londiscape
Member
Apparently my 20 year old petrol car is surprisingly ULEZ compliant for the moment, that is until Khan decides to move the goalposts yet again.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
ULEZ Expansion (and being forced into changing cars).
- Thread starter themeone
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Euro 6 diesels are compliant, but older petrols are cheaper. Perfection is the enemy of the good, as otherwise we'd be going straight for a ZEZ (Zero Emission Zone). Some van users will be able to switch to petrols by switching to an older used petrol estate or car-type Berlingo etc - it used to be the case that pretty much every decorator and gardener used an Astra estate before small vans like Berlingos became common, leaving just those needing a big van in difficulty, which might not be uneconomic to help by way of grant and scrappage programmes.
I do probably agree with the argument that Euro 5B diesels should be permitted, though.
Yes but during that 25 year period the government had actively promoted the uptake of diesel powered cars to reduce carbon emissions.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Given that most people change their car at least every 5-10 years, a lot of people far more often than that, I'm not sure why that's significant. Most people don't buy a car brand new and keep it until it's scrapped.
It may be annoying to those who do but they're a small minority.
Almost everyone will have changed their car since diesel started to fall out of favour, even if they typically buy older cars.
The average age of currently registered cars and vans is 9 years.
There are 40 million cars on the road of which 58% are petrol, 35% are diesel, 4% Hybrid, 1% plug in Hybrid and 3% EV
There are also 4.6 million vans of which 96% are diesel
That is over 16 million diesel cars and vans out there.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
None of that has any impact on most people having made their decision to purchase when diesel was already deprecated.
Large vans are a problem as most are diesel but there are plenty of petrol cars of all shapes and sizes. (Smaller vans could easily be replaced with a large petrol estate car, indeed until Berlingos and the likes came along about 20 years ago small vans were estate cars, just with the back windows blanked - Astravans, Escort Vans and the likes).
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you suggesting that it is 'hard cheese' for those who bought a diesel car after they were 'deprecated' as you put it? Since the 40% peak of diesel car ownership which was five years ago there as only been a 5% fall in ownership.
The Berlingo and it Peugeot equivalent came out 27 years ago and replaced earlier small vans from PSA. And there have always been small vans which despite being based on car platforms aren't estates with the windows blanked. The escort has had a non estate van version since the Mk1 in the 70s. Vauxhall have also made a small van the HA since 1964 followed by various Combos since the early 80s. They are very much a separate thing to estate cars you can't put a euro pallet in the back of an Astra estate. Although the suggestion of switching to estate cars is pretty moot as similarly to diesel the availability of new estates has plummeted.
WelshBluebird
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 5,625
But taking that average age, and the fact that euro 6 diesels came out 8 years ago (and some older euro 6 diesels will actually fit the emissions criteria too), surely we are already at the point where on average a given diesel vehicle will either be new enough to not have to pay the ULEZ / clean air charge, or is old enough that it will likely be replaced soon anyway (especially given some of the scrappage / support schemes available).
Looking at the latest government figures there are 7.6 million pre 2016 Diesel cars licensed in the UK.
And how many of those are regularly driven in the ULEZ expansion area?
Well 280,000 of them are registered in London and I'm sure more from the adjoining counties are driven within the expanded area. Here is a regional breakdown
Region Vehicles
East 793,277
East Midlands 678,737
London 282,500
Inner London 51,892
Outer London 230,608
North East 305,068
North West 812,273
Northern Ireland 379,072
Scotland 525,293
South East 1,107,604
South West 833,156
Wales 470,738
West Midlands 731,822
Yorkshire 680,913
and The Humber
Grand Total 7,600,453
That's not what I was asking. Those numbers represent the total number of vehicles registered (and presumably taxed) by areas. Of the stated 230,608 statec for 'Outer London'' which to be relevant here should be just the currently non-ULEZ boroughs:
many of them will be second cars with less usage
many are infrequently used on discretionary journeysused
So the actual impact is much reduced, especially when those who have viable public transport options bite the bullet.
As far as the proportion of those in the South-east who regularly drive into the GLA boroughs, the impact on them is a direct consequence of this Goverment's determination to make life as difficult, (financially and politically) for the Labour mayor of London. If the Conservatives feel that the home counties drivers are being treated so badly, then it is within their power to introduce a 'London visiting drivers' compensation arrangement. Sadiq Khan has a coroner's judgement to drive the health issue remedy, - strangely his detractors have not proffered any viable alternative other than to water down the progress of removing the health hazard to appease the polluters.
WelshBluebird
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 5,625
So assuming your 16 million diesel vehicle number is accurate, that means we are already past the point where more than half of them aren't subject to the ULEZ charge with that number constantly increasing as people replace older vehicles. I'd say that is pretty damn good, and I'd also suspect that the numbers of vehicles exempt from the charge are probably higher in the areas affected by the charge as people take advantage of the various scrappage and support schemes, or just otherwise prepare for the charge by switching vehicles, so in those areas I'd expect somewhere in the region of 60-70% of vehicles to be exempt from it.
