ULEZ - Plans (and would you have to pay?)

[deltic]

Some right-wing media outlets are reporting that the signs are non-compliant.

Drivers could appeal ULEZ fines over 'illegal' signs

Experts say the green and white signs marking the beginning of the Ulez area are legally non-compliant as they do not explicitly warn drivers of the charge - which could prompt challenges from drivers.

www.dailymail.co.uk

They were approved by DfT and have been in place for a number of years without challenge. They are not compliant with DfT's own guidance. Make of that what you will.

 

[The Ham]

They were approved by DfT and have been in place for a number of years without challenge. They are not compliant with DfT's own guidance. Make of that what you will.

Any sign which does not meet the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General directions can not be used on the public highway, unless approved by the Secretary of State.

Whilst such approvals are fairly rare, it happens enough that this isn't something which so rare that the legal system shouldn't be aware of it (or if they did they due diligence they would be).

Such articles make it sound like such appeals will be successful - which is why you'll find high profile lawyers touting for business being quoted. The reality is that unless you've racked up a lot in fines there's no point taking it to court as it'll cost you more in fees than it'll save.

If it does end up in court it's unlikely that someone will win, and if they do then it's likely that a small change will be made so that it can't happen again within a short period of time.

 

[Krokodil]

and Conservative wins and gets rid of ULEZ entirely when TfL have enough money

What makes you think that a Conservative-run TfL would have enough money?

Can easily put fares up on their services to help counter the problem of their money.

Putting up fares on clean public transport in order to reduce costs for motorists who wish to stunt the lung development of children? I'm not sure that you'll get much support within London for that.

 

[Dai Corner]

Putting up fares on clean public transport in order to reduce costs for motorists who wish to stunt the lung development of children? I'm not sure that you'll get much support within London for that.

People won't pay more to save their childrens' lungs?

 

[greyman42]

People won't pay more to save their childrens' lungs?

Some people will make all the right noises and virtue signal, but when it comes to getting their hands in their pockets it will be a different matter. That's how it works in the real world.

 

[Energy]

People won't pay more to save their childrens' lungs?

Look at how many dislike ULEZ...

 

[jon81uk]

Look at how many dislike ULEZ...

More support than oppose.
58% are in favour of the ULEZ existing, only 24% oppose. With most in favour of expanding it.
Also within central London there is more in favour than against expanding the congestion charge too.

Site is undergoing maintenance

Thank you for your patience!

redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com

Overall there does seem to be a vocal minority who are being picked up by newspapers, when most people are happy with things moving in this direction.

 

[greyman42]

More support than oppose.
58% are in favour of the ULEZ existing, only 24% oppose. With most in favour of expanding it.
Also within central London there is more in favour than against expanding the congestion charge too.

Site is undergoing maintenance

Thank you for your patience!

redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com

Overall there does seem to be a vocal minority who are being picked up by newspapers, when most people are happy with things moving in this direction.

Whenever i speak to people in the pub about ULEZ they seem pretty much against it. A lot of people virtue signal in these surveys but have no interest in supporting them in reality.

 

[jon81uk]

Whenever i speak to people in the pub about ULEZ they seem pretty much against it. A lot of people virtue signal in these surveys but have no interest in supporting them in reality.

Or the people you meet in the pub share similar opinions rather than truly being a diverse cross-section of the population of London.

 

[greyman42]

Or the people you meet in the pub share similar opinions rather than truly being a diverse cross-section of the population of London.

I would of thought that people you meet in a pub would be a diverse cross-section of the population?

 

[jon0844]

It seems a lot of people so angry about ULEZ have got bored already and moved on. Still just seems to be the nutters that are linking ULEZ with '15 minute cities' and insisting that this is all part of a plan to stop people being able to use their cars at all.

I don't think they represent many people and they'll move on to something else soon enough.

 

[jon81uk]

I would of thought that people you meet in a pub would be a diverse cross-section of the population?

Why? They have to be willing to talk to you, so likely already people within your social circle, generally will enjoy drinking alcohol (often beer), therefore likely not Muslim and more likely to be male. Also they will likely live or work close to the pub in question so earnings will reflect that area.

Whereas a survey company will ensure they get responses from a balance of genders, incomes, age and ethnicity.

 

[Energy]

More support than oppose.
58% are in favour of the ULEZ existing, only 24% oppose. With most in favour of expanding it.
Also within central London there is more in favour than against expanding the congestion charge too.

Site is undergoing maintenance

Thank you for your patience!

redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com

Overall there does seem to be a vocal minority who are being picked up by newspapers, when most people are happy with things moving in this direction.

Fair enough, I thought the opposition % would have been higher.

