it was originally meant to keep cars out of london but it never did now its just extra money for the coffers  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ony 2016Man
over a year ago
Huddersfield /derby cinemas |
I know that Boris Johnson is against ULEZ saying it has nothing to do with clean air and was a money making scheme ,,, although , when he was the Conservative mayor of London and Johnson introduced ULEZ to our capital city he said it was not a money making scheme and was all to do with clean air |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Against. It's a cash grab against those that cannot avoid/afford paying it. i.e. those who cannot afford compliant cars who need them for work, shopping etc. 2k for scrappage is no where near enough. Some pensioners/disabled for example, it's been reported, avoid the charge by not going out as much as they did. Not all can walk far. The powers that be should hang their heads in shame. London air has never been cleaner.
The disabled are exempt until 2027."
How do they define disabled though? If it's claiming PIP or having a WAV, then it misses vast swathes of disabled people. Like me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hilloutMan
over a year ago
All over the place! Northwesr, , Southwest |
"Against!!
I have a friend that lives outside ulez and works outside ulez but crosses through it to get to work in her car. She’s got two choices.
1) drive 6 miles to work and pay £12.50 ulez charge.
2) drive 18 miles to work and pay £15 more in fuel week.
Option 2 saves £47 a week and is an extra 120 miles a week. Produces a lot more pollution too.
That’s what she has done and a lot of other people she knows.
I have another friend that works in Recuritment and said that people that live outside of ulez and work inside it are leaving jobs.
Also the companies inside the ulez zones are getting quiet.
A car repair garage she recruits for (doesn’t any more because of ulez) would be booked up with work for 3 weeks in advance, now they have run out of work by 1pm. Customers are using garages outside of the ulez zone as it’s cheaper.
She said it’s the same with hair dressers and many other businesses.
The cameras are costing a serious amount of money and they are getting ripped down. All of this is being paid for by the tax payer.
It seems to me it’s punishing the poor and average working class. The people that are struggling to make ends meet already usually have a car that’s 20-8 years old and these are mostly not compliant with ulez.
They also do not have the money to buy a newer one.
To me it’s ridiculous, you will drive people out of London and cities if this continues "
Very well stated  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I know that Boris Johnson is against ULEZ saying it has nothing to do with clean air and was a money making scheme ,,, although , when he was the Conservative mayor of London and Johnson introduced ULEZ to our capital city he said it was not a money making scheme and was all to do with clean air "
Tells you all you need to know about politics. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"With londons ulez now reaching from hillingdon in the west to havering in the east.. Something like 30 miles across now. Who is for or against and perhaps why? "
Expect it to cover everywhere inside the M25.
Not a fan of it, but my company will pay the ULEZ fee as I only drive a compant car. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Whilst I get what it’s trying to do. London also has a significant issues with AC units in office / residential complexes also throwing out a lot of pollution.
This just comes across as sticking a plaster on a gaping wound. Also, wasn’t the Congestion Charge supposed to stop congestion? Riding through London on a weekly basis would suggest it hasn’t… "
You missed out london city airport, that surely adds a nice amount of polution. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I know that Boris Johnson is against ULEZ saying it has nothing to do with clean air and was a money making scheme ,,, although , when he was the Conservative mayor of London and Johnson introduced ULEZ to our capital city he said it was not a money making scheme and was all to do with clean air "
And Boris always tells the truth! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Khan..."We want clean air to protect the children, its very dangerous and harmful and kills alot of people"
Joe...."What if I want to drive the most polluted car around the ULEZ for 24hrs?"
Khan..."Yes thats fine just pay £12.50"
Joe..."What about the children getting killed?"
Khan..."But its worth £12.50, we take all card payments". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Khan..."We want clean air to protect the children, its very dangerous and harmful and kills alot of people"
Joe...."What if I want to drive the most polluted car around the ULEZ for 24hrs?"
Khan..."Yes thats fine just pay £12.50"
Joe..."What about the children getting killed?"
Khan..."But its worth £12.50, we take all card payments"."
Everyone has a price |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Whilst I get what it’s trying to do. London also has a significant issues with AC units in office / residential complexes also throwing out a lot of pollution.
This just comes across as sticking a plaster on a gaping wound. Also, wasn’t the Congestion Charge supposed to stop congestion? Riding through London on a weekly basis would suggest it hasn’t…
You missed out london city airport, that surely adds a nice amount of polution."