Last edited:
Absolutely. I have read of people with electric cars thinking they would be affected! How they can have made that assumption is beyond me but it's clear that the anti campaign has (yet again) been more effective than the pro campaign
Trainbike46
Established Member
And this is why it's important to press ahead, once it is in effect all the people who currently wrongly believe they'll be affected will find out that actually they aren't affected at all
341o2
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 2,014
The biggest untruth spread by the media is that 2030 will be the end of the road for ICE cars. Even the BBC showed a vintage Rolls Royce entering a garage with the narration "End of the road for these classic cars"
The proposal is that as from 2030, the manufacture and sales of new ICE cars will no longer be permitted.
17% of the UK's population live in rural areas, and are going to find charging difficult at least
The proposal is that as from 2030, the manufacture and sales of new ICE cars will no longer be permitted.
17% of the UK's population live in rural areas, and are going to find charging difficult at least
WelshBluebird
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 5,625
Key point number one - "new". Many many cars sold aren't new, and given the average age of cars on the road is about 9 years, realistically that date becomes pretty much 2040 for most people.
Key point number two - I'm not entirely sure why you think being in a rural area means charging will be difficult. In general being in a rural area means you are more likely to have some kind of private space for your car, be it a garage or a driveway etc, where you can install your own charger. If anything the difficulties will be in more urban areas where you either have terraced housing with only on street parking or flats without parking spaces.
341o2
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 2,014
There are plenty of streets in rural areas where houses don't even have front gardens, let alone private parking spaces. I disagree with your statement that living in a rural area means you are more likely to have a parking space, unless you can afford something in the region of £1M, which is what you need as a minimum price to buy anything half decent in the area in which I live.
Around 1M of the (edt) UK population live in structures such as static caravans or houseboats where the infrastructure may not be up to being able to fast charge a car. Charging via a standard socket takes between 10 and 14 hours. Where the electricity is supplied by overhead poles, a storm is likely to cause a power cut. Two years ago, my neighbours and I were without power for 5 days, and we were the lucky ones.
Around 1M of the (edt) UK population live in structures such as static caravans or houseboats where the infrastructure may not be up to being able to fast charge a car. Charging via a standard socket takes between 10 and 14 hours. Where the electricity is supplied by overhead poles, a storm is likely to cause a power cut. Two years ago, my neighbours and I were without power for 5 days, and we were the lucky ones.
Last edited:
DerekC
Established Member
That's because the Mail and Express have been running a (fairly successful) campaign telling them so.
That is not consistent with the facts. Here's a screenshot of a goodish chunk of the Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency, taken from the link below. Many Outer London areas along major routes have high or very high levels of pollution. Anything yellow or above is a fail.
https://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/AnnualMapsFullScreen.asp?species=NO2&LayerStrength=75
Why not show a wider area view of London. On these maps Blue, Green and Yellow areas meet the objective limits. Orange, Red and Black show areas where the limit is increasingly breached. Across London the areas at breech are generally the inner boroughs within the North and South Circular with the worst areas in the central congestion zone. Another thing to nite these are based on 2016 data so don't take account of the rise in EVs, the fall in Diesel ownership or the introduction of Euro 6 SCRs to reduce Nox.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Do you have any evidence for you assertions?
I suppose that's a possibility like the government provides extra pay for military based in Scotland to cover higher tax rates. But would it not be simpler to leave the ULEZ where it is for now?
That is a single very exceptional judgement and was very much about the failings of the healthcare professionals to advise and support the family concerned to alleviate the heightened risk the daughter faced due to her health conditions.
Last edited:
A) I don't need quantitive "evidence", the fact that there are households with more than one non-ULEZ compliant vehicle is evident from local knowledge. Do you honestly believe that there are no older second cars in those boroughs which have reduced usage?
B) No, just like the arguments for curtailing activities that are accelerating climate change, doing nothing about health damaging traffic pollution is not an option.
C) Wrong again, the coroner's judgement was that pollution from road traffic was a significant factor in the child's death. Expecting the health service to spend valuable resources mitigating the effects of gross pollution when the pollution itself can be reduced by legislation is just a polluter's attempt to victim blame.
DelW
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 6,046
I suspect that this is another measure which is seen in advance as highly controversial (helped by parts of the media fomenting objections) but which when passed will come to be seen as normal, followed by wondering why it wasn't done sooner.
For previous examples, consider among others:
compulsory wearing of seat belts (1980s)
removal of lead from petrol (1990s)
banning smoking in pubs and workplaces (2000s)
all of which generated much adverse publicity at the time (and accusations of being the "nanny state" at work); but I think few people would want them undone now.
The leaded petrol example had parallels with ULEZ, with claims at the time that it would mean "the end of the road for classic cars", which it evidently wasn't. No doubt much of the present hysteria will turn out to be unfounded as well.
For previous examples, consider among others:
compulsory wearing of seat belts (1980s)
removal of lead from petrol (1990s)
banning smoking in pubs and workplaces (2000s)
all of which generated much adverse publicity at the time (and accusations of being the "nanny state" at work); but I think few people would want them undone now.
The leaded petrol example had parallels with ULEZ, with claims at the time that it would mean "the end of the road for classic cars", which it evidently wasn't. No doubt much of the present hysteria will turn out to be unfounded as well.
