Independent Leyton Orient Forum

The Mindsweep wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 9:30 am Only affects 10% of cars and that figure will go down in time as older cars are scrapped.

This is where people don't realize what's planned.

Within a year it will cover more vehicles as they squeeze the definition of compliant so newer petrol cars become charged.

From around 2025 (subject to how quickly they can build the platform) the plan is pay by mile for *all* vehicles, yes even those fancy electric ones.

It's all about money and cutting access to private transport as per the WEF plans.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/ ... transport/

The WSJ covers it here

https://archive.ph/FHCi3

gshaw wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 12:31 pm

The Mindsweep wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 9:30 am Only affects 10% of cars and that figure will go down in time as older cars are scrapped.

This is where people don't realize what's planned.

Within a year it will cover more vehicles as they squeeze the definition of compliant so newer petrol cars become charged.

From around 2025 (subject to how quickly they can build the platform) the plan is pay by mile for *all* vehicles, yes even those fancy electric ones.

It's all about money and cutting access to private transport as per the WEF plans.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/ ... transport/

The WSJ covers it here

https://archive.ph/FHCi3

If only London and the SE had an extensive public transport network the ULEZ would make sense.

gshaw wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 12:31 pm

The Mindsweep wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 9:30 am Only affects 10% of cars and that figure will go down in time as older cars are scrapped.

This is where people don't realize what's planned.

Within a year it will cover more vehicles as they squeeze the definition of compliant so newer petrol cars become charged.

From around 2025 (subject to how quickly they can build the platform) the plan is pay by mile for *all* vehicles, yes even those fancy electric ones.

It's all about money and cutting access to private transport as per the WEF plans.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/ ... transport/

The WSJ covers it here

https://archive.ph/FHCi3

Cars are an environmental disaster though. It's not a shady global conspiracy, people in cities need to use public transport much more than they currently do if we're gonna cut emissions and improve air quality. I agree it's an issue in places where the infrastructure isn't there, but that isn't the case in London. Vast majority of people can get by fine using their feet, public transport and a bike. We have one of the best transport networks in the world..

ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 10:18 am In principle ULEZ is a good thing, but if cars are polluting, they shouldnt be allowed to be used at all, in the ULEZ zone, whereas Khan is saying if you give me £12.50, then you can come in and pollute the air anyway .
A few interesting facts
I collected half a dozen car regs from around my locale.......all 2006 regs and earlier, and put them through the web page that tells you if your cars complient, and everyone of these was complient, even a 22 year old Merc

Within 18 months, the £12.50p per day will be increased to £15 per day, and probably to £20 a day by the end of the decade. I also reckon the criteria for whether a car is complient, will change, meaning many cars that are complient now, will not be complient suddenly .
As i said, its basically a decent idea, but not implemented well.
The Tories say that if they win the Mayoral Elections next May, they will get rid of ULEZ from day1. This could be a vote winner for them i reckon

By all accounts it kept Boris' seat in Tory hands. All the Tories have to do is find a suitable mayoral candidate and they stand a chance.

Mistadobalina wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 1:20 pm

gshaw wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 12:31 pm

The Mindsweep wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 9:30 am Only affects 10% of cars and that figure will go down in time as older cars are scrapped.

This is where people don't realize what's planned.

Within a year it will cover more vehicles as they squeeze the definition of compliant so newer petrol cars become charged.

From around 2025 (subject to how quickly they can build the platform) the plan is pay by mile for *all* vehicles, yes even those fancy electric ones.

It's all about money and cutting access to private transport as per the WEF plans.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/ ... transport/

The WSJ covers it here

https://archive.ph/FHCi3

Cars are an environmental disaster though. It's not a shady global conspiracy, people in cities need to use public transport much more than they currently do if we're gonna cut emissions and improve air quality. I agree it's an issue in places where the infrastructure isn't there, but that isn't the case in London. Vast majority of people can get by fine using their feet, public transport and a bike. We have one of the best transport networks in the world..

FFS - stop injecting sense into this. Monkey Boy (is he Thor - same kind of smarmy schtick) will have a meltdown.