Hmmmmmm. They could charge £112.50 per plane, per day?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Whilst I get what it’s trying to do. London also has a significant issues with AC units in office / residential complexes also throwing out a lot of pollution.
This just comes across as sticking a plaster on a gaping wound. Also, wasn’t the Congestion Charge supposed to stop congestion? Riding through London on a weekly basis would suggest it hasn’t…
You missed out london city airport, that surely adds a nice amount of polution.
Hmmmmmm. They could charge £112.50 per plane, per day??"
If they pay by midnight of the 1st day. Otherwise its 125. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *host63Man
over a year ago
Bedfont Feltham |
"Whilst I get what it’s trying to do. London also has a significant issues with AC units in office / residential complexes also throwing out a lot of pollution.
This just comes across as sticking a plaster on a gaping wound. Also, wasn’t the Congestion Charge supposed to stop congestion? Riding through London on a weekly basis would suggest it hasn’t…
You missed out london city airport, that surely adds a nice amount of polution.
Hmmmmmm. They could charge £112.50 per plane, per day??"
Its nothing to do with pollution. This Khan and his gang trying to claw back money lost in the pandemic for the transport network.
It hits people who can only afford older cars. No yo mention those who have cherished and looked after classic cars of the late 80s and 90s. The amount of non compliance cars on the road is do few and far between getting g rid of them hardly makes a difference tk air quality. I live on top of Heathrow more pollution created there every day than by a month of non compliance vehicles |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *uksungCouple
over a year ago
wednesbury |
He's a labour mayor. Typically turning london into a city for the rich, the ones that can afford the cars. If people don't like it don't vote for him. I.agi e another ten years only the rich being driven around London on quiet streets. Doesn't sound like a mayor for the people does he...that's my view. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I live by Tower Bridge, so lost around £2000 when ULEZ started as I had to change my car, which wasn't really that old. 
I'm against ULEZ; it's largely an attack on poorer people, carried out by a party who are supposed to be on the side of the working classes.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I know that Boris Johnson is against ULEZ saying it has nothing to do with clean air and was a money making scheme ,,, although , when he was the Conservative mayor of London and Johnson introduced ULEZ to our capital city he said it was not a money making scheme and was all to do with clean air "
Johnson proposed the original ULEZ, designed to cover the congestion charge zone and only cover diesel engines. He was not mayor when it was actually brought in.
I doubt he would have expanded it, as he stopped attempts to expand the original LEZ from covering vans. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Against!!
I have a friend that lives outside ulez and works outside ulez but crosses through it to get to work in her car. She’s got two choices.
1) drive 6 miles to work and pay £12.50 ulez charge.
2) drive 18 miles to work and pay £15 more in fuel week.
Option 2 saves £47 a week and is an extra 120 miles a week. Produces a lot more pollution too.
That’s what she has done and a lot of other people she knows.
I have another friend that works in Recuritment and said that people that live outside of ulez and work inside it are leaving jobs.
Also the companies inside the ulez zones are getting quiet.
A car repair garage she recruits for (doesn’t any more because of ulez) would be booked up with work for 3 weeks in advance, now they have run out of work by 1pm. Customers are using garages outside of the ulez zone as it’s cheaper.
She said it’s the same with hair dressers and many other businesses.
The cameras are costing a serious amount of money and they are getting ripped down. All of this is being paid for by the tax payer.
It seems to me it’s punishing the poor and average working class. The people that are struggling to make ends meet already usually have a car that’s 20-8 years old and these are mostly not compliant with ulez.
They also do not have the money to buy a newer one.
To me it’s ridiculous, you will drive people out of London and cities if this continues "
Of course I don’t know your friend’s situation - but it it possible they could either get public transport or cycle?
We’re a four person family and that’s pretty much how we get around. I’m sure some people have to drive, but I pass so many people by themselves in big cars, I’m sure some of them could find other modes of transport. Some people use their cars to drive to the top of our road - without actually banning cars (because some people sometimes have good reasons to drives), there has to be a way to nudge them out of their cars. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Just did a quick google, and found a range of articles like this: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/231894/london-pollution-improved-with-evidence-small/
They say evidence is that ULEZ works.
Is there other evidence it doesn’t work?