 

[deltic]

According to the RAC 3m adults live within the North and South circulars and 3.8m adults live outside. There seems very little opposition to ULEZ within the North & South circulars and 80% of those living outside that area are not impacted. So maybe 10-15% of the electorate for the Mayor are impacted and how many of those would have voted for other parties anyway? The impact of ULEZ on the mayoral election may not be as great as expected.

The bigger challenge is the switch to first past the post. While the previous voting system made no impact on the final vote, Labour have benefited far more from vote transfers than the Conservatives.

Back to ULEZ and TfL are presently sending out warning letters rather than fines to non-compliant vehicles who have not paid.

 

[jon0844]

Yes I believe there's a one month grace period.

 

[Krokodil]

I would of thought that people you meet in a pub would be a diverse cross-section of the population?

Well it's diverse in the sense that you've got every variety of middle-aged white men, I suppose.

 

[The Ham]

Whenever i speak to people in the pub about ULEZ they seem pretty much against it. A lot of people virtue signal in these surveys but have no interest in supporting them in reality.

I would also question if they know if they would actually be charged (which was the reason for this thread), as there's certainly a perception that the charge for the ULEZ was like that for the congestion charge rather than impacting up to 1/5th of vehicles nationally (and probably because of the previous limit of the ULEZ quite probably quite a bit less than that, especially on any given day).

Heathrow have been making some noise about their new bus routes (many offering very cheap tickets prices as an introductory offer) which now serve the airport.

 

[jon0844]

It doesn't help that some people were using sites that said their car wasn't compliant when it was. I doubt it was intentional to deceive, but some sites had dodgy feeds or some other error.

 

[Ted633]

It doesn't help that some people were using sites that said their car wasn't compliant when it was. I doubt it was intentional to deceive, but some sites had dodgy feeds or some other error.

I think some sites (not the TfL one) are a lot more basic and only looked at the age of your car and what fuel it used. Whereas the TfL site had more data related to exactly what standards the car in question met.
E.g. a 2014 Mazda 6 diesel would have only had to meet Euro 5 standards when built, however it actually meets Euro 6. The TfL site would show this as compliant, but some sites may not as it was made before euro 6 was mandated.

 

[greyman42]

I would also question if they know if they would actually be charged (which was the reason for this thread), as there's certainly a perception that the charge for the ULEZ was like that for the congestion charge rather than impacting up to 1/5th of vehicles nationally (and probably because of the previous limit of the ULEZ quite probably quite a bit less than that, especially on any given day).

If Khan gets away with this he will soon move the goalposts and start charging more compliant vehicles within 2 years.

 

[jon0844]

If Khan gets away with this he will soon move the goalposts and start charging more compliant vehicles.

I think it's fair to say that at some point after 2030/2035, we will see some cities being restricted to zero-emission vehicles only (and ICE vehicles of any type being subject to a charge). Not sure about hybrids, but perhaps they'll be subject to a lesser charge.

 

[The Ham]

If Khan gets away with this he will soon move the goalposts and start charging more compliant vehicles within 2 years.

Any mayor of any political party will change the goalposts if they can get away with it.

The thing is, let's say there's a change in 2 years time, the cars on the roads will on average be newer than they are now, so a change to impact those which are currently compliant but only just would also be of limited impact.

Also there a greater chance that there'll be EV's at a cheaper price point, making them more accessible to more people.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Any mayor of any political party will change the goalposts if they can get away with it.

The thing is, let's say there's a change in 2 years time, the cars on the roads will on average be newer than they are now, so a change to impact those which are currently compliant but only just would also be of limited impact.

Also there a greater chance that there'll be EV's at a cheaper price point, making them more accessible to more people.

Snag is. Those of us buying a less old car might find we are having to go through the buying loop again in two years time. I for one will be very very angry if that happens as I keep my cars for over ten years.

I have given up a VERY reliable car that I did not use much, I selected it carefully and looked after it for over ten years. Now I have a car that is ULEZ compliant but is a money pit. The idea that I might not be able to keep it for 10-15 years (having sorted most issues out) leaves me rather bitter. Really regret not sticking with the non-compliant car.

These politicians need to come up with a plan and STICK TO IT. None of this creeping rule changes - their attitude stinks. They just think - Oh well the public can just cough up. Like we have to pay 15% extra council tax, their stupidity is our loss. Pity they could not think ahead for decades and not allow out of town shopping thus making cars more essential. They are so stupid - Croydon charges a premium for residents parking less fuel efficient cars. So they punish you for not using it !. I now park outside my immediate area and that means I do more short hops to load/unload in the evenings - result is more cold starts. They really have not got a clue how the rest of us live. I am being polite here.

 

[DC1989]

I don't necessarily completely disagree Peter but the entire country knows the end game is electric only cars - it's no secret. Similarly ULEZ has been talked about for years, surely most people should understand that clean air zones have been spreading across cities all over the world for years and this would eventually be coming down the track.