LittleMate wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 1:32 pm

ComeOnYouOs wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 10:18 am In principle ULEZ is a good thing, but if cars are polluting, they shouldnt be allowed to be used at all, in the ULEZ zone, whereas Khan is saying if you give me £12.50, then you can come in and pollute the air anyway .
A few interesting facts
I collected half a dozen car regs from around my locale.......all 2006 regs and earlier, and put them through the web page that tells you if your cars complient, and everyone of these was complient, even a 22 year old Merc

Within 18 months, the £12.50p per day will be increased to £15 per day, and probably to £20 a day by the end of the decade. I also reckon the criteria for whether a car is complient, will change, meaning many cars that are complient now, will not be complient suddenly .
As i said, its basically a decent idea, but not implemented well.
The Tories say that if they win the Mayoral Elections next May, they will get rid of ULEZ from day1. This could be a vote winner for them i reckon

By all accounts it kept Boris' seat in Tory hands. All the Tories have to do is find a suitable mayoral candidate and they stand a chance.

Maybe - but imagine just how dense the Uxbridge voters must have been to have voted for Boris in the first place. Other Boroughs might have a different demographic.

Lots of people use cars when they don't really need to. One of the main reasons to drive in places like London is because so many other people are doing it, so it becomes a bit of an arms race - buses, bikes and plates of meat are all less attractive options because of the tyranny of cars taking up all the space, churning out fumes, and menacing other road users.

The typical car is stationary more than 95% of the time. Such a waste of space and resources. In cities, driving down private car use is an absolute no-brainer, but of course we have decades of deference to it to undo. ULEZ is a good start, but it is only that.

BoniO wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 1:37 pm

Mistadobalina wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 1:20 pm

gshaw wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 12:31 pm

This is where people don't realize what's planned.

Within a year it will cover more vehicles as they squeeze the definition of compliant so newer petrol cars become charged.

From around 2025 (subject to how quickly they can build the platform) the plan is pay by mile for *all* vehicles, yes even those fancy electric ones.

It's all about money and cutting access to private transport as per the WEF plans.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/ ... transport/

The WSJ covers it here

https://archive.ph/FHCi3

Cars are an environmental disaster though. It's not a shady global conspiracy, people in cities need to use public transport much more than they currently do if we're gonna cut emissions and improve air quality. I agree it's an issue in places where the infrastructure isn't there, but that isn't the case in London. Vast majority of people can get by fine using their feet, public transport and a bike. We have one of the best transport networks in the world..

FFS - stop injecting sense into this. Monkey Boy (is he Thor - same kind of smarmy schtick) will have a meltdown.

You’ve got to be tuffers or a relation? Your very young so just let it go boy. Shame I was beginning to think we started to eradicate all this sniping but apparently not

OK Thor

most boarders on are for it
my point being that's ok but what about
people who cant afford to buy a different car
if you live inside the zone £12. 50 a day every day
every month wont be worth working.
its not just a few people its probably thousands.

greyhound wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 3:54 pm most boarders on are for it
my point being that's ok but what about
people who cant afford to buy a different car
if you live inside the zone £12. 50 a day every day
every month wont be worth working.
its not just a few people its probably thousands.

That's why a more generous scrappage scheme is required.

Currently some 4,000 people a year die prematurely from the poor air quality in London. To save lives the govt needs to help the 10% affected by ULEZ to update their vehicles.

Mrs Gold developed asthma in London but when we moved back to the clean, pure air of the Scotch countryside it ceased to be a thing.

ULEZ just pushes the problem out somewhere else. It’s not a solution just another way Khan can fill the coffers.

It’s not helping the planet or the country. ULEZ is a con.

What doesn't add up about this whole likely wheeze (the main part of which I don't like is that it hits the poorest members of society - so much for voting in a Socialist mayor eh) is that:

A quick reference to the air pollution index in various areas of the country today lists the air pollution as:

Uxbridge = 2
Lizard, Cornwall (the middle of nowhere) = 3
Orkney Islands = 3

So, we can conclude from this that Uxbridge has better, or at least strikingly similar, air quality to the others. I was surprised by this, but the numbers do not lie.