Sure it’s not perfect, and it is a bit blunt. Drastically increasing fuel costs is intuitively more tailored to actual car usage. But we need to do something, don’t we? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The air is far worse down in tubes!
But Khan says or does nothing about that!
Could it be that it's not a money maker?  "
Do you know any children who’s bedroom window opens on to a tube platform? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Against!
Charging people to drive isn’t going to clean the air. If one has to make the journey to work or any other reason then one had to right!?!
What about spending the £16 million that’s been spent on cameras to fund a better scrapping scheme or install more charging points for electric cars? What about a phase out scheme of older cars with funding and incentives ….why? Because all the above bring no return revenue. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Plenty south of the river"
There are tube lines in South London nowadays.
To be completely honest, I have very little time for people who breed when they can't be accountable for their kids' wellbeing.
Potential parents already know there is pollution in London, which makes them complicit in any problems they have with their health.
It's not mandatory to have kids, and considering every child creates a new carbon footprint, they're hardly environmentally friendly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Plenty south of the river
There are tube lines in South London nowadays.
To be completely honest, I have very little time for people who breed when they can't be accountable for their kids' wellbeing.
Potential parents already know there is pollution in London, which makes them complicit in any problems they have with their health.
It's not mandatory to have kids, and considering every child creates a new carbon footprint, they're hardly environmentally friendly."
It's not mandatory to have kids. But if the birth rate drops low enough, we'd all better plan to self destruct before we need pensions, care etc because there'll be no-one left to pay the taxes for the pensions or to staff the care facilities. We're already running low on the latter. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just did a quick google, and found a range of articles like this: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/231894/london-pollution-improved-with-evidence-small/
They say evidence is that ULEZ works.
Is there other evidence it doesn’t work?
How can they tell when the study was done during covid when people were off work or working from home.
Sure it’s not perfect, and it is a bit blunt. Drastically increasing fuel costs is intuitively more tailored to actual car usage. But we need to do something, don’t we?"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just did a quick google, and found a range of articles like this: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/231894/london-pollution-improved-with-evidence-small/
They say evidence is that ULEZ works.
Is there other evidence it doesn’t work?
How can they tell when the study was done during covid when people were off work or working from home.
Sure it’s not perfect, and it is a bit blunt. Drastically increasing fuel costs is intuitively more tailored to actual car usage. But we need to do something, don’t we?"
Your comment is in light grey in the middle of my post, right? At first glance it looked like you were just bumping it up to give it more traction.
But as to timing: “The researchers used publicly available air quality data to measure changes in pollution in the twelve-week period from 25 February 2019, before the ULEZ was introduced, to 20 May 2019, after it had been implemented.” My memory is bad, but that’s before covid isn’t it?
The author does also say that longer term decreases in pollution since 2016 were considerably more significant. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There's always the tube/buses.
I found cycling around London the quickest to commute.
Obviously not everyone can commute that way, but it's both quicker and cheaper.
Shame about the carbon monoxide, congestion and potholes caused by heavy traffic destroying the roads.
Best thing would be if they ring fenced the income generated and put it back into fixing all the roads we're all subsiding motorists to constantly destroy amd creatong better public transport.
It can work.
Will stop people dying younger or having debilitating illnesses as well.
Which will also be good for the NHS.
understand the concerns though.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There's always the tube/buses.
I found cycling around London the quickest to commute.
Obviously not everyone can commute that way, but it's both quicker and cheaper.
Shame about the carbon monoxide, congestion and potholes caused by heavy traffic destroying the roads.
Best thing would be if they ring fenced the income generated and put it back into fixing all the roads we're all subsiding motorists to constantly destroy amd creatong better public transport.
It can work.
Will stop people dying younger or having debilitating illnesses as well.
Which will also be good for the NHS.
understand the concerns though.
"
Exactly. And look at those cycling legs! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Where's the evidence of this poisoning the massive c..t that's the mayor of London not to mention racist used false facts messed with votes that was against over half of the people don't want it and also was proven not to make any difference but its OK to hit people in the pocket |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *llaandGCouple
over a year ago
London |
"The question I'm gonna ask and I want honest answers is which one of you diehard Labour supporters (and most of you are) will vote for Sadiq Khan in next year's mayoral election?"
