Ulez London

baz

baz

VIP MEMBER
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
7,286
Country flag
To anyone in or around London that's affected by this
Or people that are interested
This is nothing to do with politics it's about a mayor acting illegally and against the wishes of the majority
 

Attachments

  • Ulez London
    IMG-20230412-WA0004.jpg
    141.3 KB · Views: 91
If your vehicle doesn't meet the ULEZ emission standards and isn't exempt, you need to pay a £12.50 daily charge to drive inside the zone. This applies to: Cars, motorcycles, vans and specialist vehicles (up to and including 3.5 tonnes) and minibuses (up to and including 5 tonnes)....FFS !! More illegal revenue gathering...
 
  • Like
Reactions: baz
KiwiShane said:
If your vehicle doesn't meet the ULEZ emission standards and isn't exempt, you need to pay a £12.50 daily charge to drive inside the zone. This applies to: Cars, motorcycles, vans and specialist vehicles (up to and including 3.5 tonnes) and minibuses (up to and including 5 tonnes)....FFS !! More illegal revenue gathering...
Click to expand...
Once you are through the ulez then if you carry on further into London you pay the £15 congestion charge
 
Ditch the inner ULEZ as well. Then (if clean air and congestion -really- are the problems) make central London a "private car exclusion zone", and extend that to Kensington / Knightsbridge / Chelsea. Maybe (full time) residents by permit? Plenty of public transport in that area, and taxis for those that need them.

Tradesmen and commercial vehicles will need access to the inner zone, but that could be done by registering a van / lorry with TfL and proving it belongs to a business user in order to get a permit.

No one in their right minds drives into London anyway, even when you get there, parking is a nightmare. If I ever drove to work, it was when I was on the late shift and could get parking at work as daytime people left, and even then it was only something I did if I wanted to give the car a run. Or in the midst of winter.

(cannot find a pot stirring graphic thing....)
 
daveforty said:
Ditch the inner ULEZ as well. Then (if clean air and congestion -really- are the problems) make central London a "private car exclusion zone", and extend that to Kensington / Knightsbridge / Chelsea. Maybe (full time) residents by permit? Plenty of public transport in that area, and taxis for those that need them.

Tradesmen and commercial vehicles will need access to the inner zone, but that could be done by registering a van / lorry with TfL and proving it belongs to a business user in order to get a permit.

No one in their right minds drives into London anyway, even when you get there, parking is a nightmare. If I ever drove to work, it was when I was on the late shift and could get parking at work as daytime people left, and even then it was only something I did if I wanted to give the car a run. Or in the midst of winter.

(cannot find a pot stirring graphic thing....)
Click to expand...
If it were truly about emissions then it wouldn't be ok to still drive if you pay £12.50
It's like saying we don't want you to smoke but it's fine if you pay us !
It's a blatant cash grab , everyone knows that
Plus it's not exactly a secret that tfl made a huge loss during COVID so there's that gap to fill
Inner London is very different to outer London and more so where public transport is concerned
Bus services have been cut
Electric buses can't be charged and don't have the range
Despite this scheme being voted against by those it concerns (Londoners)it's still being pushed through
I don't know when it changed from the mayor working for the people to against the people?
 
I agree with most sentiments expressed here , except if Mayor and council voted this fairly into law , then how can/could it be illegal ? ….. obviously have no idea how things work there , but kinda curious on the “illegal” charge comment 😉
 
Craig said:
I agree with most sentiments expressed here , except if Mayor and council voted this fairly into law , then how can/could it be illegal ? ….. obviously have no idea how things work there , but kinda curious on the “illegal” charge comment 😉
Click to expand...
Using anpr cameras to catch polluting cars is not legal
the mayor said he'd go with whatever the public decided
They voted against it
Then he said it was just a consultation and he doesn't have to do what the public want
Then it transpired he'd bought the cameras months before the consultation
He used public money for an expensive advertising campaign aimed at 18 to 25 year olds where he thought he'd get support plus
8200 votes against the scheme from a motoring organisation were counted as 1 vote etc etc
 
Craig said:
I agree with most sentiments expressed here , except if Mayor and council voted this fairly into law , then how can/could it be illegal ? ….. obviously have no idea how things work there , but kinda curious on the “illegal” charge comment 😉
Click to expand...
These premature deaths that have been sighted as justification of this expansion of legislation needs to be clinically investigated by a coroner as thats a concern to many citys/countries right now.....Being "premature death"

The high court has now ruled there is sufficient evidence that Sadiq Khan’s Ulez decision may have been unlawful❗
As emails reveal the Mayor's officials removed ❗thousands of votes submitted to a consultation on whether to expand Ulez across the whole of London.
Therefore my conclusion of illegal process and fees is self explanatory :)
 
KiwiShane said:
These premature deaths that have been sighted as justification of this expansion of legislation needs to be clinically investigated by a coroner as thats a concern to many citys/countries right now.....Being "premature death"

The high court has now ruled there is sufficient evidence that Sadiq Khan’s Ulez decision may have been unlawful❗
As emails reveal the Mayor's officials removed ❗thousands of votes submitted to a consultation on whether to expand Ulez across the whole of London.
Therefore my conclusion of illegal process and fees is self explanatory :)
Click to expand...
He also suppressed a report that said the legislation would have next to no effect on pollution
He claims thousands are dying per yet when an FOI was done they found 1 death where traffic pollution was cited as being contributory
And that person had a rare respiratory condition I believe
 
baz said:
He also suppressed a report that said the legislation would have next to no effect on pollution
He claims thousands are dying per yet when an FOI was done they found 1 death where traffic pollution was cited as being contributory
And that person had a rare respiratory condition I believe
Click to expand...
I think this is clearly a case of data mulipulation by this corrupt P.O.S
 
He's the chair of the worldwide c40 cities
So I'm guessing he wants to make his mark
 
Whenever there is a debate in Australia about the environment, ISO14000 Environmental Management Systems are never mentioned. Many risks can be managed systematically whrn consumers show preference to companies which do the right thing, and the companies are required to continually improve their performance. Nit-picking and fines do not achieve much. Administration can cost more then the revenue collected.
 
