In reply to Post #52
Then one of us is being stupid and it could well be me.
If currently the zone is say 5 square miles centre of town and I live in that zone I can whizz around until my hearts content and as long as I don't go out of the zone I don't pay.
If you extend the zone to 20 square miles that increases my radius to whizz about in a mustang without leaving the zone.
The only time I will have to pay is if I pop out fishing to get some country air and drive back to the zone.
Am I wrong?
Take the polluting example and say that if I want to pollute the centre part of the Thames (say London Bridge) it will cost me £12.00 to do it if I come into London and don't live there. If I live there I can do it for free.
If I live in London and want to pollute the Thames as Windsor then. It's free until I return home.
If I want to do it in Windsor and live in Windsor - no charge.
Like I say I have no issue with fair taxes - BUT PAYING TO POLLUTE AND NOT REINVESTING 100% OF ANY TAXES IS RIDICULOUS.
The infrastructure alone to extend the zone will eat up millions - cash going to corporations that have no green agenda just a business agenda.
It's green washing at it's finest
Then one of us is being stupid and it could well be me.
If currently the zone is say 5 square miles centre of town and I live in that zone I can whizz around until my hearts content and as long as I don't go out of the zone I don't pay.
If you extend the zone to 20 square miles that increases my radius to whizz about in a mustang without leaving the zone.
The only time I will have to pay is if I pop out fishing to get some country air and drive back to the zone.
Am I wrong?
Take the polluting example and say that if I want to pollute the centre part of the Thames (say London Bridge) it will cost me £12.00 to do it if I come into London and don't live there. If I live there I can do it for free.
If I live in London and want to pollute the Thames as Windsor then. It's free until I return home.
If I want to do it in Windsor and live in Windsor - no charge.
Like I say I have no issue with fair taxes - BUT PAYING TO POLLUTE AND NOT REINVESTING 100% OF ANY TAXES IS RIDICULOUS.
The infrastructure alone to extend the zone will eat up millions - cash going to corporations that have no green agenda just a business agenda.
It's green washing at it's finest
In reply to Post #58
In reply to Post #61
It's charged if you are in the ulez zone, not just upon entry or exit of it. There is no charge for parked cars, but if they are used within the zone then you are charged for it. So no you can't live within the zone and just whizz about as you please without paying
It's charged if you are in the ulez zone, not just upon entry or exit of it. There is no charge for parked cars, but if they are used within the zone then you are charged for it. So no you can't live within the zone and just whizz about as you please without paying
In reply to Post #59
I guess one possible solution is using the revenue generated by the ULEZ/ CC to give worthwhile financial support to replace their vehicle for those who need it. For example pensioners and low income NHS staff such as in your example.
A newer compliant vehicle could theoretically be more efficient than the old vehicle it replaced, as well as the primary advantage of lower toxic emissions.
Those (relatively) wealthy enough to live in the suburbs may well have to either pay the charge or replace a vehicle. Many of the same people have also financially benefited from their proximity to a large city in increased value of property over the last 20 years. Many have also spent years driving into city centres polluting the air so that they can earn better money.
I guess one possible solution is using the revenue generated by the ULEZ/ CC to give worthwhile financial support to replace their vehicle for those who need it. For example pensioners and low income NHS staff such as in your example.
A newer compliant vehicle could theoretically be more efficient than the old vehicle it replaced, as well as the primary advantage of lower toxic emissions.
Those (relatively) wealthy enough to live in the suburbs may well have to either pay the charge or replace a vehicle. Many of the same people have also financially benefited from their proximity to a large city in increased value of property over the last 20 years. Many have also spent years driving into city centres polluting the air so that they can earn better money.
In reply to Post #62
I got a new van to avoid paying 12.50, but my parking in Fulham yesterday was £16 more than it would have been in a petrol motor, and I had to pay an extra £150 "diesel levy" to get a permit to park on my street. This will go up next year too.