I will - and I'm not a die-hard Labour voter
G |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Lol I'm not going to say anymore probably get banned this is only about money nothing else its outrageous for some this is almost a forced lock down can't use there cars they really on daily can't get a new one and it won't end here if people just roll over pay per mile or soon only the well off will be able drive |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
U must be some woke person sorry I ment joke I never voted because there all full of shit I will be this time and not Labour I bet u think Diane abbot's is fantastic too |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Did you not hear mate the air in the underground is far worse than the streets the trains busses are filthy as fuck u get shit head teens and school kids screaming shouting throwing things yeah the finest transport system in the world its a total shit hole why should people have to use it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Khan is clearly using ULEZ as a money raising exercise to pay for his fellow left wing corrupt lawyers who are unbelievably successfully in fighting any law change the ( week ) government make . He is a complete dangerous fake and needs to be removed.
I also commute by bike, 12.5 miles each way and have been for the last 20 years; I am also a life long asthmatic.
I am relieved to say that my asthma has improved immensely over this period and I hardly ever have to take my veltolin now days - whereupon prior I used it at lease twice a day .
London has a congestion problem mainly because of its increasingly over populated status but the air quality is undoubtedly getting better due to science behind fuel and engineering over the last 20 odd years . ULEZ will impose terminal financial pressure to small businesses who need every HELP they can get since covid and KHAN is out there killing them .
He is a marked man and will not survive the hatred he has caused by waisting our hard earned money and inventing the health deterioration lies in London - the truth will swiftly suffocate his corrupt ways ….
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I agree and he's spent millions of tax payers money putting this in place even tho most of londoners said no to it well clearly not the fella who's so far up khan's back doors |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It won't clean the air.For example if Joe Bloggs farts in Slough the jet stream will blow it into the zone and gas people in Hanwell.
The flight path over London isn't taken into account.
Gas boilers and diesel generators?
Food factories?
Waste disposal sites?
Emissions from the sewers?
Farts in general?
Mould in accomodations?
Sadiq's BS?
Why doesn't the Mayor tell the fuel companies to provide cleaner fuel.
We are already paying in VAT.
Tradesmen are forced to raise their rates to cover ulez therefore the customer is paying twice in some cases.
The nearest retro fitter is in Luton.
The old broken heap on the drive is now worth ?2000 and you can spend the money on holiday they don't check what you spend it on.
The next thing will be a zone 1 to 4 tax even if you use public or walk or cycle. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
When you consider that the “poisoning” cars will still be in the zone generally but now they make money from it, it’s clear that poison isn’t an issue aslong as you pay the government.
Just another scam by Khan the absolute vile wretch of a person. How that scumbag is still in amazes me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"He got ‘in’because he was given an automatic free term over Covid ! Who made that one up !!! "
I know right, shock horror they keep a puppet in charge who’s main job is to be the face that smiles after wiping his cock on the curtains and leaving you with your pants down |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm pretty sure the Conservative candidate for mayor said she would scrap it she's got my vote on that alone if that's true "
They’ve all said they would “scrap” or “reduce” so far I’ve yet to see it, I wonder where it’s gonna span out to next |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm pretty sure the Conservative candidate for mayor said she would scrap it she's got my vote on that alone if that's true
They’ve all said they would “scrap” or “reduce” so far I’ve yet to see it, I wonder where it’s gonna span out to next "
Wherever theres a captive market to take some more money from them. Probably the M25 boundary |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm pretty sure the Conservative candidate for mayor said she would scrap it she's got my vote on that alone if that's true
They’ve all said they would “scrap” or “reduce” so far I’ve yet to see it, I wonder where it’s gonna span out to next
Wherever theres a captive market to take some more money from them. Probably the M25 boundary"
End up the whole country at some point, but by that time even Bicycles will cause pollution! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If so many of us are against ULEZ and can see it’s a cash grab, then why aren’t we the people able to do something about Khan and the ULEZ. Aren’t they there to serve us…the politicians and unfortunately Khan?
Seriously there’s enough intelligent people on fabs to have a serious answer to how we the people can stop this madness of charge after charge after charge just to go about our daily lives. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If so many of us are against ULEZ and can see it’s a cash grab, then why aren’t we the people able to do something about Khan and the ULEZ. Aren’t they there to serve us…the politicians and unfortunately Khan?