There's often a figure of 90% quoted, how reliable that figure is and how they come to it I don't know. I suspect it's based on that 60-70% of vehicles and then the number of movements those vehicles make (for example a campervan making a few trips a year isn't going to make many trips, a builders van may make multiple trips a day).
Government definition of rural means a settlement of less than 10,000, I know of somewhere like that with 2tph and enough services which means that most day to day tasks can be undertaken without leaving the settlement (made so much easier with a Screwfix for DIY projects, Sainsbury's with an Argos - which often can get stuff delivered in the afternoon if ordered in the morning, Post Office for most banking services beyond what can be done on an app and so on).
As for charging there could be more, but there's certainly a few public chargers available.
It's likely that a lot of that 17% live somewhere with a population of over 5,000, where they may find public chargers are less common but not unheard of.
Also, as EV's become more common charging will also become more available.
I suspect you're correct in your assessment.
Actually the advantage of the current ULEZ's over the above (which were more prescriptive - i.e. out right ban) is that you can opt to use your classic car, it's just out will cost you. Note given classic cars are reserved for high days and holidays (and tend not to be something many own) the actual extra cost for those with a classic car is likely to be limited.
No I don't believe that there are no older second cars with reduced usage but equally I don't agree with your assertion that many of these older vehicles are infrequently used. You are just claiming unsubstantiated facts to dismiss the impact on those owning non ULEZ compliant cars.
Just with climate change or traffic pollution saying 'doing nothing is not an option' to justify any intervention however ineffectual or harmful in other ways it may be is just a false dilemma. To tackle both various measures should be taken, some are already been taken, but they should be considered and proportional. There has been an 83% reduction in NOx emissions since 1990 despite the growth in activity.
Yes it was a significant factor but that doesn't remove the fact that she was born with a severe respiratory condition annd that isn't victim blaming. You object to the expectation the health service should do something well you would be disagreeing with the coroner who issued REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS to the following bodies to improve the education and knowledge of medical professionals as regards pollution:
General Medical Council
Health Education England
Nursing and Midwifery Council
Royal College of Physicians
Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health
Royal College of General Practitioners
Given that it's likely to impact relatively few people (and of that group some may be impacted fairly infrequently) how would we balance the bringing in something which creates change to air quality with the need to impact few people?
In that if it doesn't impact anyone (for instance banning all steam powered cars built in the last 12 months) there's no point being about the change whilst the opposite extreme being you can only drive an EV car which is less than 50kg would mean that no-one was exempt (even though that would bring about best health outcomes).
The expansion does come with support (such as scrappage schemes for older vehicles and has been talked about publicly for at least a year - which reduces the risk of only just buying a vehicle and it costing you extra to change it again quickly). What more should have been done?
Whilst sometimes things are overstated, the fact that many many people have been desiring to move out of cities due to air quality for a very long time should indicate that the reality is that this is something which a lot of people would like something to be done about. The fact that they don't want it to impact them is where the issue lies.
There's also a fear of change, however once the change has happened a lot of the fear (and therefore negative comments) are likely to reduce (both in the number saying them and likely the strength of feeling behind them).
The ideal, in terms of health benefits, would likely be the banning of the user of cars for short journeys - as not only would air quality improve but people would be fitter and therefore less at risk of health issues. Of course such a ban would be impossible to implement and political suicide to try.
In terms of limited impact on individuals not changing the rules on engines which have resulted in the improvements to air quality over the last 35 years would have meant that people could have still been driving new cars which still had engineers designed in the 1970's if they so wished.
The reality is that even those most opposed to the ULEZ wouldn't likely want us to roll back previous legislation (all those in favour of allowing coal to be used in Central London or allowing lead back into our fuels - even though they were likely to have had a bigger impact on individuals at the time) - there maybe a few, but hardly any.
Likewise changes to environmental rules (to reduce carbon emissions) whilst unpopular to those it impacts the most, thry tend to be seen as good after a fairly short time. For example few would like to see coal power stations built withn several miles of where they live, however it's possible to live just a few miles from a solar farm and not be aware that it exists.
Low energy appliances can be decisive (max wattage on vacuums), however soon became a non issue (anyone want a 4,000 watt battery vacuum with a 3 minute run time Vs a 3 hour charge) as the rules made companies able to offer something different.
And even that is misselling. ICE cars, in the form of hybrids, will continue to be sold new until 2035.
Was she? Because my understanding is she was born healthy and didn’t develop asthma until latter in her (very short) life. Ie after her developing lungs were exposed to severe pollution.
ULEZ is about fleecing the motorist.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Income is certainly part of it, but the priority is improving air quality. The majority of money will be made by car dealers, not TfL nor the Government.
How much VAT is the Government about to make on those new/second hand car sales ? It's also worth considering that your Car Tax (VED) will also potentially change. I currently pay £20 a year for mine. A new car is potentially going to cost me more. I don't have a tinfoil hat big enough and yes, there is an element of air quality improvements but there is certainly a significant income generation for the Government.
They are more than happy for you to pollute. You just have to pay for the privilege.
- Status