A lot of boroughs are ramping up parking charges for diesels whether they're euro 6 or not
I don't do enough mileage for the diesel to be more economical so I'm having to look for a petrol van
I got a new van to avoid paying 12.50, but my parking in Fulham yesterday was £16 more than it would have been in a petrol motor, and I had to pay an extra £150 "diesel levy" to get a permit to park on my street. This will go up next year too.
A lot of boroughs are ramping up parking charges for diesels whether they're euro 6 or not
I don't do enough mileage for the diesel to be more economical so I'm having to look for a petrol van
In reply to Post #60
Not bothered in the slightest about the word racist..Only mugs put others before their own people or race. They usually regret it when reality hits them in the teeth.
Not bothered in the slightest about the word racist..Only mugs put others before their own people or race. They usually regret it when reality hits them in the teeth.
In reply to Post #62
Mate ?...Never ever considered you in that category !
Good for you...as per usual those with ample spending capacity never become involved..they pay begrudgingly and shrug their shoulders.. The I'm all right Jack mentality !
Mate ?...Never ever considered you in that category !
Good for you...as per usual those with ample spending capacity never become involved..they pay begrudgingly and shrug their shoulders.. The I'm all right Jack mentality !
In reply to Post #66
Not bothered in the slightest about the word racist..Only mugs put others before their own people or race. They usually regret it when reality hits them in the teeth.
wow!! ... have i woken up in 1975
Mate ?...Never ever considered you in that category !
Good for you...as per usual those with ample spending capacity never become involved..they pay begrudgingly and shrug their shoulders.. The I'm all right Jack mentality !
Oh the irony!!
.... you just cant make this type of sh*t up! 
Not bothered in the slightest about the word racist..Only mugs put others before their own people or race. They usually regret it when reality hits them in the teeth.
wow!! ... have i woken up in 1975
Mate ?...Never ever considered you in that category !
Good for you...as per usual those with ample spending capacity never become involved..they pay begrudgingly and shrug their shoulders.. The I'm all right Jack mentality !
Oh the irony!!
.... you just cant make this type of sh*t up! 
In reply to Post #64
Are these the same people privately renting because they can't afford to get on that property ladder?
You seem to be making too many assumptions about others all being rich londoners lol
How about making public transport in cities FREE for those living in that city? Hopefully gets some commuters off the roads. Whoops the government loses money everywhere.
Stop silly parents dropping kids to school?
Transfer all road taxes to fuel only, then the more you use the more you pay?
The reason I have an older car is because I don't want to waste my savings on a car I use infrequently, yet do need on occasions. I do not have the luxury of owning a house as a backup or safety net for later life. Also, having previously owned nicer cars, the worry of damage or theft etc. Doesn't interest me any more, a cheaper older car is far less worry and expense for my current needs. Also, I had spent years paying for expensive train travel into central and paying for a car, but no, not polluting the city in my car as didn't commute in it.
Are these the same people privately renting because they can't afford to get on that property ladder?
You seem to be making too many assumptions about others all being rich londoners lol
How about making public transport in cities FREE for those living in that city? Hopefully gets some commuters off the roads. Whoops the government loses money everywhere.
Stop silly parents dropping kids to school?
Transfer all road taxes to fuel only, then the more you use the more you pay?
The reason I have an older car is because I don't want to waste my savings on a car I use infrequently, yet do need on occasions. I do not have the luxury of owning a house as a backup or safety net for later life. Also, having previously owned nicer cars, the worry of damage or theft etc. Doesn't interest me any more, a cheaper older car is far less worry and expense for my current needs. Also, I had spent years paying for expensive train travel into central and paying for a car, but no, not polluting the city in my car as didn't commute in it.
In reply to Post #67
In reply to Post #69
I think you may be misunderstanding where I'm coming from and we actually have some fairly similar views.
I live in Tower Hamlets, the most impoverished borough in London and am clearly aware that not all people who live in London are rich. I am not rich.
I would 100% be behind residents having access to free or heavily subsidised public transport. Unfortunately this will never happen in London as the system is too large and it would be far too easy to abuse. The abuse of the Freedom Pass is a prime example of this.