Seriously there’s enough intelligent people on fabs to have a serious answer to how we the people can stop this madness of charge after charge after charge just to go about our daily lives."
Yeah, don’t pay it, go to court offer the bare minimum and keep not paying further fines, if enough people don’t pay it they will soon have to call it a day because of the amount of cases being brought forward. But people won’t do that.
My car complies and I don’t go into London much in it so it matters not to me however I detest it for the absolute scam it is. They don’t care about the pollution or they would outright ban any vehicles that aren’t “clean” enough. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If so many of us are against ULEZ and can see it’s a cash grab, then why aren’t we the people able to do something about Khan and the ULEZ. Aren’t they there to serve us…the politicians and unfortunately Khan?
Seriously there’s enough intelligent people on fabs to have a serious answer to how we the people can stop this madness of charge after charge after charge just to go about our daily lives.
Yeah, don’t pay it, go to court offer the bare minimum and keep not paying further fines, if enough people don’t pay it they will soon have to call it a day because of the amount of cases being brought forward. But people won’t do that.
My car complies and I don’t go into London much in it so it matters not to me however I detest it for the absolute scam it is. They don’t care about the pollution or they would outright ban any vehicles that aren’t “clean” enough."
Seems like there’s a lot of support for an absolute ban! Maybe they’ll read this and do the right thing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If so many of us are against ULEZ and can see it’s a cash grab, then why aren’t we the people able to do something about Khan and the ULEZ. Aren’t they there to serve us…the politicians and unfortunately Khan?
Seriously there’s enough intelligent people on fabs to have a serious answer to how we the people can stop this madness of charge after charge after charge just to go about our daily lives.
Yeah, don’t pay it, go to court offer the bare minimum and keep not paying further fines, if enough people don’t pay it they will soon have to call it a day because of the amount of cases being brought forward. But people won’t do that.
My car complies and I don’t go into London much in it so it matters not to me however I detest it for the absolute scam it is. They don’t care about the pollution or they would outright ban any vehicles that aren’t “clean” enough."
Hmmm…not sure if enough people will sign up to that option, threatening letters, threats of bailiffs are enough to deter most folk.
Can’t we contact our local MP’s (useless tw!ts I know) and get ULEZ actually voted for or against? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If so many of us are against ULEZ and can see it’s a cash grab, then why aren’t we the people able to do something about Khan and the ULEZ. Aren’t they there to serve us…the politicians and unfortunately Khan?
Seriously there’s enough intelligent people on fabs to have a serious answer to how we the people can stop this madness of charge after charge after charge just to go about our daily lives.
Yeah, don’t pay it, go to court offer the bare minimum and keep not paying further fines, if enough people don’t pay it they will soon have to call it a day because of the amount of cases being brought forward. But people won’t do that.
My car complies and I don’t go into London much in it so it matters not to me however I detest it for the absolute scam it is. They don’t care about the pollution or they would outright ban any vehicles that aren’t “clean” enough.
Seems like there’s a lot of support for an absolute ban! Maybe they’ll read this and do the right thing. "
Won’t this cripple most business’s and leave London a potential ghost town? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If so many of us are against ULEZ and can see it’s a cash grab, then why aren’t we the people able to do something about Khan and the ULEZ. Aren’t they there to serve us…the politicians and unfortunately Khan?
Seriously there’s enough intelligent people on fabs to have a serious answer to how we the people can stop this madness of charge after charge after charge just to go about our daily lives.
Yeah, don’t pay it, go to court offer the bare minimum and keep not paying further fines, if enough people don’t pay it they will soon have to call it a day because of the amount of cases being brought forward. But people won’t do that.
My car complies and I don’t go into London much in it so it matters not to me however I detest it for the absolute scam it is. They don’t care about the pollution or they would outright ban any vehicles that aren’t “clean” enough.
Seems like there’s a lot of support for an absolute ban! Maybe they’ll read this and do the right thing.
Won’t this cripple most business’s and leave London a potential ghost town?"
We could see what happens in Paris.
Most people, when asked why they don’t cycle in London, say it’s too dangerous. Banning cars should largely answer that.