Same with road pricing (or whatever ends up replacing fuel duty). Electric car owners will act like it's a huge shock that they will start to be taxed.

 

[jon0844]

Same with road pricing (or whatever ends up replacing fuel duty). Electric car owners will act like it's a huge shock that they will start to be taxed.

Indeed. While I don't think it's practical to develop per-mile pricing (for reasons I've explained before), I can see expansions of congestion zones and possibly a tax based on either the power output of the EV motor OR perhaps based on the average miles per kWh. This might encourage people into smaller, lighter, EVs.

EVs are not all the same, and we're beginning to see some high-performance EVs that aren't super efficient and perhaps shouldn't be treated the same as a Zoe or Leaf.

Of course EV owners will moan, as they're the same people who moaned when they owned an ICE car before. The motorist is always going to be fleeced, by Governments who will pretend to support the freedom to drive etc.

 

[notverydeep]

If Khan gets away with this he will soon move the goalposts and start charging more compliant vehicles within 2 years.

There are not really any logical changes that could be made, without going beyond the current Euro 6 standard, this is because Euro 4 for Petrol cars is essentially the same as Euro 6 for diesel cars, which is why so many older petrol cars are acceptable. Future standards will be common to both petrol and diesel, but the next, Euro 7 won't come into effect until mid 2025 and even that doesn't change the levels of most pollutants aside from Carbon Monoxide, but introduces limits on ammonia and brake particulates. Moving to that in two years would affect every non electric only vehicle on the road and would in effect be a zero emissions zone (that is a charge for all petrol and diesel vehicles) and this has reportedly been discounted London wide, though there are proposals that affect smaller areas across the country.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Euro 7 won't come into effect until mid 2025

I'm not convinced that Euro 7 will happen. There is a lot of opposition to it, especially given that existing (petrol) Euro 6 engines have been decreasing in size rather rapidly. I think it might make more sense to simply limit engine sizes or even simply fuel flow rates, rather than trying to tighten the Euro 6 regulations even further.

The car makers are pretty clear that they don't see a viable way to meet the Euro 7 standards without spending a lot of money, and they don't want to do it with the end of combustion engines on the horizon. I'm not a petrolhead at all, but I think the existing Euro 6d regulations are sufficient. I'd certainly rather that they spent the money on EV technology rather than chasing lower emissions.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I'm not convinced that Euro 7 will happen. There is a lot of opposition to it, especially given that existing (petrol) Euro 6 engines have been decreasing in size rather rapidly. I think it might make more sense to simply limit engine sizes or even simply fuel flow rates, rather than trying to tighten the Euro 6 regulations even further.

The car makers are pretty clear that they don't see a viable way to meet the Euro 7 standards without spending a lot of money, and they don't want to do it with the end of combustion engines on the horizon. I'm not a petrolhead at all, but I think the existing Euro 6d regulations are sufficient. I'd certainly rather that they spent the money on EV technology rather than chasing lower emissions.

This would be better - to entice people to change rather than force them to change. At the moment I am firmly on the fence waiting for the new technology to mature.

 

[Cloud Strife]

This would be better - to entice people to change rather than force them to change. At the moment I am firmly on the fence waiting for the new technology to mature.

Yes, I think that if the R&D money was spent on EV technology rather than on trying to meet the proposed Euro 7 regulations, we'd also see some more important breakthroughs in automotive technology. Euro 6 has been a great success, but I think they would be better leaving the emissions topic alone and focusing on the other parts of Euro 7 such as emissions from brakes.

It just seems incredibly wasteful to focus so much attention on combustion engine emissions. At the very most, we could expect Euro 7 to be in place for 25 years, but there are so many other areas of motoring where savings could be made. A simple example: rebuilding older junctions to increase speeds and/or making them freeflow. Something like Switch Island in Liverpool is a great example: how much emissions are caused by that one mess?

 

[ABB125]

simple example: rebuilding older junctions to increase speeds and/or making them freeflow. Something like Switch Island in Liverpool is a great example: how much emissions are caused by that one mess?

There are a number of problems with this approach unfortunately:

• Britain has forgotten how to design proper road juctions
• British design standards are far too gold-plated to allow innovative designs that solve the problem, and no-one is willing to challenge the standards
• The consultants who design the schemes have no incentive to do it properly, because they know that National Highways will have to pay them a load more money a decade hence to "improve" a rubbish design
• The Treasury has to pay, rather than car manufacturers
• NIMBYs will cause all sorts of problems
• Environment activists likewise

Apart from that, it's a great idea! You can look at the junctions on the M50 around Dublin to see a few examples of roundabouts being upgraded to (mostly) full free flow, in a way that will never happen in the UK.