Notwithstanding, the Met Office confirms that for "at risk individuals" anything from 1-3 is categorised as "enjoy your usual outdoor activities". No doubt people are enjoying their usual outdoor activities on the Lizard and in Orkney. Or do they need a ULEZ too?

Can anyone explain this? Genuine question.

Err, I don’t think you can make too many conclusions from 1 days data.

Scuba Diver wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 7:20 pm What doesn't add up about this whole likely wheeze (the main part of which I don't like is that it hits the poorest members of society - so much for voting in a Socialist mayor eh) is that:

A quick reference to the air pollution index in various areas of the country today lists the air pollution as:

Uxbridge = 2
Lizard, Cornwall (the middle of nowhere) = 3
Orkney Islands = 3

So, we can conclude from this that Uxbridge has better, or at least strikingly similar, air quality to the others. I was surprised by this, but the numbers do not lie.

Notwithstanding, the Met Office confirms that for "at risk individuals" anything from 1-3 is categorised as "enjoy your usual outdoor activities". No doubt people are enjoying their usual outdoor activities on the Lizard and in Orkney. Or do they need a ULEZ too?

Can anyone explain this? Genuine question.

FYI ULEZ was a Tory initiative therefore the fact that it hits the poorest is totally consistent with Tory thinking.

greyhound wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 3:54 pm most boarders on are for it
my point being that's ok but what about
people who cant afford to buy a different car
if you live inside the zone £12. 50 a day every day
every month wont be worth working.
its not just a few people its probably thousands.

Your entitled to your opinion it’s a democracy

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 7:42 pm

Scuba Diver wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 7:20 pm What doesn't add up about this whole likely wheeze (the main part of which I don't like is that it hits the poorest members of society - so much for voting in a Socialist mayor eh) is that:

A quick reference to the air pollution index in various areas of the country today lists the air pollution as:

Uxbridge = 2
Lizard, Cornwall (the middle of nowhere) = 3
Orkney Islands = 3

So, we can conclude from this that Uxbridge has better, or at least strikingly similar, air quality to the others. I was surprised by this, but the numbers do not lie.

Notwithstanding, the Met Office confirms that for "at risk individuals" anything from 1-3 is categorised as "enjoy your usual outdoor activities". No doubt people are enjoying their usual outdoor activities on the Lizard and in Orkney. Or do they need a ULEZ too?

Can anyone explain this? Genuine question.

FYI ULEZ was a Tory initiative therefore the fact that it hits the poorest is totally consistent with Tory thinking.

The poorest members of society can’t afford to run a car at all. But they are the people who suffer the most from dirty air. The idea that ULEZ is fundamentally regressive is just not right.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 7:42 pm

Scuba Diver wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 7:20 pm What doesn't add up about this whole likely wheeze (the main part of which I don't like is that it hits the poorest members of society - so much for voting in a Socialist mayor eh) is that:

A quick reference to the air pollution index in various areas of the country today lists the air pollution as:

Uxbridge = 2
Lizard, Cornwall (the middle of nowhere) = 3
Orkney Islands = 3

So, we can conclude from this that Uxbridge has better, or at least strikingly similar, air quality to the others. I was surprised by this, but the numbers do not lie.

Notwithstanding, the Met Office confirms that for "at risk individuals" anything from 1-3 is categorised as "enjoy your usual outdoor activities". No doubt people are enjoying their usual outdoor activities on the Lizard and in Orkney. Or do they need a ULEZ too?

Can anyone explain this? Genuine question.

FYI ULEZ was a Tory initiative therefore the fact that it hits the poorest is totally consistent with Tory thinking.

No doubting that about the Tories.

However as it Does hit the poor as you've confirmed, it's disappointing Mayor Khan (the man with all the power) hasn't chosen to price it more reasonably. No matter who we vote for, we get Tories (it seems).

Scuba Diver wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 6:43 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 7:42 pm

Scuba Diver wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 7:20 pm What doesn't add up about this whole likely wheeze (the main part of which I don't like is that it hits the poorest members of society - so much for voting in a Socialist mayor eh) is that:

A quick reference to the air pollution index in various areas of the country today lists the air pollution as:

Uxbridge = 2
Lizard, Cornwall (the middle of nowhere) = 3
Orkney Islands = 3

So, we can conclude from this that Uxbridge has better, or at least strikingly similar, air quality to the others. I was surprised by this, but the numbers do not lie.