Obviously they wouldn’t ban cars through the whole of London, but do zones 1 and 2 really need cars? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *olf and RedCouple
over a year ago
Nr Cardiff or at Chams Darlaston |
We are going into London by car today which is rare for us, partly because trains have been striking. I’m also having an arthritis flare up so underground etc would be difficult. Luckily our cars are currently exempt from ULEZ, but I heard that more cars will fall into it soon. Having listened to Sadiq Khan on the radio a few days back it comes across as a money making exercise. On the programme they were saying about gas boilers and trains, buses still producing emissions so the change from less cars isn’t necessarily making much difference at all. Imperial College findings were used to make the decision and the mayor had put £800000 into that project. Not sure if that’s right. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If so many of us are against ULEZ and can see it’s a cash grab, then why aren’t we the people able to do something about Khan and the ULEZ. Aren’t they there to serve us…the politicians and unfortunately Khan?
Seriously there’s enough intelligent people on fabs to have a serious answer to how we the people can stop this madness of charge after charge after charge just to go about our daily lives.
Yeah, don’t pay it, go to court offer the bare minimum and keep not paying further fines, if enough people don’t pay it they will soon have to call it a day because of the amount of cases being brought forward. But people won’t do that.
My car complies and I don’t go into London much in it so it matters not to me however I detest it for the absolute scam it is. They don’t care about the pollution or they would outright ban any vehicles that aren’t “clean” enough.
Seems like there’s a lot of support for an absolute ban! Maybe they’ll read this and do the right thing.
Won’t this cripple most business’s and leave London a potential ghost town?"
The trouble is you can’t say your trying to get rid or emissions but you still allow the polluting vehicles into that area. The money isn’t going to go into some form of air cleaning devices to counteract the effects… so really it’s ban them or deal with it.
Just another way to keep lining the pockets of the shot callers, same as these ULEZ cameras, they made them easy to reach so people do destroy them and then a company has the contract to repair and reinstate because they will heavily compensate the person who controls such contracts. Otherwise why not have them high up like other CCTV etc. it’s all a big con. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We are going into London by car today which is rare for us, partly because trains have been striking. I’m also having an arthritis flare up so underground etc would be difficult. Luckily our cars are currently exempt from ULEZ, but I heard that more cars will fall into it soon. Having listened to Sadiq Khan on the radio a few days back it comes across as a money making exercise. On the programme they were saying about gas boilers and trains, buses still producing emissions so the change from less cars isn’t necessarily making much difference at all. Imperial College findings were used to make the decision and the mayor had put £800000 into that project. Not sure if that’s right. "
What? You mean pay scientists to arrive at the decision you want? That would never happen would it.? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ok banning cars sees to be favourable but perhaps permits for trades?
"
100% business have to function. It will affect overheads but business is business |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If so many of us are against ULEZ and can see it’s a cash grab, then why aren’t we the people able to do something about Khan and the ULEZ. Aren’t they there to serve us…the politicians and unfortunately Khan?
Seriously there’s enough intelligent people on fabs to have a serious answer to how we the people can stop this madness of charge after charge after charge just to go about our daily lives.
Yeah, don’t pay it, go to court offer the bare minimum and keep not paying further fines, if enough people don’t pay it they will soon have to call it a day because of the amount of cases being brought forward. But people won’t do that.
My car complies and I don’t go into London much in it so it matters not to me however I detest it for the absolute scam it is. They don’t care about the pollution or they would outright ban any vehicles that aren’t “clean” enough.
Seems like there’s a lot of support for an absolute ban! Maybe they’ll read this and do the right thing.
Won’t this cripple most business’s and leave London a potential ghost town?
We could see what happens in Paris.
Most people, when asked why they don’t cycle in London, say it’s too dangerous. Banning cars should largely answer that.
Obviously they wouldn’t ban cars through the whole of London, but do zones 1 and 2 really need cars? "
Lots of people physically cannot cycle. Yes, handcycling is a thing. They are ridiculously expensive and no-one helps fund them. And I can't take my wheelchair on the back of a handcycle so what do I do when I get to work? Handcycle round the corridors and into the loo?
Yes, there are handcycle attachments for manual wheelchairs but they are also immensely expensive; are nigh on impossible to chain securely to anything to leave whilst working/going indoors and require bits to be added to your chair. They also mean going out in the rain in your manual wheelchair to hand cycle, which means a wet seat cushion which you have to sit in all day (we have tried all sorts of solutions for this and none work 100%). It's also very difficult to attach the handcycle attachments in some cases.