I would 100% be behind restricting unnecessary school drop/collect traffic. Unfortunately those who feel it is necessary to drive a mile down the road and sit outside a school with the engine and air con running for half an hour (it's not just the rich in their Range Rovers who do this) are not likely to do this off their own backs.
I have also had nice cars in London, but would never do this again. Fuel economy with a large engine at 15mph is nonsense, as it the amount of cash you spend in body shops correcting dings from people who drove off.
My point about the suburbs may not apply to you, but it does apply to many. It is also possible to buy a used compliant car for not a lot of money, it just won't be diesel.
My point is that the kids in our cities, rich or poor, deserve to breathe air that is not toxic. Arguably more right than their parents do to have one or two cars sat outside. The ULEZ is certainly not perfect, but can those moaning that they will be out of pocket (those in poverty, disabled, pensioners etc obviously excluded) give a better realistic solution?
I think you may be misunderstanding where I'm coming from and we actually have some fairly similar views.
I live in Tower Hamlets, the most impoverished borough in London and am clearly aware that not all people who live in London are rich. I am not rich.
I would 100% be behind residents having access to free or heavily subsidised public transport. Unfortunately this will never happen in London as the system is too large and it would be far too easy to abuse. The abuse of the Freedom Pass is a prime example of this.
I would 100% be behind restricting unnecessary school drop/collect traffic. Unfortunately those who feel it is necessary to drive a mile down the road and sit outside a school with the engine and air con running for half an hour (it's not just the rich in their Range Rovers who do this) are not likely to do this off their own backs.
I have also had nice cars in London, but would never do this again. Fuel economy with a large engine at 15mph is nonsense, as it the amount of cash you spend in body shops correcting dings from people who drove off.
My point about the suburbs may not apply to you, but it does apply to many. It is also possible to buy a used compliant car for not a lot of money, it just won't be diesel.
My point is that the kids in our cities, rich or poor, deserve to breathe air that is not toxic. Arguably more right than their parents do to have one or two cars sat outside. The ULEZ is certainly not perfect, but can those moaning that they will be out of pocket (those in poverty, disabled, pensioners etc obviously excluded) give a better realistic solution?
In reply to Post #71
Free or heavily subsidised transport is the way to go if the plebs are serious about pollution, starting to happen around the world, but I fear its a cash cow that is very convenient, as thay ponder there next move in there're 6ltr bentlys
Free or heavily subsidised transport is the way to go if the plebs are serious about pollution, starting to happen around the world, but I fear its a cash cow that is very convenient, as thay ponder there next move in there're 6ltr bentlys
In reply to Post #71
Seems we agree on most
If it was health based reasons for the ulez then free or heavily discounted public travel would get lots of vehicles off the roads. BUT they have chosen to take the money.
A ulez compliant car can be had for half sensible money if any car would do. To replace my model with an equivalent would cost at least £10k at the moment. This is just a skoda superb estate
Seems we agree on most
If it was health based reasons for the ulez then free or heavily discounted public travel would get lots of vehicles off the roads. BUT they have chosen to take the money.
A ulez compliant car can be had for half sensible money if any car would do. To replace my model with an equivalent would cost at least £10k at the moment. This is just a skoda superb estate
In reply to Post #73
The problem is public transport is so unreliable. Especially the trains and tube with all the strikes going on. They need to get the system working properly before getting more people using it. The amount of cars driving around with only one person in is silly, and so many of them are big 4x4s which rarely even go through a puddle let alone do as they are allegedly designed for
The problem is public transport is so unreliable. Especially the trains and tube with all the strikes going on. They need to get the system working properly before getting more people using it. The amount of cars driving around with only one person in is silly, and so many of them are big 4x4s which rarely even go through a puddle let alone do as they are allegedly designed for
In reply to Post #74
And yet a lot of these big 4x4 are ulez compliant, go figure
Edit and so is any car over 40 years old
And yet a lot of these big 4x4 are ulez compliant, go figure
Edit and so is any car over 40 years old