Notwithstanding, the Met Office confirms that for "at risk individuals" anything from 1-3 is categorised as "enjoy your usual outdoor activities". No doubt people are enjoying their usual outdoor activities on the Lizard and in Orkney. Or do they need a ULEZ too?

Can anyone explain this? Genuine question.

FYI ULEZ was a Tory initiative therefore the fact that it hits the poorest is totally consistent with Tory thinking.

No doubting that about the Tories.

However as it Does hit the poor as you've confirmed, it's disappointing Mayor Khan (the man with all the power) hasn't chosen to price it more reasonably. No matter who we vote for, we get Tories (it seems).

BUT - given that the purpose behind the scheme is to reduce the air pollution (not to raise revenue), then wouldn't pricing it cheaper mean that people (rich or poor) were more likely to use heavily polluting vehicles in the zone.

I think part of the problem is that folk are assuming (for whatever reason - probably the framing being put about in the press and online) that this is a revenue generation exercise, rather than one aimed at getting vehicles off the streets.

As Max said upthread - of course it would be way better to offer an enhanced scrappage scheme so that people are encouraged to take their vehicles off the road with a carrot, rather than being forced to take them off because they can't afford the daily charge - (the stick).

I guess you have to have a daily charge so that someone who lives out in the sticks and has to come into town once-a-flood can do so without having to change their car. It appears that the charge price has been set to discourage owners of heavily polluting cars coming in every day. Which is the whole change in behaviour that it's designed for.

Tory or Labour - we have to reduce airborne pollution - given the cull figures quoted above - don't we?

Its the fill the financial hole left by the pandemic isnt it?

The financial hole left by the pandemic is around 300bn. Ulez raises about 250m a year. With a fair wind It might pay it off by the next millennium.

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 8:45 pm Its the fill the financial hole left by the pandemic isnt it?

No. Stop being an IMBECILE.

greyhound wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 3:54 pm most boarders on are for it
my point being that's ok but what about
people who cant afford to buy a different car
if you live inside the zone £12. 50 a day every day
every month wont be worth working.
its not just a few people its probably thousands.

Agree. Heard a nurse interviewed who works shifts including night shifts at a hospital, she needs a car to get to work and back, she can’t afford to get another car at the moment, she and her family are really struggling financially with the cost of living crisis. I get the need to reduce pollution, not arguing with that, but the hit is unfairly falling on those who can least afford it.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Wed Aug 02, 2023 7:58 am

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Tue Aug 01, 2023 8:45 pm Its the fill the financial hole left by the pandemic isnt it?

No. Stop being an IMBECILE.

Believe tfl asked govt for funds but was told to do ulez instead.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 4:03 pm

greyhound wrote: ↑Mon Jul 31, 2023 3:54 pm most boarders on are for it
my point being that's ok but what about
people who cant afford to buy a different car
if you live inside the zone £12. 50 a day every day
every month wont be worth working.
its not just a few people its probably thousands.

That's why a more generous scrappage scheme is required.

Currently some 4,000 people a year die prematurely from the poor air quality in London. To save lives the govt needs to help the 10% affected by ULEZ to update their vehicles.

Mrs Gold developed asthma in London but when we moved back to the clean, pure air of the Scotch countryside it ceased to be a thing.

Max, you have not seen how they got to 4000. The mathematical modeling is worse than Fergusons covid.

By the way, the worst case of asthma that I have seen is from a person from Sky, London made no difference.

To put things in context 70 years ago we jad pea soupers and you could not see more than a foot, so we have come a long way.

But Ulez is a tax, pure and simple. If it were not then cars and other vehicles would be changed on how much pollutants they produce, not just from exhaust, but from tyres and brake pads. Tyres are easily the worst pollutants, so the weight of vehicles needs to be taken into consideration.

Ulez will evolve to change per mile, in the outer parts of London this will become untenable, with very poor public transport and long distances to cover.

I just wonder if this is a way to reduce London's population?