Aaaaaaand then there's my mates with upper AND lower limb impairment = no handcycling.
Just getting all the retorts around cycling out of the way, upfront! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Utilise the Thames more perhaps for both commuting and goods?
"
Yeah, it's not very wheelchair friendly. I decided to take an Uber boat from Embankment to Greenwich last year. I honestly nearly killed myself getting down the pier - once I realised how bad it was, I was too far down to get back up on my own. I had to ask a random American tourist to push me up off Greenwich pier. Absolutely no way on earth I'd have got up it myself (and I can do some steep hills) and zero staff available to assist. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Utilise the Thames more perhaps for both commuting and goods?
Yeah, it's not very wheelchair friendly. I decided to take an Uber boat from Embankment to Greenwich last year. I honestly nearly killed myself getting down the pier - once I realised how bad it was, I was too far down to get back up on my own. I had to ask a random American tourist to push me up off Greenwich pier. Absolutely no way on earth I'd have got up it myself (and I can do some steep hills) and zero staff available to assist. "
Invest in the services and make them user friendly for all. Thames is the near perfect route straight through Londinium  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Utilise the Thames more perhaps for both commuting and goods?
Yeah, it's not very wheelchair friendly. I decided to take an Uber boat from Embankment to Greenwich last year. I honestly nearly killed myself getting down the pier - once I realised how bad it was, I was too far down to get back up on my own. I had to ask a random American tourist to push me up off Greenwich pier. Absolutely no way on earth I'd have got up it myself (and I can do some steep hills) and zero staff available to assist.
Invest in the services and make them user friendly for all. Thames is the near perfect route straight through Londinium "
Makes sense really. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Utilise the Thames more perhaps for both commuting and goods?
Yeah, it's not very wheelchair friendly. I decided to take an Uber boat from Embankment to Greenwich last year. I honestly nearly killed myself getting down the pier - once I realised how bad it was, I was too far down to get back up on my own. I had to ask a random American tourist to push me up off Greenwich pier. Absolutely no way on earth I'd have got up it myself (and I can do some steep hills) and zero staff available to assist.
Invest in the services and make them user friendly for all. Thames is the near perfect route straight through Londinium "
TfL says it's essentially out of money, so can't see that happening any time soon. Public transport across the country, London included, is very difficult or even inaccessible for disabled people yet there's no support for disabled people specifically, to meet these ULEZ standards. Basing support around the Motability scheme misses out the vast majority of disabled people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It won't clean the air.For example if Joe Bloggs farts in Slough the jet stream will blow it into the zone and gas people in Hanwell.
The flight path over London isn't taken into account.
Gas boilers and diesel generators?
Food factories?
Waste disposal sites?
Emissions from the sewers?
Farts in general?
Mould in accomodations?
Sadiq's BS?
Why doesn't the Mayor tell the fuel companies to provide cleaner fuel.
We are already paying in VAT.
Tradesmen are forced to raise their rates to cover ulez therefore the customer is paying twice in some cases.
The nearest retro fitter is in Luton.
The old broken heap on the drive is now worth ?2000 and you can spend the money on holiday they don't check what you spend it on.
The next thing will be a zone 1 to 4 tax even if you use public or walk or cycle."
don't for get the outlet shafts for the underground all that shit air gets pumped onto our streets |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Whilst I get what it’s trying to do. London also has a significant issues with AC units in office / residential complexes also throwing out a lot of pollution.
This just comes across as sticking a plaster on a gaping wound. Also, wasn’t the Congestion Charge supposed to stop congestion? Riding through London on a weekly basis would suggest it hasn’t…
You missed out london city airport, that surely adds a nice amount of polution.
Hmmmmmm. They could charge £112.50 per plane, per day??
Its nothing to do with pollution. This Khan and his gang trying to claw back money lost in the pandemic for the transport network.
It hits people who can only afford older cars. No yo mention those who have cherished and looked after classic cars of the late 80s and 90s. The amount of non compliance cars on the road is do few and far between getting g rid of them hardly makes a difference tk air quality. I live on top of Heathrow more pollution created there every day than by a month of non compliance vehicles "
There was a government proposal back in the 90's, to expand the cingestion charge to everywhere inside the M25. They swapped the congestion charge, for the ULEZ plan. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