I will avoid London for the remainder of life , thanks for the dire warnings … although my daughter is visiting later this summer 🧐…. will pass on your concerns , geez Baz do you live there ? , kinda surprised so many good folks remain , considering all inhabitants face almost certain premature death , based on what you 2 are sayin …
 
Craig said:
I will avoid London for the remainder of life , thanks for the dire warnings … although my daughter is visiting later this summer 🧐…. will pass on your concerns , geez Baz do you live there ? , kinda surprised so many good folks remain , considering all inhabitants face almost certain premature death , based on what you 2 are sayin …
Click to expand...
The points made about premature death was used by the mayor to justify the expansion of the ULEZ...and now as we see from a official information request he has lied to his constituents about the data to further gather revenue....(illegal 🚫)
This Malfeasance will hopefully?
be addressed by the court.
Do you have this type of system in any big cities in Canada...yet ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: baz
No clue , I worry bout shit I need to look after … bigger city issues a distance from our little town , no doubt the London metropolis contains bigger popu. than our province which just recently reached 1M , which is worrisome ..
 
Craig said:
I will avoid London for the remainder of life , thanks for the dire warnings … although my daughter is visiting later this summer 🧐…. will pass on your concerns , geez Baz do you live there ? , kinda surprised so many good folks remain , considering all inhabitants face almost certain premature death , based on what you 2 are sayin …
Click to expand...
I don't live in London but my partner lives in Kent
Just inside the outer London zone so I will have to pay the ulez when I visit her
Some of my workmates will have to pay every day to get to work because they live within the zone
It's going to hit many people very hard
The answer is to buy a newer vehicle
I know couple of people that have already done that
But a young nurse or care worker or a pensioner etc etc simply cannot afford a new or newer vehicle
So I guess they'll be forced off the road there's no where near enough public transport to cope either
Even things like the London to Brighton mini rally is having its last year this year because of ulez
People will change their shopping habits because if you are near the border you turn left to a shop it'll cost you £12.50 turn right and it costs nothing, which way would you turn ?
The list of things it'll affect is endless
Yet knife crime, phone thefts, violent crime , corrupt police and all the other crap that goes on in and around London is left unchecked
 
The studies that link PM2.5 particulate levels to deaths (really premature deaths) are modelled, they use no real data other than some data on coal miner deaths and linking their death causes to PM2.5. This cannot be replicated as its unethical to expose people deliberately that could kill them in a study. No replication means it can never be tested as a theory.

This study actually uses data and looks at all the variables in place with the date of deaths in California 2000 to 2012, the main potential links were to time of year and weather. ie if you look at the daily death rate and the variables then the variables that matter will show matching increases or decreases in the death rate within a few days/weeks.

www.sciencedirect.com

Air quality and acute deaths in California, 2000–2012

Many studies have shown an association between air quality and acute deaths, and such associations are widely interpreted as causal. Several factors c…
www.sciencedirect.com www.sciencedirect.com

and concludes

Neither PM2.5 nor ozone added appreciably to the prediction of daily deaths. These results call into question the widespread belief that association between air quality and acute deaths is causal/near-universal.
 
Last edited:
baz said:
I don't live in London but my partner lives in Kent
Just inside the outer London zone so I will have to pay the ulez when I visit her
Some of my workmates will have to pay every day to get to work because they live within the zone
It's going to hit many people very hard
The answer is to buy a newer vehicle
I know couple of people that have already done that
But a young nurse or care worker or a pensioner etc etc simply cannot afford a new or newer vehicle
So I guess they'll be forced off the road there's no where near enough public transport to cope either
Even things like the London to Brighton mini rally is having its last year this year because of ulez
People will change their shopping habits because if you are near the border you turn left to a shop it'll cost you £12.50 turn right and it costs nothing, which way would you turn ?
The list of things it'll affect is endless
Yet knife crime, phone thefts, violent crime , corrupt police and all the other crap that goes on in and around London is left unchecked
Click to expand...
No one ever seems to think of the law of unintended consequences, or simply think things through properly these days.

If you take all that traffic off the road, you’ll increase public transport footfall massively. Anyone who’s been in London at busy periods will tell you clearly that this is simply not possible. And the cost, and time, required to build more tube services etc is outside of anything we have the stomach for.

So we make allowances for workers, residents, etc. But, if you make ‘allowances’ for all such people (workers / residents / etc) then exactly how many people are you really going to reduce by ??

I saw some really interesting news in Japan recently, in some big cities they are prohibiting new residential buildings as there simply isn’t the infrastructure to support more people, so they are forcing people to live outside and commute in. I found this very interesting as it flies in the face of the current ‘15 minute city’ fashion and shows that even if you try and achieve a 15 minute city, you’ll reach a breaking point which forces people outside of this, unless you’re prepared to spend massive sums, and suffer massive upheaval, on required infrastructure projects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top